“Officially” Creating the Voluntary Society?

[FTL_Ian]

If signing declarations and constitutions hundreds of years ago gave "them" legitimacy, perhaps we should consider doing the same?  That way we can claim to have our own society - "see, here's our piece of paper with signatures on it!"

Here's a suggested document.  What do you think?  Should we print this out and have people sign it at Liberty Forum and Porcfest 2010?  What would you change?  Other suggestions?

A New Covenant*
by L. Neil Smith

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED Witnesses to the Lesson of History -- that no Form of political Governance may be relied upon to secure the individual Rights of Life, Liberty, or Property -- now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental Precepts measuring our Conduct toward one another, and toward others:

Individual Sovereignty

FIRST, that we shall henceforward recognize each individual to be the exclusive Proprietor of his or her own Existence and of all products of that Existence, holding no Obligation binding among Individuals excepting those to which they voluntarily and explicitly consent;

Freedom from Coercion

SECOND, that under no Circumstances shall we acknowledge any Liberty to initiate Force against another Person, and shall instead defend the inalienable Right of Individuals to resist Coercion employing whatever Means prove necessary in their Judgement;

Association and Secession

THIRD, that we shall hold inviolable those Relationships among Individuals which are totally voluntary, but conversely, any Relationship not thus mutually agreeable shall be considered empty and invalid;

Individuality of Rights

FOURTH, that we shall regard Rights to be neither collective nor additive in Character -- two individuals shall have no more Rights than one, nor shall two million nor two thousand million -- nor shall any Group possess Rights in Excess of those belonging to its individual members;

Equality of Liberty

FIFTH, that we shall maintain these Principles without Respect to any person's Race, Nationality, Gender, sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs, and hold that any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them by initiation of Force -- or Threat of same -- shall have forfeited its Right to exist;

Supersedure

UPON UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Members or Inhabitants of any Association or Territory, we further stipulate that this Agreement shall supercede all existing governmental Documents or Usages then pertinent, that such Constitutions, Charters, Acts, Laws, Statutes, Regulations, or Ordinances contradictory or destructive to the Ends which it expresses shall be null and void, and that this Covenant, being the Property of its Author and Signatories, shall not be Subject to Interpretation excepting insofar as it shall please them.

SIGNATORY:            WITNESS:

This was borrowed from : http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

[Patrick Shields]

Witnesses are outdated. Vids or it didn't happen. 

Plus, that language is kind of weird. I probably wouldn't sign that.

[tremendoustie]

Looks great to me, except for this line:

"...defend the inalienable Right of Individuals to resist Coercion employing whatever Means prove necessary in their Judgement;"

I don't think a crotchety old man has a right to shoot a six year old for trespass. Only the minimum necessary level of force is justified. An unwarranted and excessive use of "defensive" force can constitute an act of aggression.

[J’raxis 270145]

And who gets to define that standard of “necessary”?

/can of worms

[FTL_Ian]

I feel like this is a starting point, and I would like to see alternatives from those interested.

[russellkanning]

cool
you can tell thug cops that it is a social contract they are a party to

[Capuzzo]

I think this is a very good idea. I would happily sign something along those lines at Liberty Forum.

[tremendoustie]

And who gets to define that standard of “necessary”?

/can of worms

Of course, each of us must do what we believe to be morally right, as in anything. There can be no ultimate human authority on right and wrong. If a crotchety old man blew a six year old away for crossing the line onto his property, I would find it morally right to ensure that he worked for a long time to pay restitution to the family of that six year old.

[Capuzzo]

I have often wondered what restitution is for the taking of a life.

I would assume an old saying would work well. "An eye for an eye"

[J’raxis 270145]

I have often wondered what restitution is for the taking of a life.

You’d owe restitution to anyone still alive, who was affected by the taking of that life.

[Mike Barskey]

I have often wondered what restitution is for the taking of a life.

I would assume an old saying would work well. "An eye for an eye"

Then the person who killed the old man as "eye-for-an-eye restitution" would have to be killed (he took a life, after all), and then the person that killed him would have to be killed, etc.

Why is violence a good solution to violence?

[tremendoustie]

I have often wondered what restitution is for the taking of a life.

I would assume an old saying would work well. "An eye for an eye"

No, that's what we need to get away from -- retribution. That's what the current jail system is built on -- it doesn't help anyone, but it "gets 'em back".

The perpetrator of a crime needs to do everything in his power to compensate those he has harmed for the harm he has caused. In the case of outright murder, I would think that might mean a lifetime of labor, with the proceeds to go to the family of the victim.

[Dalebert]

Even if there aren't associates (family members, close friends, etc.) who are clearly harmed, any criminal has a reputation with his community if he wants to function as a part of society and not treated as some rabid animal roaming the streets. That can make for a rather substantial type of restitution.

[Capuzzo]

Even if there aren't associates (family members, close friends, etc.) who are clearly harmed, any criminal has a reputation with his community if he wants to function as a part of society and not treated as some rabid animal roaming the streets. That can make for a rather substantial type of restitution.

I like this idea a lot. I never really thought there could be a price on a life besides life.

[Lance]

I have often wondered what restitution is for the taking of a life.

There is no right answer.  But if I am a party to a dispute over the value of a lost loved one and I can't come to an agreement with the offending party, I think that I would prefer to use some sort of panel in the community in which I lived to assist me in my quest to resolve the problem.  I would either agree to submit to the decision of the panel in advance or agree to use the decision as a benchmark for further negotiation, but either way bouncing the case off of a bunch of other people on some sort of panel would probably help.

A jury panel, if you will.

Thanks for posting this, Ian.  I think it is a great idea.  I'll sign it.  Have you got a link to whence it came?

A New Covenant*
by L. Neil Smith

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED Witnesses to the Lesson of History -- that no Form of political Governance may be relied upon to secure the individual Rights of Life, Liberty, or Property -- now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental Precepts measuring our Conduct toward one another, and toward others:

Individual Sovereignty

FIRST, that we shall henceforward recognize each individual to be the exclusive Proprietor of his or her own Existence and of all products of that Existence, holding no Obligation binding among Individuals excepting those to which they voluntarily and explicitly consent;

Freedom from Coercion

SECOND, that under no Circumstances shall we acknowledge any Liberty to initiate Force against another Person, and shall instead defend the inalienable Right of Individuals to resist Coercion employing whatever Means prove necessary in their reasonable Judgement;

Association and Secession

THIRD, that we shall hold inviolable those Relationships among Individuals which are totally voluntary, but conversely, any Relationship not thus mutually agreeable shall be considered empty and invalid;

Individuality of Rights

FOURTH, that we shall regard Rights to be neither collective nor additive in Character -- two individuals shall have no more Rights than one, nor shall two million nor two thousand million -- nor shall any Group possess Rights in Excess of those belonging to its individual members;

Equality of Liberty

FIFTH, that we shall maintain these Principles without Respect to any person's Race, Nationality, Gender, sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs.

Unknown Section Title

, and hold that aSIXTH, any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them these principles by initiation of Force -- or Threat of same -- shall have forfeited its Right to exist;

Supersedure

UPON UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Members or Inhabitants of any Association or Territory, we further stipulate that this Agreement shall supercede all existing governmental Documents or Usages then pertinent, that such Constitutions, Charters, Acts, Laws, Statutes, Regulations, or Ordinances contradictory or destructive to the Ends which it expresses shall be null and void, and that this Covenant, being the Property of its Author and Signatories, shall not be Subject to Interpretation excepting insofar as it shall please them.

SIGNATORY:            WITNESS:

I like "judgment" rather than "judgement" b/c it has one less character.