So exciting !!! Thank you Chris! This could be something you could do workshops on perhaps for local Community Assemblies of NJ when we have our own summer solstice FreedomFest.
I do have to admit I hd to look up at least 8 words that I did not even see when studying for the GREs or in my “ivy league” educational adventures!
I would love to also have a simple summary of the principles within this constitution in lay terms to share with people to entice them to read the whole document as it is quite a work of art and a tool for creating a powerful paradigm shift on the planet!!!!
This is really something very special. Thank you, Christopher. I am going to read every word and I look forward to it. It is quite wonderful that you are sharing this work and I will take my time to absorb the content. Leeave it with me and I will get back to you.
Nov 29, 2023·edited Nov 29, 2023Liked by Christopher Cook
I had to look up "membership compact" and "signatory polity."
I didn’t find "signatory polity", I had to understand it in context. Which you went into a little more toward the end.
Thank you for considering the layman/woman in your writing of this. As you mentioned that the judges might think “yeah get to the good part”. We need all the help we can get. And when I say we, I mean me.
“In spite of this possibility, I felt it was necessary to give full voice to these statements of rights and principles. I take this constitution seriously, not only as a contest entry, but as the basis of a real constitution for future use. As such, I felt it essential to make an ironclad statement—a once-and-for-all message that our rights are real and undeniable.”
Totally a worthy goal, even if it cost you a couple of thousand because money isn’t really real, it’s ‘pretend real’. 😊 Integrity is real, in some people. Thanks for having it!
“Yet this approach is most consistent with the vision I have for the future, and I had to be true to that.” It’s rough sometimes 😊 Haha.
“THAT certain universal moral truths exist, rooted in natural law and endowed with a higher ethic that stands above any manmade authority,”
BRAVO.
I had to look up "Ineluctable". It meant unable to be resisted or avoided; inescapable.
“THAT each and every individual human is, as an ineluctable fact of nature, a PERSON—a separate, unique, irreplaceable being with the independent capacity for a theoretically infinite range of thoughts, choices, and actions,…”
“THAT PERSONHOOD is a natural quality that cannot de facto be unmade by any act of nature or man, and is thus inalienable”
I LOVE this, but I wonder about the language. I guess Black Law definitions no longer apply if we are writing a new constitution. So, we don’t need to reclaim the word PERSON from them. But they use their screwed-up legalese and they say you are a "person", but what the really mean is a dead entity. So, I prefer "human being", but that is okay. We can reclaim "person".
I guess if we have a whole new constitution it is safe to say that we aren’t letting them get away with their fraudulent admiralty law court rigmarole and language.
Anyway –
“THIS CONSTITUTION recognizes, proclaims, and will hereunder affirm and defend the sovereignty and infinite worth of the human PERSON.”
Infinite, yes. Sovereignty, yes.
“THAT the initiation of force against any unwilling PERSON, by any other PERSON or order of PERSONS, is impermissible.”
Would that include taking parts off babies, cutting the cord when they are born rather than letting it rot for a few days as nature intended; and stealing their birthright by taking their placenta as well as their foreskin? It would also mean not keeping an aborted baby alive and growing crap off it in a lab. That would be nice. *shudder.
"THAT there is a distinction between COERCIVE FORCE (force initiated to acquire resources, dominate, control, usurp, manipulate, tyrannize, or for other purposes) and PROTECTIVE FORCE (force deployed in response to and to defend against COERCIVE FORCE), and
THAT no PERSON, or order of PERSONS, has the ONTOLOGICAL AUTHORITY to initiate (COERCIVE) force against any unwilling other,"
Love that part
“LIFE
To live and exist.”
(I might want to add some recognition of being the beneficiary of this earth here or somewhere. And maybe coexisting with it in such a way as an extension of our own bodies or just to have the rights to use its gifts as we see fit for our own healing and wellness).
MOVEMENT AND LOCATION
“To move one’s body and, with respect of property RIGHTS, to change one’s location and travel freely; to choose unowned locations for activity and habitation; and voluntarily to transact for permissions or RIGHTS to travel through or abide in a given location. “
You said, ‘Transact for permissions,’ that part had me confused. What exactly do you mean there? I think you mean, like You own property and I want to drive across it, so I should be able to if we agree on terms?
THOUGHT AND CONSCIENCE
“To exercise independent thought, belief, intellect, reason, imagination, judgements, opinions, conscience, and emotions; to contrive and invent; and to choose and follow a set of values.”
And I thought the original Constitution was complex! Parts of this I understand, and parts are just above my pay grade. Chris, you are obviously brilliant and well versed plus you have thoroughly considered angles that have never occurred to me. But, sadly, I think tons of misery has to occur before there are significant changes made. And some people are more equal than others as you are an example. Are the American people even capable of self government now?
>>Marriage is a special contract to bring a conceived child to adulthood. It is misleading to apply it to other kinds of contract.
"I still think there is a fundamental disconnect. I am not trying to create a single society. I am trying to create a framework [...]. You see what I mean?"
>>I do see. The disconnect must remain.
"[P]eople are CHOOSING the set of rules by which they abide".
>>A rule whimsically observed or ignored is no longer a rule.
Thank you for posting this. I have been wanting to read it. I will start it tonight after my homework. Thank you for putting your mind to this huge task!
a) “Lionizing consent [...] does not solve all problems, but it helps.”
b) “I do not think large territories are workable, moral, or a particularly good idea.”
c) “Freedom of association means [total] freedom of association.”
d) “Yes [I want total private property ownership.]”
2. I’m familiar with Mises.org, Hoppe, Rothbard references to insurance/protective societies. The libertarian weakness is to typically start with a conjectural bare stage, when the real work is in providing transitional institutions to the desideratum.
3. “I am not quite getting your objection [to marriage as anything but a commitment to raise any conceived children].”
>>My point is to insist on the clear definition of “marriage,” apart from ordinary interpersonal contracts. I think the popular muddying of its meaning to apply to both really seeks to steal the sanctity of the term. It has greater sanctity entirely apart from any supernatural claims, since conceiving a child casts a ripple across all eternity.
4. “[Unoccupied territory exists in] Seasteading and the colonization of space, mostly.”
>>Werner K. Stiefel: Operation Atlantis in the Caribbean, failed in 1972.
Michael Oliver: Republic of Minerva in the South Pacific, failed in 1972.
Michael Oliver: Minerva on the island of Abaco in the Bahamas, failed in 1973.
Michael Oliver: Minerva on the island of Vanuatu in the South Pacific, failed in 1980.
As for the colonization of space, I leave that to Robert Zubrin and the sci-fi crowd.
5. “We claim these principles to be universal and true, but we're not going to force you to live any particular way.”
“[Supernatural authority] is as bad as Locke's appeals to ‘right reason’.”
>>This is my point. Not only are the various ‘polities’ free to live as they please, but so is EVERY MEMBER of each polity. Since you deny any authority, supernatural or reasoned, each one is “bound” solely by consent, which is no bind at all, since it can be changed on a whim, without consequences.
6. “I chose to write a constitution that is entirely consent-based.”
>>And since members of this society can cancel or amend its terms at any time, they are bound by nothing. I see no difference between it and The Land of Cockaigne, or Rabelais’ Abbaye of Thélème, where the only rule is ‘Fais ce que tu voudras.’
Well done sir, this is amazing. Extremely detailed. I actually like that you included some more philosophical explanations. We did that in ours, but probably over did it in literary style. ;0
>>The phrase “universal moral truths exist, rooted in natural law[...] above any manmade authority” seems to claim “laws of nature and of nature’s God” while evasively shrinking from the supernatural, belief-based claim of the Declaration.
Section B:
>>Is the “ontological” reference aimed at denying parental authority? I don’t see the need for its use otherwise.
>>I do not understand the phrase “initiation of force against any unwilling PERSON” since the weird case of force against a willing person ipso facto precludes initiation.
Section C:
>>Again, the use of “ontological” and “unwilling” does not clarify matters.
Section E:
>>This constitution “will hereunder affirm […] natural rights” yet in all its details it is based not on universal natural rights, but on voluntary, contractual assent to self-ownership and NAP principles that apply only to the signers.
Article I, Section 1, VII:
>>This notion of “consent” seems to endorse a self-ownership that proclaims a kind of ‘nation of oneself,’ even within a larger polity – a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card when that polity attempts to enforce a rule not to that person’s liking.
Article I, Section 1, IX:
>>Just to be clear, allodial title means permanent, untaxable, unassailable property ownership. Consistently applied, it means the end of all public property. Is that what you want?
Article I, Section 1, XI:
>>What is the right to “travel freely” across a society of total allodial possession, where no public property exists?
Article I, Section 1, XIII:
>>Is there a freedom to disseminate knowingly false or misleading information? Is there any obligation for anyone to assist in the individual’s right of expression, or will private ownership of all media solely determine the extent of that expression?
Article I, Section 2, I:
>>Does the freedom of association extend to groups proclaiming “no niggers, kikes, wops, or greasers allowed”?
Article I, Section 2, III:
>>Is the right to procreation currently in need of protection?
Article I, Section 2, IV:
>>Does the right to marriage and family imply a contract to bring any conception to adulthood or to keep it alive for adoption? If not, then what can “marriage” possibly mean, since ordinary contracts exist for interpersonal obligations and conveyance of property?
Article I, Section 2, V:
>>Do the stated “parental responsibilities” forbid abortion?
Article I, Section 2, VII:
>>How does the stated right to mutual defense over a large territory avoid the free rider problem?
Article I, Section 2, XI:
>>Where would the right “to move through or migrate to unoccupied territory” ever apply, since “unoccupied territory” no longer exists?
Article I, Section 2, XII:
>>Is a belief system that commands the stoning of unbelievers, honor killings, and girl clitorectomy to enjoy constitutional protection?
Article I, Section 4, Equality of Rights:
>>It is simply untrue that “all human PERSONS are created ontologically equal.” East Asians are smarter as a group than most others; a child born to a mother with opioid addiction can acquire that addiction; women as a group are less capable than men in the math-centric and system-building sciences.
Article II, The Framework:
>>Here is the central weakness of this constitution: It invokes natural law principles based in deontological universals, while simultaneously detailing a purely contractarian, “voluntary social order.”
>>The various definitions of “polity” do not get at the central problem: Their interjurisdictional conflicts.
Article II, IV:
>>This “right to exit,” “right to secede,” and “right to remain” seem to establish the right of secession without limit, including the right of an HOA to secede from a larger polity, and the right of an individual to “secede” from everyone else.
Article III, Section 1, IX:
>>Despite the ‘forswearing’ of infringement upon economic activity, what agency is to enforce it?
Article III, Section 1, XI:
>>Despite the provision (by unstated parties) of “intra-POLITY THOROUGHFARES,” how is that accomplished in a society of total private property?
Article III, Section 1, XIV:
>>Although you champion “common law” (which is judge-given law, or law abstracted from case decisions), do you really mean “customary law” (most especially, the “ancient rights of Englishmen”) – or maybe both, since section XVIII below does mention “custom”?
Article III, Section 1, XVI:
>>How are you to resolve the conflicts of coercive force when protective agencies disagree in the application of a given law?
Article III, Section 2:
>>Blockchain “forking” requires the agreement of over half the princpals; any “forking” in the context of a voluntary constitution would mean a multiplicity of constitutions, with no obligation to resolve differences to establish a document applicable to all.
Article IV, III:
>>The “Advisory Council’s” effort to resolve inevitable disputes among the “polities” rests solely upon private arbitration, which only pushes back the critical question: Who is to be the final arbiter of disputes?
Article IV, XII:
>>The introduction of “councils” introduces the even greater, and insoluble, problems of world governance.
My observation in brief: This constitution “will hereunder affirm […] natural rights” yet in all its details it is based not on universal natural rights, but on voluntary, contractual assent to self-ownership and NAP principles that apply only to the signers, who may secede or modify the original agreement at any time.
Fantastic work, Christopher. I can only imagine that this is joining a collection of wavelengths globally, which needs exploring for us to refine our understanding as a species of who we are and what we aspire to be. I resonated with the flow of how you established the sovereignty of people first and then moved onto the mindset toward governments, etc., at the end. It's the same flow I have found in my own writing too. Your use of the word 'framework' is particularly striking. I have come to think that humanity needs overarching leaders, documents, and concepts that function in a way so transferable and fundamental that they can (not must or universally) bridge most of humanity as an order of shared understanding, reflecting the good and natural reality of our diverse cultures.
Just to add some spice to my comment here, I believe that humanity's relationship with the divine is a deeply significant aspect. The 'secularized' world might be more receptive to this wavelength, as they have no explicit loyalty to heaven as such. Therefore, including a potent aspect of the ability to display and essentially create a fair shared space (like thoroughfares) for the preaching and exchange of convictions is important. Allowing the Constitution to honour people's divine beliefs and highlighting the advantage of no longer being marginalized or viewed as old-fashioned would serve over half the population of humanity. What it offers is respect within the framework. Noteing that many religious groups might outright reject anything if it does not include space for their divine, I personally think humans naturally worship and set up various forms of expressions of divinity as part of humanity. it would be a huge shame to have people reject a framework due to this.
Anyway, top-notch job. We live in exciting times where we can dream up these things and have a chance for them to actually be part of the zeitgeist.
Epic. Longer than I expected though. I particularly like the message to governments section. Congrats on third place!
Amazing work! Thank you for sharing!
So exciting !!! Thank you Chris! This could be something you could do workshops on perhaps for local Community Assemblies of NJ when we have our own summer solstice FreedomFest.
I do have to admit I hd to look up at least 8 words that I did not even see when studying for the GREs or in my “ivy league” educational adventures!
I would love to also have a simple summary of the principles within this constitution in lay terms to share with people to entice them to read the whole document as it is quite a work of art and a tool for creating a powerful paradigm shift on the planet!!!!
Wow - fantastic work!
Where do I sign up?
This is really something very special. Thank you, Christopher. I am going to read every word and I look forward to it. It is quite wonderful that you are sharing this work and I will take my time to absorb the content. Leeave it with me and I will get back to you.
I had to look up "membership compact" and "signatory polity."
I didn’t find "signatory polity", I had to understand it in context. Which you went into a little more toward the end.
Thank you for considering the layman/woman in your writing of this. As you mentioned that the judges might think “yeah get to the good part”. We need all the help we can get. And when I say we, I mean me.
“In spite of this possibility, I felt it was necessary to give full voice to these statements of rights and principles. I take this constitution seriously, not only as a contest entry, but as the basis of a real constitution for future use. As such, I felt it essential to make an ironclad statement—a once-and-for-all message that our rights are real and undeniable.”
Totally a worthy goal, even if it cost you a couple of thousand because money isn’t really real, it’s ‘pretend real’. 😊 Integrity is real, in some people. Thanks for having it!
“Yet this approach is most consistent with the vision I have for the future, and I had to be true to that.” It’s rough sometimes 😊 Haha.
“THAT certain universal moral truths exist, rooted in natural law and endowed with a higher ethic that stands above any manmade authority,”
BRAVO.
I had to look up "Ineluctable". It meant unable to be resisted or avoided; inescapable.
“THAT each and every individual human is, as an ineluctable fact of nature, a PERSON—a separate, unique, irreplaceable being with the independent capacity for a theoretically infinite range of thoughts, choices, and actions,…”
“THAT PERSONHOOD is a natural quality that cannot de facto be unmade by any act of nature or man, and is thus inalienable”
I LOVE this, but I wonder about the language. I guess Black Law definitions no longer apply if we are writing a new constitution. So, we don’t need to reclaim the word PERSON from them. But they use their screwed-up legalese and they say you are a "person", but what the really mean is a dead entity. So, I prefer "human being", but that is okay. We can reclaim "person".
I guess if we have a whole new constitution it is safe to say that we aren’t letting them get away with their fraudulent admiralty law court rigmarole and language.
Anyway –
“THIS CONSTITUTION recognizes, proclaims, and will hereunder affirm and defend the sovereignty and infinite worth of the human PERSON.”
Infinite, yes. Sovereignty, yes.
“THAT the initiation of force against any unwilling PERSON, by any other PERSON or order of PERSONS, is impermissible.”
Would that include taking parts off babies, cutting the cord when they are born rather than letting it rot for a few days as nature intended; and stealing their birthright by taking their placenta as well as their foreskin? It would also mean not keeping an aborted baby alive and growing crap off it in a lab. That would be nice. *shudder.
"THAT there is a distinction between COERCIVE FORCE (force initiated to acquire resources, dominate, control, usurp, manipulate, tyrannize, or for other purposes) and PROTECTIVE FORCE (force deployed in response to and to defend against COERCIVE FORCE), and
THAT no PERSON, or order of PERSONS, has the ONTOLOGICAL AUTHORITY to initiate (COERCIVE) force against any unwilling other,"
Love that part
“LIFE
To live and exist.”
(I might want to add some recognition of being the beneficiary of this earth here or somewhere. And maybe coexisting with it in such a way as an extension of our own bodies or just to have the rights to use its gifts as we see fit for our own healing and wellness).
MOVEMENT AND LOCATION
“To move one’s body and, with respect of property RIGHTS, to change one’s location and travel freely; to choose unowned locations for activity and habitation; and voluntarily to transact for permissions or RIGHTS to travel through or abide in a given location. “
You said, ‘Transact for permissions,’ that part had me confused. What exactly do you mean there? I think you mean, like You own property and I want to drive across it, so I should be able to if we agree on terms?
THOUGHT AND CONSCIENCE
“To exercise independent thought, belief, intellect, reason, imagination, judgements, opinions, conscience, and emotions; to contrive and invent; and to choose and follow a set of values.”
Love this one
And I thought the original Constitution was complex! Parts of this I understand, and parts are just above my pay grade. Chris, you are obviously brilliant and well versed plus you have thoroughly considered angles that have never occurred to me. But, sadly, I think tons of misery has to occur before there are significant changes made. And some people are more equal than others as you are an example. Are the American people even capable of self government now?
Chris, thanks for the discussion. I give my final remarks here, referencing this thread (https://christophercook.substack.com/p/human-constitution/comments#comment-44393389) and the Underthrow main thread.
"Marriage [...]."
>>Marriage is a special contract to bring a conceived child to adulthood. It is misleading to apply it to other kinds of contract.
"I still think there is a fundamental disconnect. I am not trying to create a single society. I am trying to create a framework [...]. You see what I mean?"
>>I do see. The disconnect must remain.
"[P]eople are CHOOSING the set of rules by which they abide".
>>A rule whimsically observed or ignored is no longer a rule.
Thank you for posting this. I have been wanting to read it. I will start it tonight after my homework. Thank you for putting your mind to this huge task!
Great replies! I respond here in one place.
1. On these things we fully agree:
a) “Lionizing consent [...] does not solve all problems, but it helps.”
b) “I do not think large territories are workable, moral, or a particularly good idea.”
c) “Freedom of association means [total] freedom of association.”
d) “Yes [I want total private property ownership.]”
2. I’m familiar with Mises.org, Hoppe, Rothbard references to insurance/protective societies. The libertarian weakness is to typically start with a conjectural bare stage, when the real work is in providing transitional institutions to the desideratum.
3. “I am not quite getting your objection [to marriage as anything but a commitment to raise any conceived children].”
>>My point is to insist on the clear definition of “marriage,” apart from ordinary interpersonal contracts. I think the popular muddying of its meaning to apply to both really seeks to steal the sanctity of the term. It has greater sanctity entirely apart from any supernatural claims, since conceiving a child casts a ripple across all eternity.
4. “[Unoccupied territory exists in] Seasteading and the colonization of space, mostly.”
>>Werner K. Stiefel: Operation Atlantis in the Caribbean, failed in 1972.
Michael Oliver: Republic of Minerva in the South Pacific, failed in 1972.
Michael Oliver: Minerva on the island of Abaco in the Bahamas, failed in 1973.
Michael Oliver: Minerva on the island of Vanuatu in the South Pacific, failed in 1980.
As for the colonization of space, I leave that to Robert Zubrin and the sci-fi crowd.
5. “We claim these principles to be universal and true, but we're not going to force you to live any particular way.”
“[Supernatural authority] is as bad as Locke's appeals to ‘right reason’.”
>>This is my point. Not only are the various ‘polities’ free to live as they please, but so is EVERY MEMBER of each polity. Since you deny any authority, supernatural or reasoned, each one is “bound” solely by consent, which is no bind at all, since it can be changed on a whim, without consequences.
6. “I chose to write a constitution that is entirely consent-based.”
>>And since members of this society can cancel or amend its terms at any time, they are bound by nothing. I see no difference between it and The Land of Cockaigne, or Rabelais’ Abbaye of Thélème, where the only rule is ‘Fais ce que tu voudras.’
Well done sir, this is amazing. Extremely detailed. I actually like that you included some more philosophical explanations. We did that in ours, but probably over did it in literary style. ;0
<3
To Christopher Cook’s _The Human Constitution_ I have given comments below, meant as collegial and friendly. For the full context of references, see his https://christophercook.substack.com/p/human-constitution
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES:
>>The phrase “universal moral truths exist, rooted in natural law[...] above any manmade authority” seems to claim “laws of nature and of nature’s God” while evasively shrinking from the supernatural, belief-based claim of the Declaration.
Section B:
>>Is the “ontological” reference aimed at denying parental authority? I don’t see the need for its use otherwise.
>>I do not understand the phrase “initiation of force against any unwilling PERSON” since the weird case of force against a willing person ipso facto precludes initiation.
Section C:
>>Again, the use of “ontological” and “unwilling” does not clarify matters.
Section E:
>>This constitution “will hereunder affirm […] natural rights” yet in all its details it is based not on universal natural rights, but on voluntary, contractual assent to self-ownership and NAP principles that apply only to the signers.
Article I, Section 1, VII:
>>This notion of “consent” seems to endorse a self-ownership that proclaims a kind of ‘nation of oneself,’ even within a larger polity – a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card when that polity attempts to enforce a rule not to that person’s liking.
Article I, Section 1, IX:
>>Just to be clear, allodial title means permanent, untaxable, unassailable property ownership. Consistently applied, it means the end of all public property. Is that what you want?
Article I, Section 1, XI:
>>What is the right to “travel freely” across a society of total allodial possession, where no public property exists?
Article I, Section 1, XIII:
>>Is there a freedom to disseminate knowingly false or misleading information? Is there any obligation for anyone to assist in the individual’s right of expression, or will private ownership of all media solely determine the extent of that expression?
Article I, Section 2, I:
>>Does the freedom of association extend to groups proclaiming “no niggers, kikes, wops, or greasers allowed”?
Article I, Section 2, III:
>>Is the right to procreation currently in need of protection?
Article I, Section 2, IV:
>>Does the right to marriage and family imply a contract to bring any conception to adulthood or to keep it alive for adoption? If not, then what can “marriage” possibly mean, since ordinary contracts exist for interpersonal obligations and conveyance of property?
Article I, Section 2, V:
>>Do the stated “parental responsibilities” forbid abortion?
Article I, Section 2, VII:
>>How does the stated right to mutual defense over a large territory avoid the free rider problem?
Article I, Section 2, XI:
>>Where would the right “to move through or migrate to unoccupied territory” ever apply, since “unoccupied territory” no longer exists?
Article I, Section 2, XII:
>>Is a belief system that commands the stoning of unbelievers, honor killings, and girl clitorectomy to enjoy constitutional protection?
Article I, Section 4, Equality of Rights:
>>It is simply untrue that “all human PERSONS are created ontologically equal.” East Asians are smarter as a group than most others; a child born to a mother with opioid addiction can acquire that addiction; women as a group are less capable than men in the math-centric and system-building sciences.
Article II, The Framework:
>>Here is the central weakness of this constitution: It invokes natural law principles based in deontological universals, while simultaneously detailing a purely contractarian, “voluntary social order.”
>>The various definitions of “polity” do not get at the central problem: Their interjurisdictional conflicts.
Article II, IV:
>>This “right to exit,” “right to secede,” and “right to remain” seem to establish the right of secession without limit, including the right of an HOA to secede from a larger polity, and the right of an individual to “secede” from everyone else.
Article III, Section 1, IX:
>>Despite the ‘forswearing’ of infringement upon economic activity, what agency is to enforce it?
Article III, Section 1, XI:
>>Despite the provision (by unstated parties) of “intra-POLITY THOROUGHFARES,” how is that accomplished in a society of total private property?
Article III, Section 1, XIV:
>>Although you champion “common law” (which is judge-given law, or law abstracted from case decisions), do you really mean “customary law” (most especially, the “ancient rights of Englishmen”) – or maybe both, since section XVIII below does mention “custom”?
Article III, Section 1, XVI:
>>How are you to resolve the conflicts of coercive force when protective agencies disagree in the application of a given law?
Article III, Section 2:
>>Blockchain “forking” requires the agreement of over half the princpals; any “forking” in the context of a voluntary constitution would mean a multiplicity of constitutions, with no obligation to resolve differences to establish a document applicable to all.
Article IV, III:
>>The “Advisory Council’s” effort to resolve inevitable disputes among the “polities” rests solely upon private arbitration, which only pushes back the critical question: Who is to be the final arbiter of disputes?
Article IV, XII:
>>The introduction of “councils” introduces the even greater, and insoluble, problems of world governance.
My observation in brief: This constitution “will hereunder affirm […] natural rights” yet in all its details it is based not on universal natural rights, but on voluntary, contractual assent to self-ownership and NAP principles that apply only to the signers, who may secede or modify the original agreement at any time.
Fantastic work, Christopher. I can only imagine that this is joining a collection of wavelengths globally, which needs exploring for us to refine our understanding as a species of who we are and what we aspire to be. I resonated with the flow of how you established the sovereignty of people first and then moved onto the mindset toward governments, etc., at the end. It's the same flow I have found in my own writing too. Your use of the word 'framework' is particularly striking. I have come to think that humanity needs overarching leaders, documents, and concepts that function in a way so transferable and fundamental that they can (not must or universally) bridge most of humanity as an order of shared understanding, reflecting the good and natural reality of our diverse cultures.
Just to add some spice to my comment here, I believe that humanity's relationship with the divine is a deeply significant aspect. The 'secularized' world might be more receptive to this wavelength, as they have no explicit loyalty to heaven as such. Therefore, including a potent aspect of the ability to display and essentially create a fair shared space (like thoroughfares) for the preaching and exchange of convictions is important. Allowing the Constitution to honour people's divine beliefs and highlighting the advantage of no longer being marginalized or viewed as old-fashioned would serve over half the population of humanity. What it offers is respect within the framework. Noteing that many religious groups might outright reject anything if it does not include space for their divine, I personally think humans naturally worship and set up various forms of expressions of divinity as part of humanity. it would be a huge shame to have people reject a framework due to this.
Anyway, top-notch job. We live in exciting times where we can dream up these things and have a chance for them to actually be part of the zeitgeist.