Thank you very much. It is the culmination of much thought and effort.
It's a good thing that there was a 5k word limit…otherwise it might have been a lot longer! (I would have added an example of a polity-specific addendum.)
Heck of a document! I'm generally wary of any things that are codified, these days, as some kind of interpersonal agreement, but this is probably the best one I've seen that I could point to. A couple notes, and please feel no obligation to these, especially because (1) perhaps this is locked in as is, due to the contest, and (2) I have certainly kept many things in my own stuff that are either idiosyncratic or otherwise, for various reasons.
1) THIS CONSTITUTION recognizes, proclaims, and will hereunder affirm and defend the EQUAL CLAIM of each and very PERSON to natural rights and the enjoyment thereof. — "every" person, I think.
2) // / EACH and every PERSON has EQUAL CLAIM to all the RIGHTS enumerated, inferred, and adjured herein. — I think you might mean "implied," because "inferred" could potentially mean that it's all up for grabs.
3) To create, own, and maintain—in any unowned or privately owned physical or virtual space—any /// any GOVERNMENT, and to ESTABLISH, unhindered, any new POLITY on any private or unowned land; — "privately owned" here seems like it may imply that someone who does not own the privately owned area would have access to it, though it seems these are meant to say, and perhaps do specifically, that it's one's *own* property.
"3) To create, own, and maintain—in any unowned or privately owned physical or virtual space—any /// any GOVERNMENT, and to ESTABLISH, unhindered, any new POLITY on any private or unowned land; — "privately owned" here seems like it may imply that someone who does not own the privately owned area would have access to it, though it seems these are meant to say, and perhaps do specifically, that it's one's *own* property."
—Gosh—Maybe it's the fact that it is morning and I might've slept a little too well last night (still quite bleary), but I don't get what you mean here. Can you help me out?
Sorry, yeah, that was the most subtle one. Probably the least relevant one, to people actually understanding it. When I came across “private” in these cases, but not generally elsewhere (maybe one more in that area), it seemed to me like it was saying that you could create your own polity on privately owned land. But it didn’t seem like it was saying it had to be YOUR land. It seemed like a loophole for someone else to use someone else’s land, and point to the document. Lol, I’m sure that wasn’t what was intended, but for some reason, these came off to me like that, and since it was the only time where it did, later on in the document, I thought it might be worth asking about.
That’s why I didn’t want to ask—opens the can of worms, but they might be there. Perhaps “their own privately owned land,” or something like that? (One’s own, to avoid the plurals?) Anyway, I appreciate your patience and courtesy, as always!
"2) // / EACH and every PERSON has EQUAL CLAIM to all the RIGHTS enumerated, inferred, and adjured herein. — I think you might mean "implied," because "inferred" could potentially mean that it's all up for grabs."
—Hmm, interesting. I have to re-read to be sure, but I believe my choice of "inferred" there was tied into the fact that all rights cannot be enumerated, since rights are essentially infinite. One can infer that infinity from the statement of principles and other philosophical claims in the document. I think that is what I was going for.
So help me to understand how that word might be misleading and how "implied" improves on the problem. Maybe I will switch, or delete, or maybe there is a third word that does a better job.
Oh, no, okay. Yeah, I just see that happening with the two words being switched, sometimes, and I thought it was referring to what was in the document in spirit rather than inferred by the reader. Thanks! Sorry for being a real pain about this one, lol, it seemed like the one time something was worded in such a way where it called for checking with you, about it. Thanks, and sorry, again, lol. Never mistrust a man who uses his en-dashes.
"1) THIS CONSTITUTION recognizes, proclaims, and will hereunder affirm and defend the EQUAL CLAIM of each and very PERSON to natural rights and the enjoyment thereof. — "every" person, I think."
—Dog nab it, I spent several months writing this, and edited it 900,000 times, and still a typo slipped through!
Good catch, and thank you!!
And I do not mind your edits and questions or critiques at all. The contest is over, but I still plan to use this. So the discussion is helpful.
Haha, there’s always one, don’t worry! Well, that may not be true, but if you have one in this whole thing, that’s excellent; and yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Normally, I don’t tell people, “Hey, you’re missing a letter!” but this seemed like it was more important to get absolutely right.
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!!!!
I have been thinking about the exact same thing. Indeed, I have spoken with Gayla and had one phone call with her thus far. I very much want to produce a simplified statement of principles for exactly that sort of purpose—for the Assemblies and other such organizations. I am happy to work on it with you and Gayla.
My upcoming week is slammed with various things, but then after that, I think I will have some time…
Gayla was the one who sent me your substack & said she spoke with you …Sounds like a great spring collaboration that we can put on our Community Assemblies of NJ website under the action button “Empower”
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.
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?
Thank you, Nancy. But don't sell yourself short. It might take some time, but if you wade through the constitutional language and ruminate for a while, I think those other parts will start to coalesce for you too. And I am happy to answer any questions you have.
I am not sure how much misery change will entail. I hope not much.
As to the last issue you mention, I am going to pose a controversial question:
Why should I care whether others are capable of self government or not?
I ask that for several reasons…
First, I do not believe that America as a single entity can or should be "saved." It is too big, and as I have made plain in my recent writing, I do not believe its system, or any system like it, is actually consensual or properly rights-protective.
Second, I believe that this need humans have to create and impose collective solutions for everyone (whether they want them or not) is pathological. Or, more precisely, it is a pathologization of human nature as ultra-social creatures. Among other things, that need ends up tethering my plight to the whims and weaknesses of others, including people who are not capable of self-governance. What I want is to be away from such people, not lowered to their common denominator.
Ultimately, I want the scenario I describe in my intro—some combination of market anarchism and phylarchy. I want to be able to choose my own providers of law and justice, or to join with others and create a small polity by choice, focused on doing things the right way. And, frankly, I would specifically like to exclude, and remain far from, people who are not capable of self-governance.
And who knows—perhaps without being propped up by this ridiculous, homogenizing, paternalistic, lowest-common-denominator system, they would be compelled to make themselves more capable of self-governance.
"You must live among criminals." Why must I?
"You must support the indolent." Why must I?
"You must send your children to government schools and pay for others to do the same." Why?
Why, why why? Do I sound harsh and uncaring? Maybe. But I still want to know why.
I could build a polity where there was virtually no crime for at least a generation. How? By excluding criminals. (Most crime is committed by a small number of people who commit lots and lots of crimes.)
I could build a polity where innovation, achievement, and creativity flourished for at least a generation. How? By including innovative and creative high achievers and then staying out of their way. Why should I not be able to do so? That is not a rhetorical question. Why can people not create any sort of polity they wish? Why must we all be crammed into one thing, against our will, never to question it, and never to be free to leave?
Obviously I have gone beyond merely answering your comment and into a bit of a rant. 🤣 And you do not necessarily need to be the one to answer these questions. But I would like an answer, or at least a discussion. In fact, perhaps this should be the post for today…
>>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.
BTW: I was thinking that your objections and my replies might make a good post (edited only for formatting, but otherwise all as written). Any objections?
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.’
>>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.
It might help me if you gave me something really concrete. Since you've read my work, and we're both in the habit of writing constitutional language, perhaps you could take the appropriate section of my constitution and emend it to reflect what it is you're looking for…?
Even in the absence of government, people can—and should—do contracts. Ideally…no government exists, people do a private legal marriage contract, and couple that with whatever religious aspects they wish.
Contracts can exist in the absence of government. They can even be enforced in the absence of government. Virtually no serious business enterprise uses government courts now. They all use private arbitration, and their contracts with each other are adjudicated there. People can do the same.
>>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.’
I still think there is a fundamental disconnect. I am not trying to create a single society. I am trying to create a framework within which any number of societies can form. There is no "this society." You see what I mean?
>>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.
Think of my constitution as an attempt to establish a global framework for the rise of free polities and for the defense of the rights of self-determination of individuals.
First, it is a salvo at government—a statement that keeping people captive is morally impermissible. People must be free either to contract privately for justice services or to form and join private polities.
These polities can take on any form they wish. SIGNATORY polities will adopt the principles of the constitution. The Amish probably won't. but Amish people deserve to be independent of an overlord authority too. My constitution is designed to speak for both, even though only signatories will adopt its foundational principles.
But also, think of it this way: A membership relationship with a private polity will/can be CONTRACTUAL. So, people who agree to the contract agree to be bound by its rules. It's not a free-for all. It's just that people are CHOOSING the set of rules by which they abide (either a code of laws provided by a Hoppean/Friedmanite private agency or by a polity) rather than having it imposed involuntarily by a state.
>>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.
We could also add that couple off the coast of Thailand getting rousted by the Thai navy.
In every case, these failed because of existing states and force majeure. That certainly can be used as an argument for why it is perilous to try. These are indeed examples of the violent jealousy of existing states. That will have to be grappled with in the coming decades. But they aren't really examples of why libertarian micronations cannot work due to internal contradictions. These examples simply never got that far.
But even if they had, a few failed examples is no more proof that minarchism/anarchism cannot work than Pol Pot's Cambodia or Mao's China are proof that the modern nation state cannot work.
>>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.
I am all for providing transitional institutions to the desideratum! Let's rock!
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
Thank you very much. I appreciate that you appreciate the philosophical underpinning. I really believe that is essential.
Indeed, it frustrates me when people talk about how we need to explain things to people in consequentialist terms, or using emotional language. Before any of that, we MUST get the moral facts right. And yet I am regularly admonished that the philosophy is secondary. NO! Argh.
I still need to read yours. Where is the easiest place to do that?
>>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.
Oh, and please forgive me if you have already read the books I referenced. I am not trying to presume your level of familiarity with any topic. Rather, I am referencing writers upon whose ideas I have partially drawn, and who explain the details really really well.
>>The introduction of “councils” introduces the even greater, and insoluble, problems of world governance.
A friend raised this objection too, and I hear it. But the network is a voluntary association of signatories who themselves have agreed to nurture a condition of voluntary order. So it is not trying to impose anything on any unwilling person or polity.
Now, could it devolve into a world government if this condition of voluntary order has spread to every corner of the globe and every person and polity is a participant? I don't know. I think it is less likely to occur on a planet where (roughly speaking) "everyone" has undergone a consciousness shift and adopted a belief in the precepts of consent and the NAP.
But even if we set that aside and consider it to be a possibility, so be it! For two reasons:
1) There are no panaceas or utopias. There will always be problems and there will never be perfect solutions, and
2) A world that has completely shifted that a condition of voluntary order? Now that is something I would like to see, and if there is some unspecifiable amount of risk that the Network might become a world government…well that is a problem I'd like to have.
>>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?
Same as below. Signatories have agreed ahead of time to a process and venue.
See Rothbard here for a good description as to why private law codes can work and how they have actually worked in the past (without any need for a single entity claiming a monopoly on being the final court of appeal): https://mises.org/library/society-without-state
>>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.
For this reason, I create the distinction between independent forks and approved/ratified constitutional addenda.
Did I get the terminology wrong—are their ironclad definitions that absolutely preclude the terms I have chosen for the distinction I have drawn?
>>How are you to resolve the conflicts of coercive force when protective agencies disagree in the application of a given law?
See Hoppe on this, or D. Friedman. They do the best. In essence, the same way that, say, multinational insurance companies resolve such disagreements right now. Adjudication would occur in courts agreed to by prior contract. Slowly, over time, a common inter-agency (and inter-polity) law code would develop that would facilitate and guide such adjudications.
>>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”?
>>Despite the ‘forswearing’ of infringement upon economic activity, what agency is to enforce it?
A signatory private polity would do it because they agree with the principle of doing it. And you can withdraw your consent to participate if they renege.
In a non-phylarchic/market-anarchism scenario, there is no entity imposing one rule upon everyone.
>>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.
>>The various definitions of “polity” do not get at the central problem: Their interjurisdictional conflicts.
It does not do any worse a job than what we have now. Interjurisdictional conflicts among states have killed, what, 100 million people in the last century?
Lionizing consent—and taking away a state's ability to command 'infinite' war-making power through taxation and money-creation—does not solve all problems, but it helps. In addition to the practical considerations, it also begins shifting the human paradigm. The last time that happened, we replaced monarchy with democracy, and most people think of that as an improvement. It's time for the next shift.
>>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.”
Right. Natural law is not a magic force field, repelling phaser fire like the Enterprise's shields. People must CHOOSE to respect the rights of others.
And yes, I chose to write a constitution that is entirely consent-based. This is certainly provocative, but not unique. There is a large body of literature on how such things might be able to work.
>>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.
I had hoped that the world "ontological" would convey my intended meaning—not that people are equal in ability or endowments (because clearly they are not), but that they are equal in some fundamental moral sense. No fixed classes of highborn and lowborn. Equal claim to natural rights. Equal in the sight of God. "Created equal." Etc.
>>Is a belief system that commands the stoning of unbelievers, honor killings, and girl clitorectomy to enjoy constitutional protection?
Please forgive me if I am under a misapprehension here, but I believe that you may still be thinking in terms of a large-nation template—a constitution/system that is imposed upon a large group of people. That is not what my constitution envisions at all.
Please note my introduction above. I believe that market anarchy and phylarchy are the likely subconditions that would exist in the absence of involuntary governance. No one could impose stoning, honor killings, FGM, etc. on anyone.
They might be able to within a specific polity, of course. (But if they tried it outside the polity, on the unwilling, defensive force would be entirely justified [and I would celebrate the use of such force with extreme prejudice]).
This constitution would allow for such a polity to form, and would seek to foster a scenario in which the Right of Exit is respected and even privately facilitated. But if people want to live a particular way, they can.
The fact that consent and cultural compulsion will tend to blur within polities (such that women and children, for example, are subjected to things they might not choose if they "knew better") is a problem. But it is also a problem that exists now. There are no panaceas.
>>Where would the right “to move through or migrate to unoccupied territory” ever apply, since “unoccupied territory” no longer exists?
Seasteading and the colonization of space, mostly.
You know it is inevitable: the largest governments in the world are going to claim that planets orbiting Tau Ceti are theirs to dole out—to grant land charters, licenses, etc. To blazes with that! A statement of principle needs to be made now and for all time that the universe does not belong to the United States, Russia, China, and the United Nations Security Council.
>>How does the stated right to mutual defense over a large territory avoid the free rider problem?
It doesn't—not entirely. However, that is a price I am willing to pay. Also, I do not think large territories are workable, moral, or a particularly good idea.
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.
"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."
—My goal was to create something that allowed for diverse experiments and instantiations of governance and order. Do what you want, live how you want. And then, in the Network part, I sought to create a means by which all these diverse experiments could peacefully cooperate and coexist.
"Your use of the word 'framework' is particularly striking."
—It was <<le mot juste>>—no other worked as well. That said, I also borrowed it from Robert Nozick and his "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." (It's a hard-to-read book at times, but it is must-read in this field.)
I will have to add that to my list to read. I remember sitting thinking and having an ahha moment going “Ah so I’m not making a new ideology as such, it's a framework for ideologies!” And now I am seeing it everywhere. :)
"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."
—Thank you. Yes, I think we are on the cusp of a global revolution in human consciousness.
"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."
—Thank you, and yes, it is exciting. I am grateful to those who put on this contest, because I know they take this seriously—as more than just an exercise.
I was actually working on something along these lines when the contest came along, so it was kismet,.
I might have to read it again to check, again I just wanted to add some spice. ;) (You may have and I just was too brain overloaded) Perhaps a statement around freedom of religion, and the need for them to co-exist would be helpful, (Opposite to John Lennon’s song Imagine) in a way perhaps I am reading too much nuance into this, but I think we need to divorce the secular from these shared frameworks. And because the secular movement has been dominant in this last era, many religious groups have lost the ability to even perceive a world where they are truly a leading part of humanity, so we need to invite them into a larger conversation somehow, to perceive a hopeful place for them, since most of the world are religious this is pretty important. I am curious what you think of this train of thought. (I don’t consider myself religious by the way) There is an element to the logical formula here that I believe is organic and could be considered divine where we are also artists responding to how life is at this current time, as we dream up the future together. What do you think?
I do think that, somehow, we are all connected in The Dreaming, and that we who can see have begun walking towards a new future together. And that process is indeed organic, as it should be. Is that what you mean?
Regarding religion…
I did not want to establish my constitution as a religious document, or explicitly to ground and justify it in the divine. I acknowledge "Nature's God" as the source of natural law, but I am careful not to ground it in faith—I wanted to have it grounded in logic, and let the faith be understood for those who have it.
I did, of course, establish an absolute right to…
XII. BELIEF SYSTEMS
To create, maintain, and freely practice associative belief systems: ideologies, schools of thought, religious traditions, and any other products of collaborative thought, conscience, belief, faith, and imagination; to associate with others and adhere to belief systems; to refuse to choose or associate with any belief system; to choose one’s manner of adherence to a belief system; to form institutions for the observance, maintenance, and propagation of belief systems, and for those institutions to self-govern, and to solicit, train, and expel members.
Connected in the dreaming, that should be a book name. :)
I can imagine there will be a few different documents with common frameworks in the future addressing humanity from different angles, I suppose it was fitting to address Religion like you did for a constitution.
"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."
—A lot of people glaze over with too much philosophy. But I believe it is essential. That is the groundwork upon which we base our claims. And that groundwork cannot only claim legitimacy through appeals to "right reason" or "because God made it this way." We have to actually show our work, just like you do in math class.
Yes, It's a formula, where all the parts need to interact, and earthlings will need to put effort into understanding the interaction of many principles or truths to achieve a shifted state of consciousness. So building and demonstrating frameworks is the closest I can conceive of to a “meaningful contribution to life”. It’s one of the highest-level elements of humanity we need to evolve forward.
Common law, in this case, is the generic version; that is, any system that adjudicates matters using courts and develops a body of law through the accumulation of legal precedents.
This is in contrast, generically, to roman law or code law, which attempts to create laws to fit all possible circumstances, through ex ante legislation.
Common law is organic, develops over time, and bubbles up from the accumulated wisdom of the people. Roman law is invented and imposed top-down by rulers.
Natural law is as I defined it in my comments to you on a different post a few days ago, and in the articles to which I linked there. But you are correct that it is a somewhat generic term that is subject to debate. At some point, if this constitution is used in a real-world scenario, I or someone else will write an official concordance and strictly define all that requires strict definition.
I know you are not my enemy, and thank you for your thoughtful devil's advocacy!
I have to run in a minute, but quickly—
You are certainly correct that there are no easy answers, and imperfect human life will always produce pitfalls.
In the common law, though, I do have to push back. A common law process is the post people-based, least authoritarian way of doing things. It is even more effective when it is backed up by a clear, written constitution. (The Brits, for example, have the former but lack the latter, which is why they are now less free than we are.) if you have not already read it, I bet you would really enjoy Danial Hannan's "Inventing Freedom." It's not all about the common law, but the bits about it are very inspiring.
>>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.
I have taken note of this suggestion and will be contemplating it in the weeks ahead!
>>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.
Excellent questions. With a 5,000-word limit, I could not get into as many nuances as I would have liked, and I had a lot of ground to cover. My meta approach left open an easy mechanism for creating addenda that delved into more specifics.
But the bottom line is that there definitely are difficult questions, on the margins, about what constitutes coercive force. Things like a punch to the face are obvious and easy. A little cigar smoke wafting from my back yard to yours? Probably does not rise to the level of "force." But if I dump gasoline in my back yard and poison your well, that has caused obvious harm.
The circumcision thing is tough because it is bound up in religious traditions, etc., but I have begun to see it as highly problematic because it is an irreversible physical change to which the baby cannot consent.
Keeping an aborted baby alive in a lab just seems like hideous torture to me, and that ought to be verboten.
But ultimately, it is impossible for code law to pre-judge all marginal questions, and thus a common law approach will be needed.
>>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".
Interesting… So I do define PERSON in a specific way, and then, because the word is in all caps thereafter, we know that the word is referencing that which has been defined.
So then my question would be this—do you think I defined "person" properly and adequately?
>>Totally a worthy goal, even if it cost you a couple of thousand because money isn’t really real. 😊 Integrity is real, in some people. Thanks for having it!
The judges had an extremely difficult task—so many different criteria by which to judge, and these sorts of constitutions take us into uncharted waters! Different styles of constitution might be suited to different applications. I am very happy to have been able to do what I thought best and still be recognized for the effort. I am very pleased with the result.
>>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?
That is definitely one way it could manifest. Or the creation of rights-of-way, mutual agreement as to roads, etc.
Thank you for your kind words and your recognition. Yes indeed, this was a lot of work, and it was the result of years of learning and deliberating. And especially some mind-bending thinking—just me, sitting there, talking to myself in my head, trying to figure all this stuff out. Going down every philosophical rabbit hole I could find! 🤣
Epic. Longer than I expected though. I particularly like the message to governments section. Congrats on third place!
Thank you very much. It is the culmination of much thought and effort.
It's a good thing that there was a 5k word limit…otherwise it might have been a lot longer! (I would have added an example of a polity-specific addendum.)
Amazing work! Thank you for sharing!
Thank you, Karen. Can you envision this being used in the real world?
I could see such a thing happening.
That makes me happy :-)
Heck of a document! I'm generally wary of any things that are codified, these days, as some kind of interpersonal agreement, but this is probably the best one I've seen that I could point to. A couple notes, and please feel no obligation to these, especially because (1) perhaps this is locked in as is, due to the contest, and (2) I have certainly kept many things in my own stuff that are either idiosyncratic or otherwise, for various reasons.
1) THIS CONSTITUTION recognizes, proclaims, and will hereunder affirm and defend the EQUAL CLAIM of each and very PERSON to natural rights and the enjoyment thereof. — "every" person, I think.
2) // / EACH and every PERSON has EQUAL CLAIM to all the RIGHTS enumerated, inferred, and adjured herein. — I think you might mean "implied," because "inferred" could potentially mean that it's all up for grabs.
3) To create, own, and maintain—in any unowned or privately owned physical or virtual space—any /// any GOVERNMENT, and to ESTABLISH, unhindered, any new POLITY on any private or unowned land; — "privately owned" here seems like it may imply that someone who does not own the privately owned area would have access to it, though it seems these are meant to say, and perhaps do specifically, that it's one's *own* property.
"3) To create, own, and maintain—in any unowned or privately owned physical or virtual space—any /// any GOVERNMENT, and to ESTABLISH, unhindered, any new POLITY on any private or unowned land; — "privately owned" here seems like it may imply that someone who does not own the privately owned area would have access to it, though it seems these are meant to say, and perhaps do specifically, that it's one's *own* property."
—Gosh—Maybe it's the fact that it is morning and I might've slept a little too well last night (still quite bleary), but I don't get what you mean here. Can you help me out?
Sorry, yeah, that was the most subtle one. Probably the least relevant one, to people actually understanding it. When I came across “private” in these cases, but not generally elsewhere (maybe one more in that area), it seemed to me like it was saying that you could create your own polity on privately owned land. But it didn’t seem like it was saying it had to be YOUR land. It seemed like a loophole for someone else to use someone else’s land, and point to the document. Lol, I’m sure that wasn’t what was intended, but for some reason, these came off to me like that, and since it was the only time where it did, later on in the document, I thought it might be worth asking about.
Oh man, yeah—that's an excellent catch. I am thinking about how to fix it in as few words as possible…
That’s why I didn’t want to ask—opens the can of worms, but they might be there. Perhaps “their own privately owned land,” or something like that? (One’s own, to avoid the plurals?) Anyway, I appreciate your patience and courtesy, as always!
Do not apologize, bro. I have got to get this right.
One's own is the first thing that occurred to me. I am going to walk around for a minute and think about it. That usually helps.
Thanks, and I—won’t—apologize—AGAIN! Lol. Good luck, and really great work on the document.
"2) // / EACH and every PERSON has EQUAL CLAIM to all the RIGHTS enumerated, inferred, and adjured herein. — I think you might mean "implied," because "inferred" could potentially mean that it's all up for grabs."
—Hmm, interesting. I have to re-read to be sure, but I believe my choice of "inferred" there was tied into the fact that all rights cannot be enumerated, since rights are essentially infinite. One can infer that infinity from the statement of principles and other philosophical claims in the document. I think that is what I was going for.
So help me to understand how that word might be misleading and how "implied" improves on the problem. Maybe I will switch, or delete, or maybe there is a third word that does a better job.
Oh, no, okay. Yeah, I just see that happening with the two words being switched, sometimes, and I thought it was referring to what was in the document in spirit rather than inferred by the reader. Thanks! Sorry for being a real pain about this one, lol, it seemed like the one time something was worded in such a way where it called for checking with you, about it. Thanks, and sorry, again, lol. Never mistrust a man who uses his en-dashes.
LOL, do not apologize. Two heads are better than one. I appreciate the help!
"1) THIS CONSTITUTION recognizes, proclaims, and will hereunder affirm and defend the EQUAL CLAIM of each and very PERSON to natural rights and the enjoyment thereof. — "every" person, I think."
—Dog nab it, I spent several months writing this, and edited it 900,000 times, and still a typo slipped through!
Good catch, and thank you!!
And I do not mind your edits and questions or critiques at all. The contest is over, but I still plan to use this. So the discussion is helpful.
Haha, there’s always one, don’t worry! Well, that may not be true, but if you have one in this whole thing, that’s excellent; and yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Normally, I don’t tell people, “Hey, you’re missing a letter!” but this seemed like it was more important to get absolutely right.
100 percent. Thanks!
And you can always tell me, for anything I write.
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!!!!
Do what you want, live how you want.
Do no harm to others.
Peacefully cooperate and coexist.
Honor the human rights of others.
Etc
I have been thinking about the exact same thing. Indeed, I have spoken with Gayla and had one phone call with her thus far. I very much want to produce a simplified statement of principles for exactly that sort of purpose—for the Assemblies and other such organizations. I am happy to work on it with you and Gayla.
My upcoming week is slammed with various things, but then after that, I think I will have some time…
Gayla was the one who sent me your substack & said she spoke with you …Sounds like a great spring collaboration that we can put on our Community Assemblies of NJ website under the action button “Empower”
Okay, we will keep the conversation going!
Workshops are a possibility too.
Wow - fantastic work!
Where do I sign up?
Thanks so much, Philip. It is the product of a lot of work and mind-grinding exploration :-)
In the next few weeks, I am going to be releasing, for Supporting Members, a book called "The Distributed Nation." That's where it starts!
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.
Wonderful!
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?
Thank you, Nancy. But don't sell yourself short. It might take some time, but if you wade through the constitutional language and ruminate for a while, I think those other parts will start to coalesce for you too. And I am happy to answer any questions you have.
I am not sure how much misery change will entail. I hope not much.
As to the last issue you mention, I am going to pose a controversial question:
Why should I care whether others are capable of self government or not?
I ask that for several reasons…
First, I do not believe that America as a single entity can or should be "saved." It is too big, and as I have made plain in my recent writing, I do not believe its system, or any system like it, is actually consensual or properly rights-protective.
Second, I believe that this need humans have to create and impose collective solutions for everyone (whether they want them or not) is pathological. Or, more precisely, it is a pathologization of human nature as ultra-social creatures. Among other things, that need ends up tethering my plight to the whims and weaknesses of others, including people who are not capable of self-governance. What I want is to be away from such people, not lowered to their common denominator.
Ultimately, I want the scenario I describe in my intro—some combination of market anarchism and phylarchy. I want to be able to choose my own providers of law and justice, or to join with others and create a small polity by choice, focused on doing things the right way. And, frankly, I would specifically like to exclude, and remain far from, people who are not capable of self-governance.
And who knows—perhaps without being propped up by this ridiculous, homogenizing, paternalistic, lowest-common-denominator system, they would be compelled to make themselves more capable of self-governance.
"You must live among criminals." Why must I?
"You must support the indolent." Why must I?
"You must send your children to government schools and pay for others to do the same." Why?
Why, why why? Do I sound harsh and uncaring? Maybe. But I still want to know why.
I could build a polity where there was virtually no crime for at least a generation. How? By excluding criminals. (Most crime is committed by a small number of people who commit lots and lots of crimes.)
I could build a polity where innovation, achievement, and creativity flourished for at least a generation. How? By including innovative and creative high achievers and then staying out of their way. Why should I not be able to do so? That is not a rhetorical question. Why can people not create any sort of polity they wish? Why must we all be crammed into one thing, against our will, never to question it, and never to be free to leave?
Obviously I have gone beyond merely answering your comment and into a bit of a rant. 🤣 And you do not necessarily need to be the one to answer these questions. But I would like an answer, or at least a discussion. In fact, perhaps this should be the post for today…
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.
>>A rule whimsically observed or ignored is no longer a rule.
I get what you are saying. I think Hoppe does the best job of explaining how private law codes can actually work.
BTW: I was thinking that your objections and my replies might make a good post (edited only for formatting, but otherwise all as written). Any objections?
No objection. Consider complete ownership as yours.
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.’
>>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.
It might help me if you gave me something really concrete. Since you've read my work, and we're both in the habit of writing constitutional language, perhaps you could take the appropriate section of my constitution and emend it to reflect what it is you're looking for…?
Even in the absence of government, people can—and should—do contracts. Ideally…no government exists, people do a private legal marriage contract, and couple that with whatever religious aspects they wish.
Contracts can exist in the absence of government. They can even be enforced in the absence of government. Virtually no serious business enterprise uses government courts now. They all use private arbitration, and their contracts with each other are adjudicated there. People can do the same.
We do not need government.
>>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.’
I still think there is a fundamental disconnect. I am not trying to create a single society. I am trying to create a framework within which any number of societies can form. There is no "this society." You see what I mean?
>>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.
Think of my constitution as an attempt to establish a global framework for the rise of free polities and for the defense of the rights of self-determination of individuals.
First, it is a salvo at government—a statement that keeping people captive is morally impermissible. People must be free either to contract privately for justice services or to form and join private polities.
These polities can take on any form they wish. SIGNATORY polities will adopt the principles of the constitution. The Amish probably won't. but Amish people deserve to be independent of an overlord authority too. My constitution is designed to speak for both, even though only signatories will adopt its foundational principles.
But also, think of it this way: A membership relationship with a private polity will/can be CONTRACTUAL. So, people who agree to the contract agree to be bound by its rules. It's not a free-for all. It's just that people are CHOOSING the set of rules by which they abide (either a code of laws provided by a Hoppean/Friedmanite private agency or by a polity) rather than having it imposed involuntarily by a state.
>>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.
We could also add that couple off the coast of Thailand getting rousted by the Thai navy.
In every case, these failed because of existing states and force majeure. That certainly can be used as an argument for why it is perilous to try. These are indeed examples of the violent jealousy of existing states. That will have to be grappled with in the coming decades. But they aren't really examples of why libertarian micronations cannot work due to internal contradictions. These examples simply never got that far.
But even if they had, a few failed examples is no more proof that minarchism/anarchism cannot work than Pol Pot's Cambodia or Mao's China are proof that the modern nation state cannot work.
>>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.
I am all for providing transitional institutions to the desideratum! Let's rock!
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
Thank you very much. I appreciate that you appreciate the philosophical underpinning. I really believe that is essential.
Indeed, it frustrates me when people talk about how we need to explain things to people in consequentialist terms, or using emotional language. Before any of that, we MUST get the moral facts right. And yet I am regularly admonished that the philosophy is secondary. NO! Argh.
I still need to read yours. Where is the easiest place to do that?
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.
Oh, and please forgive me if you have already read the books I referenced. I am not trying to presume your level of familiarity with any topic. Rather, I am referencing writers upon whose ideas I have partially drawn, and who explain the details really really well.
Well, two hours later, there ya go. Thank you for the challenges and the collegial discussion.
>>The introduction of “councils” introduces the even greater, and insoluble, problems of world governance.
A friend raised this objection too, and I hear it. But the network is a voluntary association of signatories who themselves have agreed to nurture a condition of voluntary order. So it is not trying to impose anything on any unwilling person or polity.
Now, could it devolve into a world government if this condition of voluntary order has spread to every corner of the globe and every person and polity is a participant? I don't know. I think it is less likely to occur on a planet where (roughly speaking) "everyone" has undergone a consciousness shift and adopted a belief in the precepts of consent and the NAP.
But even if we set that aside and consider it to be a possibility, so be it! For two reasons:
1) There are no panaceas or utopias. There will always be problems and there will never be perfect solutions, and
2) A world that has completely shifted that a condition of voluntary order? Now that is something I would like to see, and if there is some unspecifiable amount of risk that the Network might become a world government…well that is a problem I'd like to have.
>>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?
Same as below. Signatories have agreed ahead of time to a process and venue.
See Rothbard here for a good description as to why private law codes can work and how they have actually worked in the past (without any need for a single entity claiming a monopoly on being the final court of appeal): https://mises.org/library/society-without-state
>>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.
For this reason, I create the distinction between independent forks and approved/ratified constitutional addenda.
Did I get the terminology wrong—are their ironclad definitions that absolutely preclude the terms I have chosen for the distinction I have drawn?
>>How are you to resolve the conflicts of coercive force when protective agencies disagree in the application of a given law?
See Hoppe on this, or D. Friedman. They do the best. In essence, the same way that, say, multinational insurance companies resolve such disagreements right now. Adjudication would occur in courts agreed to by prior contract. Slowly, over time, a common inter-agency (and inter-polity) law code would develop that would facilitate and guide such adjudications.
>>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”?
Yes, both.
>>Despite the provision (by unstated parties) of “intra-POLITY THOROUGHFARES,” how is that accomplished in a society of total private property?
Through market forces.
>>Despite the ‘forswearing’ of infringement upon economic activity, what agency is to enforce it?
A signatory private polity would do it because they agree with the principle of doing it. And you can withdraw your consent to participate if they renege.
In a non-phylarchic/market-anarchism scenario, there is no entity imposing one rule upon everyone.
>>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.
Yes! Bring it on!
>>The various definitions of “polity” do not get at the central problem: Their interjurisdictional conflicts.
It does not do any worse a job than what we have now. Interjurisdictional conflicts among states have killed, what, 100 million people in the last century?
Lionizing consent—and taking away a state's ability to command 'infinite' war-making power through taxation and money-creation—does not solve all problems, but it helps. In addition to the practical considerations, it also begins shifting the human paradigm. The last time that happened, we replaced monarchy with democracy, and most people think of that as an improvement. It's time for the next shift.
>>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.”
Right. Natural law is not a magic force field, repelling phaser fire like the Enterprise's shields. People must CHOOSE to respect the rights of others.
And yes, I chose to write a constitution that is entirely consent-based. This is certainly provocative, but not unique. There is a large body of literature on how such things might be able to work.
>>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.
I had hoped that the world "ontological" would convey my intended meaning—not that people are equal in ability or endowments (because clearly they are not), but that they are equal in some fundamental moral sense. No fixed classes of highborn and lowborn. Equal claim to natural rights. Equal in the sight of God. "Created equal." Etc.
>>Is a belief system that commands the stoning of unbelievers, honor killings, and girl clitorectomy to enjoy constitutional protection?
Please forgive me if I am under a misapprehension here, but I believe that you may still be thinking in terms of a large-nation template—a constitution/system that is imposed upon a large group of people. That is not what my constitution envisions at all.
Please note my introduction above. I believe that market anarchy and phylarchy are the likely subconditions that would exist in the absence of involuntary governance. No one could impose stoning, honor killings, FGM, etc. on anyone.
They might be able to within a specific polity, of course. (But if they tried it outside the polity, on the unwilling, defensive force would be entirely justified [and I would celebrate the use of such force with extreme prejudice]).
This constitution would allow for such a polity to form, and would seek to foster a scenario in which the Right of Exit is respected and even privately facilitated. But if people want to live a particular way, they can.
The fact that consent and cultural compulsion will tend to blur within polities (such that women and children, for example, are subjected to things they might not choose if they "knew better") is a problem. But it is also a problem that exists now. There are no panaceas.
>>Where would the right “to move through or migrate to unoccupied territory” ever apply, since “unoccupied territory” no longer exists?
Seasteading and the colonization of space, mostly.
You know it is inevitable: the largest governments in the world are going to claim that planets orbiting Tau Ceti are theirs to dole out—to grant land charters, licenses, etc. To blazes with that! A statement of principle needs to be made now and for all time that the universe does not belong to the United States, Russia, China, and the United Nations Security Council.
>>How does the stated right to mutual defense over a large territory avoid the free rider problem?
It doesn't—not entirely. However, that is a price I am willing to pay. Also, I do not think large territories are workable, moral, or a particularly good idea.
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.
"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."
—My goal was to create something that allowed for diverse experiments and instantiations of governance and order. Do what you want, live how you want. And then, in the Network part, I sought to create a means by which all these diverse experiments could peacefully cooperate and coexist.
"Your use of the word 'framework' is particularly striking."
—It was <<le mot juste>>—no other worked as well. That said, I also borrowed it from Robert Nozick and his "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." (It's a hard-to-read book at times, but it is must-read in this field.)
I will have to add that to my list to read. I remember sitting thinking and having an ahha moment going “Ah so I’m not making a new ideology as such, it's a framework for ideologies!” And now I am seeing it everywhere. :)
Yep. Anarcho-phylarchy. Build any kind of polity you want. Just don't force anyone to join it or stay in it.
"Anarchy, State, and Utopia" is a slog at times, but I am glad I got through it!
"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."
—Thank you. Yes, I think we are on the cusp of a global revolution in human consciousness.
"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."
—Thank you, and yes, it is exciting. I am grateful to those who put on this contest, because I know they take this seriously—as more than just an exercise.
I was actually working on something along these lines when the contest came along, so it was kismet,.
"it would be a huge shame to have people reject a framework due to this."
—Did I not sufficiently address this in your view?
I might have to read it again to check, again I just wanted to add some spice. ;) (You may have and I just was too brain overloaded) Perhaps a statement around freedom of religion, and the need for them to co-exist would be helpful, (Opposite to John Lennon’s song Imagine) in a way perhaps I am reading too much nuance into this, but I think we need to divorce the secular from these shared frameworks. And because the secular movement has been dominant in this last era, many religious groups have lost the ability to even perceive a world where they are truly a leading part of humanity, so we need to invite them into a larger conversation somehow, to perceive a hopeful place for them, since most of the world are religious this is pretty important. I am curious what you think of this train of thought. (I don’t consider myself religious by the way) There is an element to the logical formula here that I believe is organic and could be considered divine where we are also artists responding to how life is at this current time, as we dream up the future together. What do you think?
And no worries on missing any part of it. 5K words is a lot of words!
I do think that, somehow, we are all connected in The Dreaming, and that we who can see have begun walking towards a new future together. And that process is indeed organic, as it should be. Is that what you mean?
Regarding religion…
I did not want to establish my constitution as a religious document, or explicitly to ground and justify it in the divine. I acknowledge "Nature's God" as the source of natural law, but I am careful not to ground it in faith—I wanted to have it grounded in logic, and let the faith be understood for those who have it.
I did, of course, establish an absolute right to…
XII. BELIEF SYSTEMS
To create, maintain, and freely practice associative belief systems: ideologies, schools of thought, religious traditions, and any other products of collaborative thought, conscience, belief, faith, and imagination; to associate with others and adhere to belief systems; to refuse to choose or associate with any belief system; to choose one’s manner of adherence to a belief system; to form institutions for the observance, maintenance, and propagation of belief systems, and for those institutions to self-govern, and to solicit, train, and expel members.
Connected in the dreaming, that should be a book name. :)
I can imagine there will be a few different documents with common frameworks in the future addressing humanity from different angles, I suppose it was fitting to address Religion like you did for a constitution.
Yeah, I was trying to hit all the basics—the MUST-HAVE stuff, and then leave it to individuals and polities to figure out the rest.
"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."
—A lot of people glaze over with too much philosophy. But I believe it is essential. That is the groundwork upon which we base our claims. And that groundwork cannot only claim legitimacy through appeals to "right reason" or "because God made it this way." We have to actually show our work, just like you do in math class.
Yes, It's a formula, where all the parts need to interact, and earthlings will need to put effort into understanding the interaction of many principles or truths to achieve a shifted state of consciousness. So building and demonstrating frameworks is the closest I can conceive of to a “meaningful contribution to life”. It’s one of the highest-level elements of humanity we need to evolve forward.
Yes!
Common law, in this case, is the generic version; that is, any system that adjudicates matters using courts and develops a body of law through the accumulation of legal precedents.
This is in contrast, generically, to roman law or code law, which attempts to create laws to fit all possible circumstances, through ex ante legislation.
Common law is organic, develops over time, and bubbles up from the accumulated wisdom of the people. Roman law is invented and imposed top-down by rulers.
Natural law is as I defined it in my comments to you on a different post a few days ago, and in the articles to which I linked there. But you are correct that it is a somewhat generic term that is subject to debate. At some point, if this constitution is used in a real-world scenario, I or someone else will write an official concordance and strictly define all that requires strict definition.
I know you are not my enemy, and thank you for your thoughtful devil's advocacy!
I have to run in a minute, but quickly—
You are certainly correct that there are no easy answers, and imperfect human life will always produce pitfalls.
In the common law, though, I do have to push back. A common law process is the post people-based, least authoritarian way of doing things. It is even more effective when it is backed up by a clear, written constitution. (The Brits, for example, have the former but lack the latter, which is why they are now less free than we are.) if you have not already read it, I bet you would really enjoy Danial Hannan's "Inventing Freedom." It's not all about the common law, but the bits about it are very inspiring.
If they can use a state of emergency to justify whatever they want, they will continue to find reasons to declare states of emergency.
>>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.
I have taken note of this suggestion and will be contemplating it in the weeks ahead!
>>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.
Excellent questions. With a 5,000-word limit, I could not get into as many nuances as I would have liked, and I had a lot of ground to cover. My meta approach left open an easy mechanism for creating addenda that delved into more specifics.
But the bottom line is that there definitely are difficult questions, on the margins, about what constitutes coercive force. Things like a punch to the face are obvious and easy. A little cigar smoke wafting from my back yard to yours? Probably does not rise to the level of "force." But if I dump gasoline in my back yard and poison your well, that has caused obvious harm.
The circumcision thing is tough because it is bound up in religious traditions, etc., but I have begun to see it as highly problematic because it is an irreversible physical change to which the baby cannot consent.
Keeping an aborted baby alive in a lab just seems like hideous torture to me, and that ought to be verboten.
But ultimately, it is impossible for code law to pre-judge all marginal questions, and thus a common law approach will be needed.
>>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".
Interesting… So I do define PERSON in a specific way, and then, because the word is in all caps thereafter, we know that the word is referencing that which has been defined.
So then my question would be this—do you think I defined "person" properly and adequately?
No apology needed! It is a LONG, detailed document—there is a lot to absorb. If I had not written it, I would need to read it nine times!
>>Totally a worthy goal, even if it cost you a couple of thousand because money isn’t really real. 😊 Integrity is real, in some people. Thanks for having it!
The judges had an extremely difficult task—so many different criteria by which to judge, and these sorts of constitutions take us into uncharted waters! Different styles of constitution might be suited to different applications. I am very happy to have been able to do what I thought best and still be recognized for the effort. I am very pleased with the result.
>>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?
That is definitely one way it could manifest. Or the creation of rights-of-way, mutual agreement as to roads, etc.
Thank you for your kind words and your recognition. Yes indeed, this was a lot of work, and it was the result of years of learning and deliberating. And especially some mind-bending thinking—just me, sitting there, talking to myself in my head, trying to figure all this stuff out. Going down every philosophical rabbit hole I could find! 🤣
Thank you. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts.