We have been very careful to ensure that no charges of original sin can be brought against `WS` by extracting only the good ideas from various intellectuals while painstakingly dissociating the project from the reputations and shortcomings of each of them. There are scant few ideological icons who are untainted by identitarianism or some other form of exclusionary bias that serves to turn potential individualists away from individualism.
We would like to emphatically assert that the principles espoused in `WS` are to be taken as stated. If a particular principle is sourced from an intellectual leader who also espouses other ideas that run counter to those expressed in this constitution, it is to be understood that `WS` disavows those other ideas categorically and unreservedly. We would like to unambiguously state that the goal of WS is to create polities that express and live out the idea of individualism -- that every person is judged (**at law**) not by the colour of their skin (or their sex, or any other immutable/irrelevant characteristic) but by the content of their character and their actual actions in practice.
To be even more cautious, we have decided to explicitly address each of the reputations of the people we have referenced in `WS`, here, and explicitly disavow any ideas they professed which antagonize people/groups on the basis of immutable/irrelevant attributes:
- We disavow her views on the European settlers' treatment of the Native Americans, etc.
- Leonard Peikoff:
- We disavow his views on the way that America should have approached the Iraq war. We do not espouse the view that in war, the civilian populace of an enemy nation is in effect, fair game and acceptable collateral damage. We assert that in war, the ideological and political leaders of the enemy entity should be targeted directly where possible, and where it is necessary to engage in large scale destruction in order to destroy the enemy entity, all measures should be taken to be as surgical as is **reasonable and practical** (while also being sure not to paralyze ourselves with inaction in the face of a threat of our own destruction), and **if practical**, to warn civilians to get to safety beforehand.
These symbolic paraphernalia are not intended to imply any collectivist/tribal/nationalist cohesion among individuals but rather to serve as exhortations to the exact opposite. Whereas other polities use mottos, watchwords, anthems, flags, coats of arms, national animals and so on to engender a sense of shared stake in the population, we use these elements to assert the individualist nature of our values and to encourage people to reject collectivist cultural maypoles.
- *ReNoDem*: The American founding fathers omitted an explicit statement that the US Constitution was designed specifically to resist Democracy, and this negligence left the door open for the US Republic to be broken down into a Democracy.
- *Magnificata*: We chose this name because we didn't want to overload the word "magna" in search engine results - ideally, people should easily be able to find information about the magna carta without dealing with overloaded results.
- *GrInt*: It is important to explicitly put down arguments that the legislature is supposed to be passing new laws for their own sake. Legislative stagnation is a value; not a dysvalue.
- *Sictember*: Tyranny is not to be born with longsuffering.
- *RaNO*: Leave no room for arguments that conflate rights with benefits.
The last few holidays (Exis, ReGRe and EIConI) assert positive philosophical arguments which, being included in the body of the text, leave paltry room for certain destructive philosophies to gain purchase in any discussion of the "meaning" of the text.
Contagions do not respect private property and do not limit their deleterious effects only to those actors who volitionally put themselves at risk. In order to enforce non-interference, controls on the behaviours of infected/contagious entities may be required. Biohazard may materials into the same category, though not as frequently as contagions because contagions actively seek to propagate themselves, independent of whether or not their host intends to assist them in propagation.
In the same way, the preparation for war readiness may require the government to purchase assets, geographical locations etc whose control is essential.
Left unimpeded, most indepagents are capable of exercising each of these rights. It is therefore their right, **by right**, to exercise them subject only to the principle of non-interference (private property law).
Here are examples of things which are **not** the exercise of rights, but rather impositions of obligations on **other** indepagents -- i.e., they impede the free exercise of the rights of some **other** indepagent:
- A "right to healthcare".
: A claim to a "right to healthcare" amounts to a claim on the ability to compel a healthcare worker to perform medical labour on the indepagent claiming the right, *even if the healthcare worker does not voluntarily agree to be bound by the claim*.
- A "right to housing".
: A claim to a "right to housing" amounts to a claim on the labour of a construction worker to perform labour for the benefit of the indepagent claiming the right, or a claim to sieze the existing housing property owned by another indepagent, *even if the construction worker or landlord does not voluntarily agree to be bound by the claim*.
This mechanism is intended to allow people to resist government overreach by making certain classes of edict "unenforceable". It amounts to making government overreach in those areas null and void since overreaching laws would theoretically never gain actuating force. Any conagent taking orders to enforce an unenforceable thing should understand that it does so at its own peril.
Explicitly make it clear that `WS` is a Republic and not a Democracy in the body of the document because one of the biggest problems liberty defenders have had to contend with in the American constitution is that it is never explicitly stated that the US Constitution is **not** a Democracy. It has even become common for US politicians to call the USA a Democracy or to speak highly of Democracy. The US constitution specifically calls itself a Republic and mandates that a "Republican form of government" be guaranteed to all of the states. `WS` goes further rectifies this shortcoming of the US constitution by making it clear that it is intentionally **not** a Democracy.
`WS` rejects rule by whim, in all of its forms. Here are some examples of rule by whim:
- Democracy
: Rule of some defined majority. In a democracy the changing whims of some defined majority **is** the law. Irrespective of what may be written down in the law books at any given time, if a shift in the mind of that controlling majority occurs, the laws on the books will soon follow. The law is what inhabits the minds (i.e., the whim) of that defined majority.
- Kakistocracy
: Rule of judges. In a Kakistocracy, the changing whims of some subset of the Judiciary **is** the law. Irrespective of what may be written down in the law books at any given time, if a shift in the mind of that controlling group in the Judiciary occurs, the laws on the books will soon follow. The law is what inhabits the minds (i.e., the whim) of that subset of the judiciary.
- Monarchy
: Rule of kings. In a Monarchy, the changing whims of some defined royal lineage **is** the law. Irrespective of what may be written down in the law books at any given time, if a shift in the mind of that royal lineage occurs, the laws on the books will soon follow. The law is what inhabits the minds (i.e., the whim) of some royal lineage.
In a republic, changes to law may sometimes come rapidly where the values of an overwhelming majority demand those changes; otherwise they come after level headed consideration. In response to the chorus of historical examples (mainly from the USA's constitutional history) purporting to show that the intentionally inflexible nature of Republics denies individual sovereignty to oppressed groups. Allow us to address some of those arguments.
...And here are some arguments we will pre-empt by showing that we have also considered the rights of groups of entities which do not yet even exist, but may exist in the future:
Equality is a false doctrine which destroys liberty.
It is important that we abandon "equality" as a foundation for rights. A fool could see with the naked eye no two humans are equal and in fact often because people desperately assert it as being true when it is plainly false, it creates room for groups like racial-nationalists and so on to claim that they have "special wisdom" as a recruitment tool. When the entire mainstream adopts a lie, simple truths appear to be revolutionary; and in such an environment, bigots are enabled to style themselves a voice of reason and truth against the mainstream current of lies.
### Special appeal to Judeo-Christian believers.
It is important to address a specific audience, namely the followers of Judeo-Christian morality and appraise them of an error they have accepted as being part of their code of values when it is absolutely **not** - the aim of the next paragraph is to offer an olive branch to the (not insignificant) following of Judeo-Christian morality and hopefully make it easier for them to give up the "equality" doctrine.
A commonly quoted bromide is that supposedly the Judeo-Christian god "created all men equal" -- curiously, this maxim does not appear anywhere in the Judeo-Christian bible even once. The Judeo-Christian moral framework does **not** say that the Judeo-Christian god created all men equal, but rather that he created all men *in his image*. Those are two very different statements with very different ramifications. The Judeo-Christian ethical framework is modeled not on equality as the impetus for morals, but on the contrary, it states that you should treat your neighbour as yourself because he was made in God's image, and has value in the eyes of his creator **in spite of** inadequacies clearly visible in him; not because he is your equal. Judeo-Christian believers treat the disadvantaged with respect because their god has a purpose for every individual. "Equality" is actually a humanist ethical foundation.
### An analysis of the two main traditional arguments for rights:
The aim of this section is to examine the efficacy and reliability of both of the traditional rights foundations and point out why they fail to meet the need for an objective, shared view of rights among all the agents within a polity. Please note that this section is a political discussion. `WS` makes no claims about whether or not a god does or doesn't exist. `WS`'s aim is to find a model from which all agents can argue for their rights irrespective of the world view of the court of appeal which they must convince.
This section examines a scenario where we pit believers in both of the traditional foundations against a would-be violator of their rights, and they have no defense against him unless they can convince bystanders of their rights.
#### The "God-given rights" tradition:
Let's assume that the would-be victim is a Judeo-Christian "God-given rights" believer.
To convince the audience, he would say, "God created all men in his image, and in each person is the potential to become a son of god - and so god values all human lives because they are all potentially his children. When you violate a human life, you potentially deprive god of a future child, and you also disrespect the image of god inherent in that person. Therefore, you, audience, should fear god and come to my aid."
This would-be victim's rights rest entirely on whether or not the Judeo-Christian god exists. If he doesn't exist, or if a god exists but is not the Judeo-Christian god, his argument is invalid and his claim to rights has no strength. His would-be violator need only say, "Your god does not exist," and unless the would-be victim could prove that his god exists, he loses the argument.
The "God-given rights" foundation cannot serve as a common framework for asserting rights among large numbers of people who have wildly divergent world views.
#### The "Equality" tradition:
The "Equality" foundation cannot serve as a common framework for asserting rights among large numbers of people who have wildly divergent world views.
### A better way - a New Ideal to serve as the foundation for rights:
There is no harm in acknowledging that we are not equal. The fabric of our defense of the rights of the individual will not come undone because there is an even **better** foundation for rights waiting for us.
This constitution however, not being founded on torah, but on private property morality, states that every man is sovereign and his private property rights absolute without exception. Upon this foundation no two humans are equal, but every claim of individual sovereignty over private property is equally sacrosanct, because the dignity, liberty and potential of every person is worth protecting.
