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 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.
`WS` fixes a shortcoming of the forerunning republic's constitution by explicitly specifying a framework for interpretation and construction in order to ensure consistency in interpretation, since phrases such as "shall not be infringed" have tended to confuse even the most erudite of scholars.
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 founders of the forerunning republic 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.
- *InteGrid*: 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.
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.
Notice that it says that rights and private property law go hand in hand. It does not say that rights and "responsibilities" go hand in hand. The individual is only required at his/her own peril to ensure that their activities do not interfere with the exercise of the capabilities of others - this is a negative injunction. The individual is not beholden to any positive obligations to any other individual, except those obligations which s/he takes on voluntarily in contract. The individual is an end unto himself and not the means to any other individual or group's ends.
`WS` recognizes and respects the sovereignty of the individual with exceptions applied for individuals with cognitive and physical disabilities, communicalble contagions/biohazards, the keeping of records for common law plaintiffs, the display of warnings and cautions, and war readiness.
On laws which require the maintenance of logs and records which are of interest to common law plaintiffs, the aim here is to encourage papertrails at those entities which sit between parties as a witness or service provider in order to act as a disincentive against violations of private property law. Such papertrails may be mandated by the legislature for such things as telecomms companies being required to maintain X years of text message backlog or call logs; or mail (both physical and electronic) service providers being required to preserve X years of logs.
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.
It has became common for politicians of the forerunner republic to call that republic a Democracy or to speak highly of Democracy. The forerunner polity's constitution specifically calls itself a Republic and mandates that a "Republican form of government" be guaranteed to all of its states. `WS` goes further and rectifies this shortcoming of the forerunner constitution by making it clear that not only is `WS` a Republican constitution, but further, that it is intentionally **not** a 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. In graduating past "equality", we will not destroy individual rights, but instead cement them immovable, impregnable and sacrosanct.
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 bigoted groups like racial-nationalists and so on to claim that they have "special wisdom" as a recruitment tool and style themselves a voice of reason and truth against a mainstream current of lies.
It is important to specifically address the followers of Judeo-Christianity and convince them of an error they have accepted as being part of their bible's code of morality when absolutely **isn't** - we offer an olive branch to the (not insignificant) following of Judeo-Christianity to hopefully make it easier for them to graduate from the "equality" doctrine toward a "morality of life" based on objectively verifiable facts.
#### Does the Judeo-Christian bible actually support equality as the foundation for rights? What does it actually say?
A common bromide is that the Judeo-Christian god "created all men equal" -- curiously, this maxim appears nowhere in the Judeo-Christian bible. The Judeo-Christian moral framework does **not** say that their god created all men equal; rather that he created all men *in his image*. Those are two different statements with different ramifications. Judeo-Christian ethics 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. You are commanded to be like the Bereans - so search diligently and see whether this is so.
"Equality" is actually a humanist ethical foundation. In fact, the Judeo-Christian God proudly admits that He creates people unequally in order that when his purpose is fulfilled in a person's life, He (God) might gain even more glory in that He was able to accomplish His purpose through a flawed individual **in spite of** His flaws.
#### Objectivism's "Morality of life" based on the metaphysical identity of humankind is a better approximation of Judeo-Christian morality than "Equality" is.
The Judeo-Christian frameworks of rights asserts the sanctity of human life, stemming from the assertion that humans are created in God's image, and that God has a plan for each human life, and this breaks down in the following way:
- The reverence for humankind's "rights" in Judeo-Christianity start from its assertion about the metaphysical nature of humankind as a species: that every human is an instance of the image of God, and that, God's image being in him/her, that life is sacred.
- Judeo-Christianity then says that humankind, made in God's image, have value to God because He has a purpose for each human; therefore even if a human appears to be deficient to you, you must hold his life sacred because his life has value to God, and you don't know God's purpose for him.
- Furthermore, a human life requires a definite course of action, since there is an objectively verifiable course of action which preserves/promotes human life, and objectively verifiable actions which injure/destroy human life, and Judeo-Christianity commands that one love his neighbour as himself -- or, that one objectively treat one's neighbour in such a way as to ensure that one doesn't engage in courses of action which injure/destroy one's neighbour's life, in the same way that one might do so for oneself.
- In order for a human to fulfill God's purpose for their life, they require freedom both to act for the preservation/promotion of their own life, and freedom to act in pursuit of God's purpose, without interference from other humans or from kings and governments.
- The Objectivist framework of rights *also* stems from the metaphysical identity of mankind as a species: that humankind as a species has a set of metaphyically common properties, attributes and requirements for life which can be observed and confirmed as objective facts. There is a definite course of action which preserves/promotes human life/flourishing (and that these are moral), and there are observable, objectively verifiable courses of action which destroy it (and that these are immoral).
- Objectivism then says that we can make objective judgments about which actions preserve/promote human life and which destroy it and that human morality consists of a code of action governed by objective knowledge of the definite course of action that preserves/promotes human life.
- In order for a human to pursue his/her requirements for life/flourishing, they require freedom to act in pursuit of that life and flourishing, without interference from other humans or from kings and governments.
We submit to the Judeo-Christian world that this framework of rights is a far stronger approximation of their own God's justification for their rights, than the justification given by the "Equality" framework.
Moreover, we submit for all peoples' evaluation, the objectively observable fact that the assertion of "Equality" is simply untrue on its face to begin with.
In this section we will show how neither "God-given rights" nor "equality" suffice as common, objective legal foundations for human rights. A legal rights philosphy must be evident to all within a polity before all can be expected to subordinate their minds to it. Note that `WS` does not opine on whether or not a god exists; it merely points out that, in a polity where multiple world views exist (including atheists):
- "God-given rights" cannot act as a shared legal foundation for rights, since many people do not believe in a god, and those who do, don't agree on which god's commandments should be the objective standard for morality.
- "Equality" cannot act as a shared legal foundation for rights, since any rational person who observes the world around them can see that humans are not in fact, equal.
Our metaphysical nature as a species is a stronger bedrock and foundation for objective rights and morality than either of the traditional theories of rights - especially because it is not merely a theory, but rather a set of observable, objectively verifiable facts. 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**, objective foundation for rights waiting buttress it.
We do not wish to hold anyone born within a `WS` polity captive to our borders, and we wish to make it materially plausible for persons unhappy in `WS` polities to leave, and to encourage those people to leave.
`WS` does not wish to hold anyone captive to its borders, who wishes to leave. This program makes it practical for indepagents who are not happy living in a free market to seek greener pastures elsewhere. It is available only to citizens of `WS`. Indepagents who immigrated willingly to `WS` will not have access to this program.
Again, `WS` does not with to hold captive to its borders, anyone who wishes to leave. An individual born in a `WS` polity who prefers a different polity, is welcome to take advantage of this program to leave, and we welcome the new individual whom they swap citizenship with, with open arms.
## Individual private property sovereignty has veto power over the government
The forerunner American republic was an experiment in self-governance. It was imperfect, and this constitution seeks to improve on the forerunner republic and patch up its holes. In the same way that the forerunner republic was degraded over time, so also will polities based on this constitution. This constitution is not an end unto itself - it is the blueprint for a successor experiment to follow its forerunner. It will eventually be succeeded by a better consitution which will assert and preserve individual private property sovereignty even better than this one does.
As seen in the forerunner republic, the careful wording of a constitution is no guarantee against the insipient, persistent, relentless and incremental efforts by enemies of private property to subvert it and they will labour tirelessly for generations to sieze upon loopholes in the wording and open a chink in the armour of the constitution. It is therefore necessary to clarify that the end goal of this constitution is individual private property sovereignty. The wording of this constitution is merely a maze intended to frustrate the efforts of collectivists and send them off groping in myriad directions.
This constitution and any government based on it are means to the end of individual private property sovereignty and therefore private property sovereignty has veto power over this constitution and the governments based on it.
Regarding the overthrow of a government which infringes on private property sovereignty, the faction which proposes to do this must have a positive proposition. It cannot merely be fighting against tyranny. It must be fighting *for* liberty, and its policies must be openly known to the residents of the polity before any overthrow of the government occurs. Hence the requirement that such a faction must have a publicly published and well disemanated constitution (or amendments to this one). Such a faction must be fighting for a well-identified set of principles which are compatible with individual private property sovereignty.
