patergentium/wellspring
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Finalize 01-principles.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Wellspring
2020-08-16 19:14:41 +10:00
parent 14943401f3
commit 10e28498fc
2 changed files with 110 additions and 44 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

48
01-principles/01-principles-apologia.md
View File

@@ -23,7 +23,55 @@ These symbolic paraphernalia are not intended to imply any collectivist/tribal/n
- *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.
## Rights
Here are examples of rights:
- Indepagents have a right to freedom of movement.
: Left unimpeded, most indepagents are capable of locomotion. It is therefore their right, **by right**, to move freely subject only to private property law.
- Indepagents have a right to freedom of speech.
: Left unimpeded, most indepagents are capable of speech/communication. It is therefore their right, **by right**, to speak freely subject only to private property law.
- Indepagents have a right to freedom of labour.
: Left unimpeded, most indepagents are capable of actuating their intentions through labour. It is therefore their right, **by right**, to labour freely subject only to private property law.
- Indepagents have a right to freedom of contract/trade.
: Left unimpeded, most indepagents are capable of co-operating and trading upon mutually agreeable terms. It is therefore their right, **by right**, to contract/trade subject only to private property law.
- And so on.
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*.
- And so on.
## Republic, not Democracy.
We specifically wanted to make it clear that we are 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. We go further and make rectify the shortcoming of the US constitution by making it clear that we are intentionally **not** a Democracy.
### The need for change
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. We can already hear 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.
- Slavery
:
- LGBT+ rights
:
- Womens' rights
:
...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:
- Artificial Intelligences
:
- Extra-terrestrials
:
## A word on "Equality"
`WS` would like to make it clear and unambiguous that it the **only** form of equality which it values is equality of the application of laws (i.e., "Rule of Law", or "Republicanism"). WS explicitly does **not** value equality of opportunity or equality of outcome as policy goals. This is not to in any way disparage efforts to create equality of opportunity or equality of outcome pursued in the **private sector** via market mechanisms. The Gov't however shall not pursue equality of opportunity or outcome through policy. The gov't notwithstanding **shall** pursue equality of the enforcement of the laws on **all** conagents.
- Any law which pursues equality of outcome shall be unenforceable.
- Any law which pursues equality of opportunity outside of equality of access to the courts for justice, shall be unenforceable.
Equality is a false doctrine which destroys liberty. Judeo-christian morality does not state that all men are equal. 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. A fool could see with the naked eye no two humans are equal.
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.