Begin framing notions of rights and property, as well as republicanism

01-principles/01-principles-apologia.md

@@ -21,4 +21,9 @@ To be even more cautious, we have decided to explicitly address each of the repu
 
 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.
 
-- *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.
+- *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.
+
+## 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 explicitly **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.
+

01-principles/01-principles.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 This constitution is a broad template of sorts which is meant to be adapted and adopted by a new era of nations. Its name is `Wellspring` -- it aims to be a wellspring from which oases of reason, reality, egoism and individualism will flourish in a world of collectivism and coercion.
 
-Wellspring, hereafter "`WS`", exists to improve upon the mistakes of the preceding American republic and form a more perfect union. `WS` is intended to establish a free market, minarchist, constitutional republic (i.e, emphatically **not** a democracy) with a strong bias against wealth redistribution. Where unclear, the text is to be interpreted to favour as little redistribution as possible, preferring always none if that is an option.
+Wellspring, hereafter "`WS`", exists to improve upon the mistakes of the preceding American republic and form a more perfect union. `WS` is intended to establish a free market, minarchist, constitutional republic (i.e., emphatically **not** a democracy) with a strong bias against wealth redistribution. Where unclear, the text is to be interpreted to favour as little redistribution as possible, preferring always none if that is an option.
 
 ## Interpretation
 
@@ -35,3 +35,78 @@ Republic Holidays: Each of the cornerstone principles of the republic shall have
   - *Penultimate day*: `Ayn Rand` our Mother (`ARoM`) day.
   - *Last day*: `Aristotle` Our Father (`AroF`) day.
 
+## Rights
+
+### Definition of Rights
+
+Rights are capabilities and nothing more. A "right" is an undertaking which a an indepagent is capable of performing on its own, if left unimpeded. That is, a right is something which an indepagent can perform "by right" of its own nature/design. A right is **not** a claim on the capabilities, mind or labour of **another** indepagent. 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.
+
+
+### Rights protected by this constitution
+
+WS recognizes only 3 fundamental rights; they only apply to indepagents. No other species' rights are recognized before WS' courts. To wit, every other species (depagents, animals and mechanimals) may be privatized as property. Pueragents and Senesagents are types of indepagents.
+
+The right to:
+1. Think/associate/dissociate freely. There are no exceptions.
+2. Speak freely. The exception to this right is where speech is employed to command or request violation of private property by proxy (i.e. "incitement").
+3. Act/labour/move freely. The exception is where action violates others' private property as defined by this Constitution. This right may be abridged in respect of the exceptions outlined in this constitution's definition of private property, but only in as much as is necessary to achieve such ends and no further.
+
+No other right is recognized before a Utopian court. Laws which force other persons' labour shall be unenforceable. E.g, laws to force a medical/insurance worker to labour for others (I.e, no right to healthcare). This shall not be construed to invalidate equitable legal remedies.
+
+## Private Property
+
+Private Property law is the proposition that each indepagent owns its own self (both consciousness and "body") and the produce of its labour (both cognitive and physical). In order to protect the "persons" of indepagents and their labour, private property law secures each indepagent against interference in the forms of **force**, **duress** and **fraud**.
+
+## Republic, not Democracy
+
+The rule of law (i.e., "Republicanism") is that form of government which equally subjects **all** conagents to a publicly published body of law (constitution + legislation) which all conagents can read and make preparations to govern themselves by. It differs from other forms of government in that every other form of government is rule by whim - whether rule by whim of a single individual or rule by whim of a group or collection of groups.
+- 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 some subset of the judiciary.
+- 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 some defined majority.
+- 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.
+
+...You get the idea. `WS` rejects all forms of rule by whim, including rule by whim of a majority (i.e., "Democracy"). We are a republic. We are ruled by a publicly published document. We are not ruled by arbitrary whim. All conagents are equally subject to the same document, which can be read, understood and **predicted** by all, and which applies equally to all and most importantly, which resists **impulsive** changes.
+
+### 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
+:
+
+## Legally valid notion of "Morality"
+
+`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.
+
+
+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. Laws which seek to equalise outcomes or correct the imbalances in ability caused by nature shall be unenforceable.
+
+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.
+