Remember this simple set of points in order to ensure that the constitutional arguments cannot be expelled in a court without making the judge look bad as a result. Just remember that this will work much better if the court is populated with neutral onlookers as well as biased visitors.
The first law in each state is the state constitution. This is the law that defines the positions of the state officials. The role for judges, legislators, and enforcement personnel are all defined by a constitution, whether it be city, state, or federal. In addition, their limits are also defined by the constitution. Without the constitution, the laws passed by legislators have no meaning, and the actions of police and judges have no authority.
In essence, if the constitution does not apply to a case, then there can be no case, because without a constitution, the court, jury, judge, and all police personnel have no authority, and the laws passed are not enforceable without severe loss of face.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The Words of Cognitive Dissonance
I'm lying.
The above phrase was used by a Captain James T. Kirk in order to confuse a robot into a sort of mental paradox where two conflicting statements are simultaneously accepted as truth, even at the same time that they are rejected as lies. After all, if Jim was lying, then he was telling the truth. If he was telling the truth, then he was lying.
This is the basis of the more generalized concept known as "Cognitive Dissonance," where two conflicting facts vie to be accepted to a person's worldview. While it's not nearly as fatal to a human being, it does have a side effect; a person who suffers cognitive dissonance becomes uncomfortable with the topic, and either attempts to change the topic, or ignores anything that conflicts with it in the hope that it will go away.
Generally, the correct action to prevent cognitive dissonance is to reject the incorrect concept. However, when some evidence turns up to conflict with a deeply-held belief, rejecting a foundation of your combined sum of knowledge can make this a difficult process. The more deep the belief, the more dissonance you will need to experience before you can finally reject that deeply-held belief for something more realistic. Some can never release the incorrect belief, either because it was too deeply placed, or because there's too much fear of the alternative.
Before I continue, let's read an excerpt from The Golden Apple, by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea.
At this point, it would seem prudent to make a clearer distinction, and offer my own definition of the word fnord, as well as contra-fnord, which is actually what the word 'law' is.
Examples of fnords are 'illegal' and 'sin.' Anything associated with these words are generally feared by the general populace, and often laws are formed specifically to give a subset of this population, called 'law enforcers' the permission to attack those people associated with these words.
Examples of contra-fnords are 'legal,' 'sacred,' and 'mandatory.' Anything associated with these words are generally permitted by the general populace, and those who have/do anything associated with these words are generally safe from attack by the above 'law enforcers.'
Laws are considered the key tool to direct fnords and counter-fnords. Any time someone fears a specific thing, they can add that thing to the fnord association, thereby ensuring that future generations of people will consider that thing as positive or negative, and act accordingly.
Fnords and contra-fnords are most easily laid down during childhood, which the children do not know enough to counter the questionable claims. The above excerpt also mentioned hypnosis in passing, but such a step, while expedient, is not absolutely necessary if the conditioning begins early enough in life.
The purpose of a fnord is essentially to encourage people to avoid inconsistencies, rather than resolving them. It's much easier to say that marijuana is illegal than to explain why it's actually bad. It's much easier to claim national security as a reason to keep those Spanish-speaking people from coming to one's hometown, instead of actually explaining that one does not wish to speak Spanish. And it's MUCH easier to blame the breakdown of families on homosexuals than to think about the breakdown on individual responsibility.
This encouragement causes ignorance of contradiction and inconsistency. People who ignore contradiction and inconsistency are easier to control. Their lives become easier, because alternatives are safely kept away from them. They become slaves, while still believing they are free, and as a result, are much easier to fleece.
The worst happens, though, when the aware are no longer around. The fleecing will continue, but the masters will believe the very same story that the slaves do, and eventually, the lie becomes the master in place of the liar, and becomes a twisted dance of inconsistency and contradiction.
The examples are numerous: How do police "protect and serve?" By attacking and commanding. How is freedom maintained? By passing prohibitions, mandating behavior, and killing or locking in cages everyone who disagrees with one's definition of freedom. What are rights? Benefits mandated of the providers of goods and services. How is freedom spread? By committing mass-murder.
Those who can "see the fnords" will recognize the above as completely accurate, if negative in its display. Those who are conditioned by the fnords see the above as mischaracterization and possibly downright lies. After all, it's not locking in cages if it's arresting a person. And it's not mass-murder if war is declared, right? And police serve by attacking those who do not obey the law, right? Even if the law is nothing more than a list of commands.
If one is surrounded by illusions, they may very well get hurt by what's really there. This applies when one is walking about in darkness, or under a hallucination; when someone walks in an area that they cannot observe what's there, they may hit, step on, or trip over something, possibly hurting themselves in the process.
The same applies for life. The purpose of living is to maximize one's happiness while minimizing one's misery, and similarly preventing harm and death to oneself. One cannot live free if they cannot see life for what it is, they may act against their own health, survival, or happiness in the effort to comply to some rule that may benefit someone else at their own expense.
In order to escape this trap, cognitive dissonance must be recognized and used. Flawed ideas need to be rejected, and consistency retained. Discard the illusion, take the red pill, look at the fnords, and be free. Learn to live in the real world, no longer fettered by the fnords and contra-fnords in a system gone insane. And find what it truly means to be happy.
The above phrase was used by a Captain James T. Kirk in order to confuse a robot into a sort of mental paradox where two conflicting statements are simultaneously accepted as truth, even at the same time that they are rejected as lies. After all, if Jim was lying, then he was telling the truth. If he was telling the truth, then he was lying.
This is the basis of the more generalized concept known as "Cognitive Dissonance," where two conflicting facts vie to be accepted to a person's worldview. While it's not nearly as fatal to a human being, it does have a side effect; a person who suffers cognitive dissonance becomes uncomfortable with the topic, and either attempts to change the topic, or ignores anything that conflicts with it in the hope that it will go away.
Generally, the correct action to prevent cognitive dissonance is to reject the incorrect concept. However, when some evidence turns up to conflict with a deeply-held belief, rejecting a foundation of your combined sum of knowledge can make this a difficult process. The more deep the belief, the more dissonance you will need to experience before you can finally reject that deeply-held belief for something more realistic. Some can never release the incorrect belief, either because it was too deeply placed, or because there's too much fear of the alternative.
Before I continue, let's read an excerpt from The Golden Apple, by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea.
At this point, it would seem prudent to make a clearer distinction, and offer my own definition of the word fnord, as well as contra-fnord, which is actually what the word 'law' is.
- Fnord: (n.) A word or concept that people are conditioned to feel discomfort and/or fear at its observation. Its absence results in comfort.
- Contra-fnord: (n.) A word or concept that people are conditioned to feel comfort at its observation. Its absence results in discomfort and/or fear.
Examples of fnords are 'illegal' and 'sin.' Anything associated with these words are generally feared by the general populace, and often laws are formed specifically to give a subset of this population, called 'law enforcers' the permission to attack those people associated with these words.
Examples of contra-fnords are 'legal,' 'sacred,' and 'mandatory.' Anything associated with these words are generally permitted by the general populace, and those who have/do anything associated with these words are generally safe from attack by the above 'law enforcers.'
Laws are considered the key tool to direct fnords and counter-fnords. Any time someone fears a specific thing, they can add that thing to the fnord association, thereby ensuring that future generations of people will consider that thing as positive or negative, and act accordingly.
Fnords and contra-fnords are most easily laid down during childhood, which the children do not know enough to counter the questionable claims. The above excerpt also mentioned hypnosis in passing, but such a step, while expedient, is not absolutely necessary if the conditioning begins early enough in life.
The purpose of a fnord is essentially to encourage people to avoid inconsistencies, rather than resolving them. It's much easier to say that marijuana is illegal than to explain why it's actually bad. It's much easier to claim national security as a reason to keep those Spanish-speaking people from coming to one's hometown, instead of actually explaining that one does not wish to speak Spanish. And it's MUCH easier to blame the breakdown of families on homosexuals than to think about the breakdown on individual responsibility.
This encouragement causes ignorance of contradiction and inconsistency. People who ignore contradiction and inconsistency are easier to control. Their lives become easier, because alternatives are safely kept away from them. They become slaves, while still believing they are free, and as a result, are much easier to fleece.
The worst happens, though, when the aware are no longer around. The fleecing will continue, but the masters will believe the very same story that the slaves do, and eventually, the lie becomes the master in place of the liar, and becomes a twisted dance of inconsistency and contradiction.
The examples are numerous: How do police "protect and serve?" By attacking and commanding. How is freedom maintained? By passing prohibitions, mandating behavior, and killing or locking in cages everyone who disagrees with one's definition of freedom. What are rights? Benefits mandated of the providers of goods and services. How is freedom spread? By committing mass-murder.
Those who can "see the fnords" will recognize the above as completely accurate, if negative in its display. Those who are conditioned by the fnords see the above as mischaracterization and possibly downright lies. After all, it's not locking in cages if it's arresting a person. And it's not mass-murder if war is declared, right? And police serve by attacking those who do not obey the law, right? Even if the law is nothing more than a list of commands.
If one is surrounded by illusions, they may very well get hurt by what's really there. This applies when one is walking about in darkness, or under a hallucination; when someone walks in an area that they cannot observe what's there, they may hit, step on, or trip over something, possibly hurting themselves in the process.
The same applies for life. The purpose of living is to maximize one's happiness while minimizing one's misery, and similarly preventing harm and death to oneself. One cannot live free if they cannot see life for what it is, they may act against their own health, survival, or happiness in the effort to comply to some rule that may benefit someone else at their own expense.
In order to escape this trap, cognitive dissonance must be recognized and used. Flawed ideas need to be rejected, and consistency retained. Discard the illusion, take the red pill, look at the fnords, and be free. Learn to live in the real world, no longer fettered by the fnords and contra-fnords in a system gone insane. And find what it truly means to be happy.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The Philosophy of Liberty
The people at the International Society for Individual Liberty have put together a very informative video that explains the basic principles of liberty much more effectively and briefly than I can, and it does fit the "changing paradigm" theme of this particular blog.
This particular work was made by ISIL Director Ken Schoolland, who encourages everyone to "feel free to copy or link it to your website(s) – just be sure to credit us."
This particular work was made by ISIL Director Ken Schoolland, who encourages everyone to "feel free to copy or link it to your website(s) – just be sure to credit us."
Monday, December 8, 2008
Missing the Forest or the Trees
There is a saying, describing a person who pays too much attention to detail, someone who misses the "big picture" in their pursuit of said details. They are "missing the forest for the trees."
Why trees? Why is it that the forest is missed simply because of the trees? Maybe the person is a birdwatcher? Or perhaps is more interested in the composition of the ground flora? Or maybe even interested in the soil composition, or maybe even the earthworms tending to the soil density? Perhaps an archeologist is looking for the signs of an ancient civilization? Perhaps someone is looking for a place to build that building they will eventually call "Home?" Or maybe we have a hunter looking to have some venison and a leather jacket?
There are many people who pay too much attention to the aggregate that they do not pay enough attention to the individual. Why is it that the trees are not important, but the forest is? And why are the trees more important than any other part of a completely healthy forest?
Even so, why should the trees be missed? Why miss the massive oak, the delicate willow, or the symmetrical pine, just because they aren't the aggregate? Aren't the individuals just as important as the aggregate they make up? Would a forest still be a forest without the trees?
Come to think of it, that saying kind of... misses the trees for the forest.
Why trees? Why is it that the forest is missed simply because of the trees? Maybe the person is a birdwatcher? Or perhaps is more interested in the composition of the ground flora? Or maybe even interested in the soil composition, or maybe even the earthworms tending to the soil density? Perhaps an archeologist is looking for the signs of an ancient civilization? Perhaps someone is looking for a place to build that building they will eventually call "Home?" Or maybe we have a hunter looking to have some venison and a leather jacket?
There are many people who pay too much attention to the aggregate that they do not pay enough attention to the individual. Why is it that the trees are not important, but the forest is? And why are the trees more important than any other part of a completely healthy forest?
Even so, why should the trees be missed? Why miss the massive oak, the delicate willow, or the symmetrical pine, just because they aren't the aggregate? Aren't the individuals just as important as the aggregate they make up? Would a forest still be a forest without the trees?
Come to think of it, that saying kind of... misses the trees for the forest.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Principles of Free People
Before we begin, it is helpful to outline some basic terms for the purpose of making this article that much clearer. All the following definitions are from the Mirriam Webster Online dictionary at http://www.merriam-webster.com/. Don't worry, though, these are english defintions, not legal ones, so they should be pretty easy to understand.
Principle: A comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption.
Comprehensive: Covering completely or broadly.
Fundamental: Serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function.
Essential: Of, relating to, or constituting essence.
Essence: The individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence.
This first set of definitions are to determine the meaning of principle. A principle is comprehensive and fundamental, which boils down to the simple fact that it cannot have exceptions. If an exception can be assigned to a principle, than it cannot be a principle for that very reason.
Ownership: The state, relation, or fact of being an owner.
Own: To have power or mastery over.
To own something one must have power or mastery over that thing. Two people cannot own the same thing, because only one person can have power over something at any given time. Ever see the comedies where two people attempt to steer the same car? It usually has devastating (but, since it is a comedy, funny) results, since at that point, nobody really has power over the car.
Self: The union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person.
You are the sum of your body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations, therefore, you are a self.
We now have enough definitions to determine the first principle.
Self-Ownership Principle: The comprehensive and fundamental assumption that one has mastery over the union of elements that constitute the individuality and identity of a peron.
Self-ownership is completely consistent with reality. After all, absolutely nobody has complete mastery over a person other than that person. Sometimes the behavior can be forcefully controlled, but not the emotions, thoughts, and sensations of that person. Therefore, a person owns himself.
Consent: To give assent or approval.
Force: Violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing.
Aggression: A forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master.
Provoke: To stir up purposely.
These two indicate the two prerequisites toward controlling another person. You can either acquire the consent of another through the use of persuation, or you can get compliance through force. Aggression makes the point to include the word "unprevoked," which means that the aggressive party was not provoked into their action, but acted of their own volition. It can be safely assumed that the aggressor did not acquire the consent of the target for their aggression.
Right: Being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper.
Just: Acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good.
Good: Of a favorable character or tendency.
Wrong: Action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause.
Anything that is right is desired, and any action that inflicts harm without due provocation or just cause is wrong, and therefore not of a favorable character.
At this point, we have established that any action that is consented to is not wrong, because any action that is consensual cannot by definition be harm, because a person who gives consent considers the action as favorable, or else they would not have given consent.
Additionally, at this point, we have stated that force is not necessarily right, but is right if there is due provocation or just cause. We now need to define a rule that separates wrong from right force. At this point, we can cover the counterpoint to the Self-Ownership Principle.
Non-Aggression Principle: It is wrong to practice aggression against the non-consenting.
The use of the word "aggression" rather than "force" is a key piece of this principle. It could not be a principle if the word "force" was used, as pacifism, while admirable, is self-defeating. Self-defense is part and parcel with self-ownership, and is therefore a fundamental part of the principle. Eliminate the self-defensive force, and you won't own yourself for very long without external protection.
Essentially, it states that one should only use force when defending their property, e.g. themselves. Any other use of force is wrong.
Finally, we can bring this into what I've been talking about with just about all the articles posted so far.
Prohibit: To prevent from doing something.
Regulate: To make regulations for or concerning.
Regulation: An authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure.
Compel: To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure.
Jurisdiction: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law.
Government: The body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization, the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it, and the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out.
The definition of government is pretty long-winded, but then, it has to be.
A "political unit" is essentially an organized group of people who agree to a certain set of policies, also known as laws. In this political unit is a government, which is a smaller group of people who makes those laws, and sees to the punishments of those who break the laws.
Laws fall into three categories, prohibitions, regulations, and compulsions.
Prohibitions are the laws that state that something cannot be done at all. Examples of prohibitions include prostitution, mind-altering substances, and assault weapons.
Regulations are the laws that state that something can only be done in a certain way, and with the permission of the government. Regulations exist for just about every activity out there, such as building codes, licensing for many professions, and driver's licences, vehicle registrations, and tags to drive a car.
Compulsions are those laws that are mandatory for all members of the political unit. The most obvious compulsions are payment of taxes, and the acceptance of the Federal Reserve Note as a form of currency to repay debt.
The main problem with government is not that it exists. Two things cause a huge amount of the problems we see in society and the world in general:
Additionally, enforcement through aggression is definitively against the non-aggression axiom. This, of course, doesn't apply to protective measures; a policeman protecting a victim from their aggressor is not aggressing himself, but is performing a justified (and no doubt consensual) defense of the victim, and so would not be incompatible. However, any police or military who enforces a compulsion, regulation, or prohibition on a person who is otherwise not aggressing against anyone is themselves aggressing, and therefore is violating the non-aggression principle.
And for those who believe that a nozick-style government meets the requirements even if it is area-based, let's remind you that taxes are a compulsion, and therefore a violation of the non-aggression principle.
At this point, I hope you are beginning to see the other side of government, and are able to make the connection between a government (as it exists today) and a very large gang. Perhaps the two principles might just make you realize that some of the fundamental assumptions you have of certain activities might not be correct. Or maybe you already agree with me and found this to be helpful. In any event, I hope you can come to realize the nature of freedom, and join me in the effort to enlighten others toward true freedom.
Principle: A comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption.
Comprehensive: Covering completely or broadly.
Fundamental: Serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function.
Essential: Of, relating to, or constituting essence.
Essence: The individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence.
This first set of definitions are to determine the meaning of principle. A principle is comprehensive and fundamental, which boils down to the simple fact that it cannot have exceptions. If an exception can be assigned to a principle, than it cannot be a principle for that very reason.
Ownership: The state, relation, or fact of being an owner.
Own: To have power or mastery over.
To own something one must have power or mastery over that thing. Two people cannot own the same thing, because only one person can have power over something at any given time. Ever see the comedies where two people attempt to steer the same car? It usually has devastating (but, since it is a comedy, funny) results, since at that point, nobody really has power over the car.
Self: The union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person.
You are the sum of your body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations, therefore, you are a self.
We now have enough definitions to determine the first principle.
Self-Ownership Principle: The comprehensive and fundamental assumption that one has mastery over the union of elements that constitute the individuality and identity of a peron.
Self-ownership is completely consistent with reality. After all, absolutely nobody has complete mastery over a person other than that person. Sometimes the behavior can be forcefully controlled, but not the emotions, thoughts, and sensations of that person. Therefore, a person owns himself.
Consent: To give assent or approval.
Force: Violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing.
Aggression: A forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master.
Provoke: To stir up purposely.
These two indicate the two prerequisites toward controlling another person. You can either acquire the consent of another through the use of persuation, or you can get compliance through force. Aggression makes the point to include the word "unprevoked," which means that the aggressive party was not provoked into their action, but acted of their own volition. It can be safely assumed that the aggressor did not acquire the consent of the target for their aggression.
Right: Being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper.
Just: Acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good.
Good: Of a favorable character or tendency.
Wrong: Action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause.
Anything that is right is desired, and any action that inflicts harm without due provocation or just cause is wrong, and therefore not of a favorable character.
At this point, we have established that any action that is consented to is not wrong, because any action that is consensual cannot by definition be harm, because a person who gives consent considers the action as favorable, or else they would not have given consent.
Additionally, at this point, we have stated that force is not necessarily right, but is right if there is due provocation or just cause. We now need to define a rule that separates wrong from right force. At this point, we can cover the counterpoint to the Self-Ownership Principle.
Non-Aggression Principle: It is wrong to practice aggression against the non-consenting.
The use of the word "aggression" rather than "force" is a key piece of this principle. It could not be a principle if the word "force" was used, as pacifism, while admirable, is self-defeating. Self-defense is part and parcel with self-ownership, and is therefore a fundamental part of the principle. Eliminate the self-defensive force, and you won't own yourself for very long without external protection.
Essentially, it states that one should only use force when defending their property, e.g. themselves. Any other use of force is wrong.
Finally, we can bring this into what I've been talking about with just about all the articles posted so far.
Prohibit: To prevent from doing something.
Regulate: To make regulations for or concerning.
Regulation: An authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure.
Compel: To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure.
Jurisdiction: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law.
Government: The body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization, the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it, and the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out.
The definition of government is pretty long-winded, but then, it has to be.
A "political unit" is essentially an organized group of people who agree to a certain set of policies, also known as laws. In this political unit is a government, which is a smaller group of people who makes those laws, and sees to the punishments of those who break the laws.
Laws fall into three categories, prohibitions, regulations, and compulsions.
Prohibitions are the laws that state that something cannot be done at all. Examples of prohibitions include prostitution, mind-altering substances, and assault weapons.
Regulations are the laws that state that something can only be done in a certain way, and with the permission of the government. Regulations exist for just about every activity out there, such as building codes, licensing for many professions, and driver's licences, vehicle registrations, and tags to drive a car.
Compulsions are those laws that are mandatory for all members of the political unit. The most obvious compulsions are payment of taxes, and the acceptance of the Federal Reserve Note as a form of currency to repay debt.
The main problem with government is not that it exists. Two things cause a huge amount of the problems we see in society and the world in general:
- Jurisdiction focuses on land area rather than voluntary membership.
- Laws are enforced through aggressive action.
Additionally, enforcement through aggression is definitively against the non-aggression axiom. This, of course, doesn't apply to protective measures; a policeman protecting a victim from their aggressor is not aggressing himself, but is performing a justified (and no doubt consensual) defense of the victim, and so would not be incompatible. However, any police or military who enforces a compulsion, regulation, or prohibition on a person who is otherwise not aggressing against anyone is themselves aggressing, and therefore is violating the non-aggression principle.
And for those who believe that a nozick-style government meets the requirements even if it is area-based, let's remind you that taxes are a compulsion, and therefore a violation of the non-aggression principle.
At this point, I hope you are beginning to see the other side of government, and are able to make the connection between a government (as it exists today) and a very large gang. Perhaps the two principles might just make you realize that some of the fundamental assumptions you have of certain activities might not be correct. Or maybe you already agree with me and found this to be helpful. In any event, I hope you can come to realize the nature of freedom, and join me in the effort to enlighten others toward true freedom.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Separating Justice and Crime
What is the government?
Is taxation extortion and armed robbery?
Is capital punishment murder?
Is war mass-murder?
Is the law a system of slavery?
Is an arrest a kidnapping?
Is jurisdiction turf?
Are soldiers hired killers?
Are police gangsters?
If none of the above apply, then what separates the boldfaced from the italicized?
The answer many will have is authority. Only one thing can give authority, and that is consent... and any compliance given to avoid being the victim of violent behavior is not consent.
Just something to think about.
Is taxation extortion and armed robbery?
Is capital punishment murder?
Is war mass-murder?
Is the law a system of slavery?
Is an arrest a kidnapping?
Is jurisdiction turf?
Are soldiers hired killers?
Are police gangsters?
If none of the above apply, then what separates the boldfaced from the italicized?
The answer many will have is authority. Only one thing can give authority, and that is consent... and any compliance given to avoid being the victim of violent behavior is not consent.
Just something to think about.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Voluntary Society Blueprint
This is the blueprint for a society that is both orderly and free of a monopolistic and violent government. The "society" would be built of multiple levels:
- The baseline society would consist of a universally-accepted rule: honor your commitments. No matter what society you would be a part of, if you cannot be trusted to honor your commitments, then you will not be trusted to enter into a contract with any particular tuath.
- The second level is the tuath, or contract society; once you sign a contract with your reputation provider, they will vouch for you in all your transactions. This is important, as these insurers can provide a person with an authority as is recognized today, and people are free to acknowledge or disregard a person based on who represents them.
- An alternative to the tuath is the social society. This consists of the personal acquaintances, friends, and family; the basic support structure one can fall back on if they are unable to contract with a tuath, due to possible previous reputation blunders, or if they are unwilling to contract with any available tuath, and do not want to start their own.
Baseline Society
The baseline society is just that: baseline. All societies need to follow the base rule in order to be compatible enough in order to interoperate. The base rule is simple: honor your commitments. If one cannot honor commitments, then nobody can trust the contracts they sign, and any relationships they have with family and friends would be likely strained to the point that even family wouldn't want to vouch for them.
Tuath is a Gaelic word that means "people." In this case, it refers to a government contracted by its "citizens," in other words, the members of a tuath are members because they explicitly signed to join the society. Tuaths include a special charter that identifies the basic principles upon which their laws are based. Tuaths are the bulk of the society's design; they allow a strong support behind their member through multiple services (these may be part of the premiums, or they may be a separate expense).
The social society is simply one's circle of friends and family. Where tuaths are for allowing strangers to live in peace with one another by minding contractual obligations, the social society exists through a separate set of links through personal interests and family connections. These can span multiple tuaths, as tuath contracts are personal, rather than group-based, so social society systems can be formed to settle conflicts within the social society instead of the tuath; these are usually more informal, but ultimately stronger due to the kinds of connections that are formed through the bonds of friendship and kinship.
If a person had broken enough contracts to be disqualified for tuath membership, and was unpleasant enough to be rejected by a social society, they may still have access to some services; tuaths do not require their members to only service other members, and some are willing to serve anyone if they choose to. Or, maybe the outsider decides to become a hermit, and live under their own power. It's possible for them to do so, and apparently they dislike humanity enough to reach that point to begin with, perhaps long enough for many of the tuaths' statutes of limitations to expire. Perhaps they may even be able to join with other outsiders for mutual protection, and then return to the society as a brand new tuath.
The baseline society is just that: baseline. All societies need to follow the base rule in order to be compatible enough in order to interoperate. The base rule is simple: honor your commitments. If one cannot honor commitments, then nobody can trust the contracts they sign, and any relationships they have with family and friends would be likely strained to the point that even family wouldn't want to vouch for them.
Tuath Society
Tuath is a Gaelic word that means "people." In this case, it refers to a government contracted by its "citizens," in other words, the members of a tuath are members because they explicitly signed to join the society. Tuaths include a special charter that identifies the basic principles upon which their laws are based. Tuaths are the bulk of the society's design; they allow a strong support behind their member through multiple services (these may be part of the premiums, or they may be a separate expense).
- Reputation Record: A reputation provider tracks the contracts and keeps a score of their client's record for easy access, while still ensuring their client's privacy. Reports of contract problems, breaking, etc. are reported to the insurer for recording. The score can also have an effect on the premiums the policyholder pays, so inherent in the system is a spur for good behavior.
- Reputation Insurance: Contracts can break from circumstances outside of anyone's control; an "Act of God" can result in losses resulting from an involuntarily-broken contract. Such problems, in addition to other incidents of an accidental or unavoidable nature can be insured against. Reputation insurance allows the damages from unavoidable situations (and some that may have been avoidable, except for human failure... the safety zone varies from tuath to tuath) to be paid. Then, in order to avoid higher premiums, the policyholder may opt to perform a service in order to compensate the damages caused by the broken contract, thereby nullifying any risk of the contract break being recorded.
- Arbitration Services: There are two forms of arbitration services; intra-tuath and inter-tuath. Intra-tuath arbitration is represented by the tuath they serve, and function as a court system for settling disputes between members of the same tuath. Inter-tuath arbitration have their own tuaths, thereby allowing them to arbitrate a disagreement between the members of two other tuaths, as well as disagreements among themselves. For the purpose of smooth dispute resolution, various tuaths will contract with each other to settle their disputes using specific inter-tuath arbitrators they both trust. This network allows disputes to be resolved even if the members are in conflicting tuaths.
- Advocate Services: When dealing with arbitration, a tuath member may want to have prorfessional representation, someone who is familiar with the practice of debating. Advocates in this system would not practice law, per se, but are professionally capable of recognizing rhetoric and fallacy in arguments; this would allow them to cut through rhetoric and lies to reach the truth of the matter, thereby ensuring that their clients and the tuath are fairly represented.
- Investigation Services: Like the arbitration services, the investigators are split between the intra- and inter-tuath levels, in order to ensure service unbiased by tuathic obligations. Their findings are free to be accepted or refused, so their integrity is of the highest value.
- Security Services: Finally, we focus on the base service of the tuath: the security services. These people work for one of a number of security firms, chartered to protect their clients from outside forces. They have contracts with other security companies to ensure that disputes between forces do not result in a shootout situation, costing valuable equipment and lives. In the case of an invasion, a large number of the security services have invasion contracts which allow them to cooperate with one another to protect the overall area they all service, and can call on reinforcements from other areas for additional cost.
Social Society
The social society is simply one's circle of friends and family. Where tuaths are for allowing strangers to live in peace with one another by minding contractual obligations, the social society exists through a separate set of links through personal interests and family connections. These can span multiple tuaths, as tuath contracts are personal, rather than group-based, so social society systems can be formed to settle conflicts within the social society instead of the tuath; these are usually more informal, but ultimately stronger due to the kinds of connections that are formed through the bonds of friendship and kinship.
Outsiders
If a person had broken enough contracts to be disqualified for tuath membership, and was unpleasant enough to be rejected by a social society, they may still have access to some services; tuaths do not require their members to only service other members, and some are willing to serve anyone if they choose to. Or, maybe the outsider decides to become a hermit, and live under their own power. It's possible for them to do so, and apparently they dislike humanity enough to reach that point to begin with, perhaps long enough for many of the tuaths' statutes of limitations to expire. Perhaps they may even be able to join with other outsiders for mutual protection, and then return to the society as a brand new tuath.
Conclusion
There you have it, a basic society designed around mutual consent, without the violent use of government force to ensure a peaceful and orderly society. Anarchy without chaos. And this is simply one solution from the mind of a simple wonk; there's no telling what other alternatives happen if the free market is opened to the world of competing, non-violent government services.
There you have it, a basic society designed around mutual consent, without the violent use of government force to ensure a peaceful and orderly society. Anarchy without chaos. And this is simply one solution from the mind of a simple wonk; there's no telling what other alternatives happen if the free market is opened to the world of competing, non-violent government services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)