Bitcoin Forum

We, the founders of the free nation, in order to guard the freedom of those who visit or settle in the free nation, do hereby affirm the following principles, rights, and rules of procedure. We expect every person in the free nation to abide by these fundamental laws.

The procedural rules given here are intended as a starting point for the development of rules for maintaining and enforcing natural rights. These rights do not change, but the procedures for maintaining and enforcing them can be continually improved.

Any person offering judicial or police services in the free nation shall be free to specify more detailed rights, obligations, and procedures than those included here, provided they are consistent with the natural law described hereinafter.


Natural Law
 
Natural law describes the natural, voluntary order of human society. This law is timeless, unchangeable, and universal. It takes priority over any other law, including constitutions and contracts. It acknowledges the right of every person to live a life that is governed by his own goals and opinions. Natural law serves to prevent and resolve conflicts between people pursuing contradictory goals. It stipulates that every person shall be free to dispose of his rightfully acquired property and shall refrain from disposing of the property of others without their permission. It permits all activities that do not violate someone else's person or property.

As a matter of principle, a society based on natural law should be maintained by means consistent with that law. These means will then generate—under the disciplines of profit and loss, supply and demand, and peaceful competition in the free market—the information required for discovering the optimal way of protecting natural rights.


Legal Principles
 
I (natural rights)
Every person shall be free to:
1. form his own opinions;
2. control the actions and labour of his own body;
3. use any object not belonging to others and make it his property;
4. make voluntary agreements with others; and
5. defend these freedoms.

II (natural obligations)
Every person shall respect the rights of others, and therefore refrain from:
1. using force or threats thereof against peaceful persons or their rightfully obtained possessions; and
2. disposing otherwise of other people's property without their permission.

III (remedies)
Every person who violates someone's natural rights shall:
1. immediately cease violating them;
2. return the goods thereby alienated;
3. compensate the victim for damage inflicted and profits foregone;
4. pay fines to the victim for willful infringement of his rights.

IV (fines)
If the parties concerned fail to agree on the nature or extent of the fine, it shall be determined by an independent and impartial court of law on the basis of the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances under which it was committed.

V (sanction)
Every person who refuses to remedy the rights he violated loses, to the benefit of his victim and to the extent required for remedy, his right to dispose of his freedom and property, as long as he persists in his refusal.

VI (force)
Every person shall be free to defend his natural rights by using force against his attacker and to call upon police to restore them. In the absence of an impartial judiciary and police, every person shall be free, subject to his liability for his own violations, to use force himself to restore his violated rights.

VII (the police)
The police, including the military, shall not use force save when an independent and impartial court of law has verified that it is used:
1. at the request of a person whose rights have been violated;
2. against the person who violated them;
3. for the sole purpose of remedying such violation;
4. with the least violent means available; and
5. after the violator has refused to comply voluntarily.

VIII (the judiciary)
Every person shall be free to exercise the profession of judge. Judges shall judge only on the basis of facts as presented, not on a person's opinions, achievements, or bodily characteristics. Judges shall only authorise the imposition of obligations that are derived from natural rights.

IX (government)
Government shall consist of all the courts of law and police forces, including the military, that operate in a free market. Its function shall be to adjudicate and enforce natural rights, including the right to compete in the business of supplying government services.

X (government rules)
The rules made by government are either: (1) contrary to natural law and therefore null and void, (2) identical to natural law and therefore superfluous, (3) compatible with natural law and binding only upon those people who knowingly and voluntarily accepted them.


Rights
 
From these legal principles, the following rights are derived. First, a set of rights that apply to adults. Then the rights pertaining to children and one special right pertaining to women. Rights not listed shall be upheld only if they are consistent with the principles set forth above.
Every person shall be free:
1. to live according to his own, peaceful beliefs;
2. to express, in his own language and manner, his thoughts and opinions;
3. to reside in any country, and to move in and out of it along with his possessions, provided he poses no physical danger;
4. to enjoy the privacy of his home, business, papers, and effects, including his mail and telecommunications;
5. to found a family and to raise and educate his children according to his own insights, if he finds a willing mate;
6. to assemble with any others and to join and resign from any voluntary association;
7. to offer his services to people of his choice;
8. to break any employment contract as long as he honours its performance bond;
9. to undertake any economic activity, including the adjudication or enforcement of natural rights, and to keep its profits;
10. to sell, buy, lease, rent, lend, borrow, retain, or give away property by mutual agreement;
11. to exploit his land and waters, and any material in them;
12. to repossess the land, buildings, and other property taken from him in violation of natural rights;
13. to prevent others from spoiling his property by polluting it;
14. to criticise or petition any government institution and avail himself of any services it offers;
15. to keep and bear arms, excluding weapons of mass destruction;
16. to use force himself when his rights are in clear and present danger;
17. to dissolve any government institution which systematically violates natural rights.

Children shall enjoy the same freedom as adults except for restrictions imposed by their parents in the interest of their safety, health, and development. Children become adults when they behave as adults. Children are entitled to receive from their parents: food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education. Parents shall not be liable for the activities of their children unless they could have prevented them. Contracts concluded by a child may be dissolved by a court of justice at the request of the child or any of its parents. When parents are unable or unwilling to care for their child, the child or others acting on its behalf may appeal to a court to appoint a legal guardian who will assume the parental rights and responsibilities.

Women shall be free to abort their pregnancies, at their own discretion and expense.


Rules of Procedure in criminal matters
 
The following rules shall guide the actions of those who provide judicial or police services.
1. Every person accused of having violated a natural right shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty by an impartial court of justice. Until then, he shall be entitled:
1.1 to agree with the plaintiff on initiating, interrupting, and terminating any litigation before a judge of their choice;
1.2 to refuse to submit to a judge who is forced upon him as long as the judge's impartiality is not assured and his request, if any, for a jury has not been granted;
1.3 to be informed, in writing and in a language which he understands, of the nature and cause of the charges against him;
1.4 to try to refute those charges (but no plea of ignorance of natural law shall be accepted);
1.5 to be assisted and represented by counsel of his choice and to keep his communications with that counsel confidential;
1.6 to be allowed adequate time for the presentation of his defence;
1.7 to resist interrogation, to decline to supply evidence against himself or his organisation, and to refuse confession;
1.8 to inspect the evidence brought against him and to cross-examine his accusers and their witnesses;
1.9 to bring in his own witnesses to testify under the same conditions as the witnesses against him;
1.10 to be given a prompt trial, without undue delays, and to receive a copy of its proceedings;
1.11 to reject procedural and evidentiary rules which infringe upon the principle of presumed innocence;
1.12 to decide whether to permit friends, family, the press, and others to attend his trial.
1.13 to present his defense in writing and to elucidate his defense orally at his trial.

2. Every person arrested shall:
2.1 be informed immediately of the reasons for his arrest, his right to remain silent, and the consequences of making statements;
2.2 be given proper food, clothing, shelter, and accommodation as well as instant communication with legal advisors and those who could assist with posting bail;
2.3 be spared torture, assault, mutilation, sterilisation, and other cruel or inhumane treatment;
2.4 be brought without undue delay before a grand jury or impartial court of justice, failing which he shall be entitled to instant release;
2.5 be instructed, in writing and in a language which he understands, of the reason and nature of the charges against him;
2.6 be released from detention when the court finds the charges lacking in credibility or when sufficient guaranty has been given to insure that he will appear at the trial and obey the judgement, and his release would not frustrate the investigation;
2.7 be permitted to receive mail and visitors.

3. Every person convicted of having violated a natural right shall be entitled:
3.1 to be informed, in writing, and in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his conviction;
3.2 to appeal once against his verdict and to have its interpretation of rights reviewed by a separate court;
3.3 to avoid forcible execution of his verdict by complying voluntarily.
4. No person finally convicted or acquitted shall be put in jeopardy again, by the same or by another court, for the same activity.
5. Every person falsely arrested, unduly detained, or mistakenly convicted shall be compensated by the responsible parties.
6. Every person in clear and present danger shall be entitled to use force himself in order to:
6.1 defend his rights against immediate attack;
6.2 stop an attack in progress;
6.3 arrest his attacker caught red-handed;
6.4 seize his attacker's assets for remedying the rights he infringed whenever these assets risk disappearing before a police or judicial agency can secure them;
6.5 conserve proof or evidence; provided that an impartial court of justice certifies, either before or immediately afterwards that: (1) the proof or evidence is or was at risk of being lost and (2) the least violent means available will be, or were, used.
7. Every person whose natural rights have been violated shall be entitled:
7.1 to initiate proceedings against the violator;
7.2 to halt such proceedings and to suspend or stop the execution of any verdict in his favour;
7.3 to ignore any verdict of acquittal which does not state the reasons for the defendant's acquittal;
7.4 to appeal from the verdict in appeal when it overturns the original verdict;
7.5 to have a court's interpretation of rights reviewed by a separate court;
7.6 to have these rights exercised by his heirs if he died or by his agent if he is unable otherwise to exercise them himself.
8. Every parent whose child's natural rights have been violated shall be entitled to seek justice on the child's behalf. If the violator is one of its parents or legal guardians, the child's nearest relatives are entitled to bring suit.
9. Unless other arrangements are agreed to beforehand by the parties involved, the costs incurred by the courts for dispensing justice, as well as any legal costs of the litigants, shall be borne by the defendant if he is convicted, and by the plaintiff if the defendant is acquitted.

This was written by Michael Van Notten.  Statists, get your typing gloves ready and start ripping it apart!

I take that it that the lack of replies signifies that everyone here has no objections, and thinks this should be codified as the law in its entirety.

Really? You mean like wolves, riparian zones, water, old growth forests, and such?

As I've said, these fantasy documents and their authors remain woefully ignorant of such concepts as ecosystem services, ecology, and such.

As soon as you guys come up with something written by someone who actually knows stuff, I'd be interested to read it.

Is your objection to private property, or how its appropriated?  Individuals have appropriated all of the things you mentioned as private property.

This isn't a fantasy document, but a real one.  How would the author's supposed ignorance of ecology affect law?  Do you think a state protects the ecosystem better?

How about you tell me how it works with regard to the examples I gave you? That would be a first step in indicating how well thought out what you're promoting is.


I think the very fact that you're asking that question indicates the document's shortcomings. These things cannot be written within a vacuum.


Yes, I think their solutions are better, but not nearly as good as they could be.

You have heard of dogs?  They were once wolves that someone decided to own.

This isn't a thread about ecology.  The purpose is to reduce the scope of law to securing the rights of life, liberty, and property, and letting free individuals figure out the rest.  If you have an objection, please express it clearly and logically, and I'll be happy to discuss it.


I'm unlikely to convince you that people working together voluntarily can fix problems better than a democracy if you believe this.  The information is out there if you are interested.

The reason that replies have been sparse is there's nothing new here.  As far as codifying laws for nonexistent communities, that sort of paralegal busywork is as entertaining as debating what color we'd paint our castle if we had a castle, or discussing the finer points of law in Equestria.  Meh.   

Yeah, I've heard of dogs. I love them. But dogs aren't wolves.


It is. I'll explain why.

Imagine someone so pompous as to present a codified document about cleaning procedures inside a hospital without having any knowledge about the following:

- What actually goes on in the hospital
- What the schedules are
- What allergens are
- What a mop is
- What a floor polisher is
- What dust is

Now, I asked you some questions. Please address them.

The bill isn't a map for a centrally planned existence, so I don't see the connection with your example. It's an authority on the definitions and limits of violence in human interaction.  If you have an objection, I'm not seeing it.

To answer your question; yes, I would translate that to mean that someone could use any wolves, riparian zones, water, old growth forests, and such not belonging to others and make it his property.  I don't know how that would work; I would leave that to people who are interested.

Well, for starters, there is no unclaimed land left on this Earth, or land that doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of some existing treaties. So it's a fantasy document then, or is this for the Moon, Mars or perhaps Ganymede?

If on the other hand, we wish to assume that it could somehow work on Earth, I then can only assume that you then advocate those that are ignorant to be allowed to mess it up for others. Is that so?

Of course, I'm assuming you're completely cognizant of the relationship between wolves, riparian zones and the water supply. Are you?

Also, I'm assuming you're fully cognizant of the relationship between old growth forests and the material sciences, computer sciences, biological sciences, and soil sustainability, among other relationships? Are you?

To summarize, you're fully aware of the ramifications of what you believe? Correct?

Of course making up laws is central planning, in your own words "an authority on the definitions and limits of violence in human interaction." Cough.
Since you just codified this codex, i presume you're the "authority" you mentioned. 
An authoritative codex is codified by an authority, unless U R taking dictation, in that case explain who R U scribing for?

I'm sorry, but these just don't belong until you demonstrate more knowledge on the subject. As for the other stuff, I'm just not bothering to criticize it.


Then, by your own definition, (3) and (11) need to be removed, as your document pertains only to interactions between humans.

Interestingly, the author, who was a legal expert, used this for his work 'Law of the Somalis', which at the time did have land under no jurisdiction. 


Not at all.  I would advocate that someone is free to use their property as they wish, but will be held responsible and liable for any damages to others' life, liberty, or property.


I am not a person who is an ecologist; however, full cognizance is a myth.  There are many disciplines of sciences, and they have varying degrees of knowledge and understanding.  People who specialize in such things have an important place in presenting information, affecting our view of the world, and informing our decisions on cause and effect.  I hold that they must use facts and persuasion instead of the political means to better the world.


You're clearly trying to hint at something.  Please, educate me.  What ecological fact, by glaring omission from Michael Van Notten's Bill of Law, requires violent enforcement?  And for what ends?

You are being vague, so I'm going to take an educated guess that your objection to the lines above is in the potential to cause harm to others.  If you continue reading, the 'rights' section is balanced by the 'obligations' and 'remedies' sections.

Not at all.  They outline freedom from coercion from individuals or groups of individuals in relation to the disposition of your own property, except when compensation is required for otherwise disposing of another's property.

Define property precisely. Define it with respect to:

- Transient physical objects, such as: air, animals, eroding soil, water, root systems, etc.
- Physical extent of property with regard to land (above and below)

Please explain how compensation after irreversible damages occur always trumps regulations. Please explain how a property owner can be coerced to allow inspection of his land to make sure he is not the culprit. Please explain how a property owner compensates another for irreversible damages when he doesn't have the means to do so.

You mean like this idiot, a property rights lawyer, who confuses a political agenda with having knowledge of the environment: http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd

You mean because how he purports to know stuff, he can be the self nominated editor of Environment and Climate News?

Who mean how ignoramuses such as he feel the need to sway the community with bogus propaganda because he doesn't like what real science tells him?

In other words, your hero is just a dumbfuck that you idolize because he puts law above knowledge? Because he thinks he knows what's appropriate when operating with willful ignorance?

The Bill does not define property.  Instead, it states that "The procedural rules given here are intended as a starting point for the development of rules for maintaining and enforcing natural rights. These rights do not change, but the procedures for maintaining and enforcing them can be continually improved."  If you are interested in theory of property, there are many other discussions which address it.

No. This is the place for discussing property. Right here. Otherwise, remove items 3 and 11. If they're in there, then we need a full understanding of property. If you can't defend them, get rid of them. So far, you've failed miserably, as you don't even understand what you're saying.

The world is too complex for your simplistic view.

I've never heard of this person you claim is my hero and that I idolize, and it's a weak straw-man argument.  If you have something to actually say, go for it.

I didn't say you heard of him. But he's right up your alley. He's an example of the stupidity I'm fighting against, which has manifested itself in this thread by you quoting some document from your idol.

Now, back to those issues regarding property.

Also, without rendering you exempt from answering any of my prior, as of yet unanswered questions, please define "claim", as in the process of claiming, particularly with regard to land.

wdmw, you seem to be trying to codify a set of laws based on libertarian natural rights. I think it's an error to try to do this.

The beauty and sheer elegance of libertarian natural rights principle is the fact that it can be summed up in a sentence: people are sovereign in their own body, and any property derived from it. Naturally this extends to all manner of human rights, property rights, tort law, et cetera; it's unwise of anybody to specify how that should happen - that's the job of experts in each particular field.

So to address FirstAscent's questions: I don't know. All that's important is that the natural rights principle is applied consistently - that way the rights of all involved are protected.

Please explain what the hell the bolded part actually means. In detail. Be precise. Factor in what I've said thus far if it applies to what you believe the bolded part means.

The whole point is to not be too precise, because people are fallible and the world changes. As I said, it's up to experts in the relevant field to interpret the principle and apply it consistently.

Just for the purpose of illustration though, I'll speculate on how it might be applied.

Any property you derive from your body (i.e. labour) is rightfully yours. If you take some unused land, sow seeds on it, and grow crops, those crops are rightfully yours. Furthermore, because you've transformed previously unproductive land, it could be argued that the land is now yours too (again, this is a matter of interpretation).

You are sovereign in any property that is rightfully yours. This means you can do whatever you like with it, so long as it doesn't infringe the natural rights of others. From this, we derive free trade and all associated benefits.

Lebensraum: ...  The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum ("living space") as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; :D -wikip

Good job I'm referring to this natural rights principle then, isn't it....

To clear up, I'm trying to have a discussion about Michael Van Notten's attempt to codify natural rights into law.  I agree with your sentiment that the principle itself is what's important.  What he's done here is to start the process of interpreting and expanding upon the conclusions.

I don't think all of them are correct, but its a good effort.  In the evolution of such a code of law, precedents and rulings would build into a body of common law based on those principles.  The part I find most promising is that this would be developed competitively and non-monopolistically.  This seems like an odd middle-step.  The provision about abortion seems the strangest to me.  To quote a private message I received:


I agree with this statement.  By extrapolating the principle closer to real-life application, you lose the capacity for evolving interpretation based on scientific advancements and discovery.

Oh, please.  I've made more than a worthwhile effort in engaging you in a real discussion about this.  If you're going to be intentionally obtuse and contrarian, I'm not going to continue to entertain you.

Thank you for the response. Let's now consider it.


Please explain what you mean by unproductive land. Why do you think land unchanged by man is unproductive? Are you familiar with the concept of ecosystem services?


That's an interesting proclamation. Why do you believe this?


Let me see if I understand this. I go out into the wild blue yonder, and find an attractive 20 acre plot. In the middle, I build a house, and I create a driveway (a path, road, whatever) from a boundary to my home. I leave the landscape on both sides of the driveway natural and untended.

Some fellow comes along and starts building a shack and tills the fields next to my driveway. Such nerve he has, for the land is mine. I tell him to leave. He refuses, on account that he says I have not claimed the land, because I'm not using it. And so I'm in a race to deflower, decimate, "improve", and "landscape" as much land around my house as I can, before others do.

Now, back to ecosystem services. Are you familiar with the concept or not?

You haven't made any effort at all. All you've done is some vague hand waving, without actually addressing the real meat of the problem. The devil is in the details.

Unless you want to get precise, in order to defend what you've posted, the document clearly has problems. By not digging deeper, it's clear you can't defend it to any degree.

FirstAscent, my examples (unproductive land) are only a rough illustration of how the principle could be applied. I'm not saying that's the way it should be applied, nor do I know how it should be.


That seems self evident to me. Can you give any examples of when products of your labour aren't rightfully yours? If you're going to suggest employment, then that's a voluntary exchange of your labour for a salary. If you're going to suggest taxation, then that is theft and wrong under libertarian natural rights.

So building a sand castle means all the sand is yours? Or, let's take it a step further into what you're actually implying: building a sand castle means that section of the beach is yours?

You build a dam, so that section of river is yours?

You burn down some rainforest to farm. So that land is now yours?

But really, I asked you some more questions. I need answers to those so we can discuss more intelligently these topics.

As I've said, this is all open to interpretation. What I've given you isn't a code of law, it's a principle to guide the creation of one. I believe the best way to do this is through a common law style system of private courts, arbitrators, and tribunals.

To satisfy your hunger for answers right now, I'll give you my opinions:


Depends who owns the beach. If the answer is no-one, then yes.


No. Common sense applies.


Interesting one. If the river isn't owned in the first place, then I'd say yes.


This is a more difficult one. Fire is a very indiscriminate, unproductive way to claim land. For this reason, I'd argue that the claim is illegitimate. Just my opinion.

Think hard about this one. Is the sand yours for removal? Can someone else destroy the castle? Three days later? What about when the sand castle erodes away?


Common sense is the gateway to slippery slopes.


So do you own the water? Which water?

Anyway, you're still not addressing other concerns that I've mentioned. Very important concerns.

So are we going to flesh out the whole of libertarian case law right now? Don't think I have the time for that! Not that anyone would be going to court over sandcastles... but I'm taking your point as a metaphor.


Is it? Can you provide any examples or reasoning?

I have a pretty good counter-example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law


Do you mean the ecosystem concerns? If someone can be proved to be damaging the environment, then they should be sued in court.

This is the heart of the problem. When all the neighbors are damaging the environment, they all look the other way. When all the neighbors are ignorant of what ecosystem services are, nothing gets stopped. When damages have to occur before any action is taken, it's kind of too late.

Knowledge is key.

And you have yet to address the scenario I laid out for you about the driveway and the land next to it. And I'm still wondering if you even really know what ecosystem services are.

Really? Where I live there seems to be a protest at every new oil drill, fracking experiment, and major infrastructure project. Hardly seems like looking the other way. Private courts would empower these people to take legal action.


I agree. That's why we need specialised private courts making law, not career politicians.


As I said, I'm not going to simulate the development of libertarian case law. I'd recommend reading "For a New Liberty" by Rothbard, he addresses many of these concerns there.