A Conquest

The Rhymer once wrote a sonnet about a woman he loved. Ah, those were the days. But here it is.

I run my hands along her curves. I feel
A subtle sinuosity; complex, but real.
I put my arms around her waist, and hold
A warm, sweet, beautiful sixteen-year-old.
I hold her tight; I take a comfy rest,
As I enjoy the softness of her breast.
I hold her tighter; my nose finds afresh
The subtle perfume of young female flesh.
Next, my desire is for the perfect kiss;
Her lips are quite impossible to miss.
I lure her to my car’s back seat; that done,
We ride to a hotel, and have some fun.
But afterwards, I think: Why was I blind?
I didn’t bother to explore her mind.

How to Re-claim the Law

(From the archives - March 30th, 2005)

The end of law, wrote John Locke, is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.

Bad laws, said Edmund Burke a century later, are the worst sort of tyranny.

The villains that masquerade as government in Britain today do not seem to have learned from either of these sages. For they pile on us bad law after bad law. Their laws are so many and complicated that no-one can possibly know them all, let alone obey them all. In a legislative frenzy, they have invented hundreds of new "crimes.” They hem us about with ever more arbitrary regulations. They persecute whoever is the politically incorrect flavour of the month, for example fox-hunters, smokers or car drivers. They give police more and more powers to interfere in our lives. They want to force on us ID cards and DNA tests. And they prescribe severe fines and penalties for anyone who steps even slightly out of line.

The philosophy of today's laws seems to be that we are too weak and too wanton to govern our own lives. That we are not fit to take responsibility for our actions. That we need to be protected against our own foibles. That we need to be ordered about at every turn.

That we are also to be held strictly liable for any damage (real or presumed) we might be accused of causing, even if we are not in any way malicious, irresponsible or negligent. That it doesn't matter how much cost laws impose on us. And that it's OK for law makers and enforcers to treat innocent people as if we were criminals.

Worse yet is what these villains have done and are doing to law in the wider sense. They undermine the presumption of innocence. They threaten traditional safeguards like jury trial and double jeopardy. They agitate for indefinite detention or house arrest without trial. They claim such measures would only be used against terrorists, but who but a fool would believe them?

Meanwhile, they not only continue but expand their favourite pastime of "legally" draining us of our earned wealth. So putting all of us, however much we honestly earn, in danger of being left destitute in our old age. Much of what they take, they waste. And some they actively use against us. They use our own earned wealth as fuel for the leviathan through which they rule over us and try to impose their wills on us. Preserving and enlarging freedom? Pull the other one.

We need to re-claim the law. We need to make law and government work for good people, not against us. How might we do that? I invite you to consider how, when the lovers of tyranny have been removed from power, we might go about cutting law down to its proper size and function. I am thinking, here, in the context of English law. But I suspect that many of the reforms I suggest will have their counterparts in other systems of law.

The first step in re-claiming the law, I think, must be a negative one. That is, to quickly un-do the worst excesses of what the politicians and their cronies have done to us. I can see no better way to do this than simply to choose a past date, all laws made after which are to be repealed with immediate effect. If I were asked to pick such a date, I would suggest 1st April 1992. That would eliminate all laws made by New Labour, and all laws made by the Tories in their last term of office up to 1997.

I am well aware that this would mean – among much else – tearing up the European constitution and the Kyoto protocol, along with hundreds or thousands of European directives. But so what? They are political frauds. Couldn't the inhabitants of England survive – indeed, prosper – without them? It is law we need, not politics.

The second step in re-claiming the law is a specialist one. It is to distil the centuries of experience, which underlie English law, into a new, simplified law code. How this might be done is a good question. We might entrust the task to a single very eminent professor of law. Or to a committee of such greybeards. Or to several individuals or teams, working in free competition to produce the best code of law possible.

Without pre-judging this question, I think I can give some pointers as to what that law-book might be like.

First, how big will it be? I think it must be small. I suggest 100 pages at the maximum – under 40,000 words. So that anyone who wants to can carry a copy of it around, and refer to it whenever they feel the need.

Second, what will it contain? I think it will have two main parts. One on basic or non-criminal law, one on criminal law. Both will be concerned with principles, rather than with institutions.

The first part will set a framework for the resolution of disputes, and for mechanisms to compensate people who have been treated unreasonably. It will cover personal-law matters, like wills and marriages. It will include the essence of commercial and contract law, and of property law. It will cover torts, and restitution for objective damage caused, whether physical, financial, to the lifestyle or to the reputation.

I think it will also return to centre stage the idea of the reasonable man (and woman). It will reject strict liability. No-one will be liable to compensate unless they have been, in some way, irresponsible, negligent or malicious. Accidents, of course, will happen; but provided those involved have behaved reasonably, compensation for accidents will be a matter for insurance, not for law.

The criminal-law part, I expect, will begin with a list and description of fundamental crimes. Among such crimes might be: Murder. Assault, aggressive violence. Invasion of the home. Invasion of privacy. Theft, in all its forms. Malicious damage to property. Malicious obstruction. Fraud, malicious deception. Bullying or threatening behaviour. Molesting children. Knowingly aiding and abetting others' crimes.

All criminal acts – with two exceptions I will come to – will have something in common. That is to say, crime requires a mental state as well as an action. Criminal law will take account of the centuries-old idea of mens rea; no-one is guilty unless his mind is guilty. Otherwise put, no act can be a crime unless it is done with malicious intent, or such recklessness that a reasonable person would not contemplate doing it.

There are, I think, two exceptions, which lie in the borderland between non-criminal and criminal law. One is manslaughter. Because it does not involve mens rea, manslaughter should not strictly be a crime. However, because of the severity of its effects, traditional wisdom – rightly, I think – demands that it should be treated as if it were a crime.

The second exception is contempt of court, or failure to observe a judgement. This provides the escalation procedure, from penalties based on restitution, to criminal penalties, which may include punishment as well as restitution.

The law-book will not lay down specific penalties for specific offences. That, after all, is one of the things judges are for. However, it will set out the principle that the punishment for crime must always, taking account of the circumstances, be in proportion to the crime.

It will also specify the grounds on which criminal judgements should be based. For example, that a suspect must be presumed innocent until proved guilty. That any accusation must be tried without undue delay. That the accused is entitled to a full and fair hearing. That all judgements must be objective and impartial. That individuals may only be penalized if they are culpable beyond reasonable doubt. That it is better that ten guilty go free, than that one innocent is wrongly punished.

The third step is to correct the institutions, which implement the rule of law. I will base my suggestions on the Enlightenment model of government, in which powers are separated into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial.

Of course, political government today has more branches than just the Enlightenment ones. There is the Uncompetitive, providing generally low-quality services that aren't what we want. There is the Politically Corrective (also known as the Meddle Class), providing cushy bureaucrat jobs for those that like to use good-sounding ideals, like racial equality or health and safety, to interfere in people's lives – from a height. And there is the Kleptocracy, that drains us of our wealth to keep the political shebang going. Since none of these branches has anything to do with the kind of law that benefits good people, I will only say; the Uncompetitive has got to get competitive, and the others have got to go. So I will concentrate on the three valid branches of government: judiciary, executive, legislative.

The judiciary are today, so it appears, the least corrupt of the three. Therefore, they will suffer the least pruning. Indeed, they will be more important under the new system than the old. Nevertheless, any judge that makes judgements on grounds of political policy, rather than objective justice, must go. No more Judge Jeffreys!

The executive – enforcers of law, including the police – are another matter. While the best of them do a reasonable job, there are too many that seem to like enforcing bad laws. Too many of them like to pounce on anyone who is or might be breaking some arbitrary regulation that wasn't there just a few years ago. Those that were tasked with preserving and enlarging freedom, but failed in that task, will be pruned as they deserve.

It is, however, in the legislative that the worst problems lie. Indeed, the very existence of the Uncompetitive, the Meddle Class and the Kleptocracy is all the fault of the legislative, and those that greased their palms.

It is tempting to think that we might be able to get away without having lawmakers at all; that our law-book could suffice for ever. I think, though, that this view is short-sighted. The law has to be able to evolve to meet new situations.

But, to prevent today's legislative anarchy being repeated, the powers of the legislature must be strongly circumscribed. Except in clear case of emergency, I think meetings of the legislature should be restricted to – at maximum – two weeks each year. And that no-one should be allowed to be a member for more than – say – five years. By abolishing career politics, I think these two small changes alone would bring enormous benefits.

Here are some of the rules I think lawmakers of the future should be made to keep to. One, no law may be made with intent to harm any individual or group, or to treat anyone worse than they treat others. Two, no law may demean people by taking away their right to make and be responsible for their own decisions. Three, any proposed law must be shown to have benefits outweighing its costs, before it can come into force. These benefits must be objectively measurable. Four, every new law must be reviewed at least every year, to check that the benefits are exceeding the costs. And any law failing this test must be struck down immediately. Five, the law-book must never exceed 100 pages or 40,000 words. If lawmakers want to bring in a new law, and the law-book is full, they must take out an old one to make room for it.

Furthermore, I can see no reason to do away with traditions when there is nothing obviously better to replace them. Therefore, jury trial should be retained. If a case is too complicated for a jury to understand, it should not be brought. The double jeopardy rule, too, should stand.

And government must be seen for what it is – at best, a necessary evil. Government must never again be allowed to become a drain on, or a danger to, good people. It must never again violate any individual's fundamental rights, such as liberty or property, except in punishment for a crime of which that individual has been convicted, or to hold an individual for a short period prior to trial. (And, if they are found not guilty, they should be compensated for what was done to them). So safeguards against wrongful arrest, and provisions for compensating innocent people who suffer harm at the hands of government, should not be emasculated, but strengthened.

The fourth and final step in re-claiming the law is to bring justice to those concerned. To compensate those who have been harmed by bad laws, and to punish, with appropriate severity, those that have perverted the law.

All government officials that ever bullied innocent human beings must make redress to their victims. And those that stole our earned wealth must be brought to account. The wealth which was stolen, and wasted or used against us, must be repaid, together with interest and damages, to its rightful owners – those who fairly, honestly earned it.

What of those that perverted the law? Edmund Burke was right when he said that bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. Those that lobbied for bad laws, those that polluted the mental climate to try to drum up support for bad laws, and those that made bad laws, are far worse than mere criminals. And when enough good people come to realize this – and that time, I think, is not so far off now – there will be quite a backlash.

When the Revolution (or is it the Renaissance?) comes, I don't think the prospects are going to be too rosy for those with a political record.

What shall we do with the climate-change fraudsters?

To be sung (in case anyone asks) to the tune of “What shall we do with the drunken sailor”.

What shall we do with the climate-change fraudsters,
What shall we do with the climate-change fraudsters,
What shall we do with the climate-change fraudsters,
When they’re brought to justice?

1. Stop them polluting our mental atmosphere,

2. Call them nasty names like “reality deniers,”

3. Make them pay back the green taxes they’ve stolen,

4. Stop them driving and stop them flying,

5. Stop them using energy, turn off their heating,

6. Make them wear muzzles to sequester their emissions,

7. Send them to Yamal and let them freeze.

Riches and Poverty

(Neil's Note: Three more brief sections from "Honest Common Sense.")

Riches

The “rich” get a lot of sneers directed at them. Like “the 1 per cent,” “fat cats,” “idle,” or “uncaring.” Which raises the question: which, if any, rich individuals deserve such censures?

I prefer to separate the question into two. First, how do people become rich, and which of the methods of becoming rich are sneerworthy? And second, when people have control of riches and thus economic power, how do they use their power, and which of those uses deserve scorn?

As to the first question, I see, broadly, seven ways to get rich. First, earning it through honest business in the market. Second, getting it through canny investment. Third, luck – say, inheriting Daddy’s honestly earned millions, or winning a big lottery prize. Fourth, parasitism. That is, while not actually being violent or fraudulent, sucking wealth from the system like a parasite. For example, through commodity speculation, or through asset-stripping of companies.

Fifth, scheming – that is, gaming the system to your own advantage. For example, accepting subsidies, or lobbying for advantages or to harm your competitors. Sixth, the criminal means – such as theft, fraud and intimidation, as practiced by organizations like the Mafia. And last, the political means – which I’ll here characterize as the criminal means plus a false claim of legitimacy. Taxation and currency inflation are good examples of the last category.

With the second question, there is a wrinkle. All of us wield, as individuals, an economic power in proportion to our own wealth. But some – in fact, a small minority – have far more economic power than everyone else, because they also control the spending of organizational budgets. And most are governmental or corporate bosses.

Whether personal or organizational, I see three main ways in which economic power can be used. First, constructively – such as investing in new, innovative businesses or in good, truthful science. Second, neutrally – for example, for your own pleasure and the pleasure of your loved ones or friends. And third, negatively – such as a company screwing its suppliers into dependence, or a government making wars or growing its bureaucracies.

Taking into account all these matters, dear reader, I leave as an exercise for you the following question: Of those who practise the various ways of acquiring and of using wealth, which deserve censure? Or, alternatively: At which of the ‘rich’ should we bitch?

Poverty – Causes

The opposite of rich is poor. Many, many people in the world are poor. A lot of them are very poor. And many more, while not destitute or near it, are far poorer than they deserve to be.

There are many different reasons why individuals are, or become, poor. But all these reasons can, I think, be put into one of four categories. One, lack of access to the free market. Two, lack of ability to create wealth. Three, lack of just reward. And four, debt.

Lack of access to the free market can be due to a variety of causes. For example: Wars or political oppression. Regulatory burden, such as business licensing. Putting people in prison, who aren’t any real danger to anyone else. Tariffs, prohibitions or sanctions. Anti-business culture. Or minimum wage legislation, which prevents people not yet skilled enough to earn the minimum wage from getting jobs at all.

It’s sobering to realize that most, if not all, of these causes of lack of access to the free market come from the acts and attitudes of political governments.

The causes of lack of ability to create wealth divide, for the most part, into two types. First, things which are the individual’s own fault; for example, if they’re too lazy or too dishonest to make the effort to use Oppenheimer’s economic means. And second, things which are no-one’s fault, like illness or disability.

Lack of just reward can sometimes be caused by exploitation of the individual, for example by criminals or by family members. But more commonly, it’s caused by political action, such as taxation or currency inflation. Or by a dishonest, unstable banking and financial system – check out Cyprus. Or by lack of respect for property rights.

Lastly, debt is sometimes a self-caused source of poverty, such as when individuals have spent on credit beyond their means. But debt for individuals can also be caused by others. For example, by overblown legal damages, such as maintenance payments after a divorce. Or by a rapacious state that tries to force its debts on to individual citizens.

Poverty – Solutions

To look for solutions to poverty, I’ll re-arrange the causes of poverty, as above, under three headings. First, things which are the individual’s own fault. Second, things which are someone else’s fault. And third, things which are no-one’s fault.

If an individual’s poverty is caused by that individual’s own fault, the remedy is in the individual’s own hands. No more need be said than: get earning, and if you’re still in debt, pull yourself out of it.

If, however, individuals are poor through someone else’s fault, then it must be the responsibility of those at fault to fix the problem. And those at fault, almost always, are the political class and their cronies.

So, why not help the economy to become sustainable, by taking away the unearned privileges of those responsible for others’ poverty – such as politicians, bureaucrats and corporatists? Why not simply replace redistributory taxes, bureaucracies, regulations and anti-business culture by justice, competition in a fully free market, pro-business culture, property rights and a stable, honest financial system?

That would go a long way towards eliminating poverty among civil human beings, no? And wouldn’t winding up morally and financially bankrupt political states, and distributing their assets among those they taxed and other genuine creditors, help a lot as well?

Furthermore, the Law of Restitution should apply. Those that denied access for the poor to the free market, or supported or benefited from unjust and dishonest institutions or policies, should be made to compensate those they harmed, and if appropriate punished for their crimes too.

In the last case, where individuals’ poverty is no-one’s fault, then it’s appropriate to set up schemes of insurance or mutual aid. Such schemes existed in the 19th century, for example the friendly societies. But they were elbowed out by welfare states. In a totally free market, re-vitalization of such schemes should be enough to ensure that no-one is poor through no fault of their own. But even so, charity is always available as a final back-stop.

How to Re-lay a Moral Foundation

(From the archives - February 22nd, 2005)

Today in the West, there is a widespread feeling that something is badly wrong with our moral foundations. The political societies we live in have become decadent, and things are getting worse. Almost every day, the Western world is becoming an uglier, a more suffocating and a more dangerous place.

Traditional moral views, like the biblical Ten Commandments, have lost their power. If "Thou shalt not steal" truly is a moral base of today's societies, then why do political governments routinely seize and waste our earned wealth? If "Thou shalt not kill" is a touchstone of good conduct, then how can there be aggressive military superpowers? And as for "Thou shalt not bear false witness"? Politicians and media break it just about every day.

Moral authority seems to have fallen silent. Instead, we suffer the illegitimate authority of a rampant political class. The members of that class use fraudulent rationalizations and mental manipulation in their attempts to justify bad laws. They make their bad laws ever more arbitrary and more hurtful. And they want to enforce them ever more harshly.

What we are suffering today is moral anarchy. I find myself echoing Andrian von Werburg from 1840s Austria. "The anarchy of a studied despotism is intolerable.”

So, what can we do about it? How can we lovers of freedom help to replace this anarchy by a moral order beneficial to all good human beings? To answer this, I think we must first try to understand what morality is.

The origins of morality, say the professors, are in the natures of social beings. They point to how, in groups of animals living together – monkeys, say – all can gain from helping each other. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. There comes a problem, though, when some animals try to cheat. They accept what others have to offer, without providing enough in return. Not surprisingly, the honest monkeys don't like this. They reject the cheats. Here is the beginning of a moral code: "Thou shalt not cheat.”

A moral code, then, is a set of rules, which mutually benefits those who keep to them, and ostracizes those that do not. For example, you can see in the Ten Commandments the obvious benefits for good people if those around them do not kill them, or steal from them, or bear false witness against them, or covet their possessions or their wives. And being moral is having, and striving to obey, such a moral code.

These ideas seem sound enough to me. But we human beings are far more than animals. If having our backs scratched was the highest need of human existence, we might start out by behaving like the monkeys. But it wouldn't be too long before someone invented a back-scratching machine. And made themselves a fortune.

What sets us human beings above animals is our creative powers. How, then, can we all gain from helping each other? One part of the answer must be, by using our different creative powers for the benefit of others. I use my skills in software to benefit Mr Jones, who in his turn delivers systems that benefit all his customers, including Mrs Smith, who in her turn…

But there's something missing from this picture. There's someone who hasn't had his back scratched yet – the end of the chain, me. If I benefit others, but that benefit doesn't find its way back to me, I'm getting a raw deal. The missing factor, of course, is trade or feedback. Mr Jones pays me for my work for him, which enables me, in my turn, to hire Mr Robinson to do something I want done but can't do myself. Which means that he can…

There is a name for what I have just described. It's called a free-market economy. Each of us, figuratively, scratches others' backs, in the ways that we find we can do well. And each of us gets our back scratched in return, in the ways that we need and enjoy.

But I missed out something else too. Remember those cheating monkeys? Well, the human race isn't immune from them either. There are those, that want to get their backs scratched without putting in the effort to do anything for others in return. Lazy, long-term welfare recipients are an example.

But others are worse cheats yet. Not only do they fail to do their share for the economy. But they maliciously queer others' pitches too. They bully innocent people. They rob people of their earned wealth. They spread lies, propaganda and dishonest rationalizations. They promote policies designed to damage the economy and the quality of people's lives. They try to push people down into a mire of fear and unhappiness. Of course, you have guessed what I am describing. The political class.

I have come to understand that morality and politics are opposites. For morality is a bottom-up thing. It comes from inside us – it comes from our nature. I find it unsurprising that, in the past, morality has been seen as of divine origin. Politics, on the other hand, is top-down. Politics is ultimately a, more or less obvious, smoke-screen that provides apparent legitimacy and an excuse for the political class to arbitrarily rule. No wonder that, as over the last 150 years or so bad politics has taken more and more of a hold over everyone's lives, morality has correspondingly lost ground.

So, what of modern moral systems? Not much to say, really. The Utilitarians made a good try, with their idea that a right act is one that increases happiness – both of those doing it and of others affected by it. The problem with this is, as they realized themselves, it's hard to draw a line between one individual's happiness and another's. What if an act makes one individual much more happy, and another slightly less happy? Is it right or wrong? How do you determine which? It's hard to do justice to individuals in such a system.

Others, myself included, have come up with lists of duties. For example: Avoiding being a drain on others. Peacefulness, non-aggression. Economic productivity. Helping those who help you. Keeping your promises. Not putting obstacles in people's way. Respect for others' fundamental human rights, like property and privacy. Honesty – not using lies, deceit or mental manipulation. Compensating those you harm. Taking responsibility for bringing up your children. These lists seem to be all very fine and good, until you ask, Why these particular rules, and not others? And there is a deeper question too. Where's the payback to me for keeping to these rules, if others don't do likewise?

* * *

Two opposite poles, between which all moral systems float, are egoism and altruism. Egoism is the idea that you should do what is best for you. Altruism is the idea that you should do what is best for others. And by implication, that you should sacrifice your interests for the sake of others' interests.

Egoism and altruism, each alone, do not work. Egoism, when used by those without respect for others – like politicians – leads to exploitation and injustice. But altruism is even worse. It not only suckers good people into missing out on the happiness they deserve. But it also provides apparent justification for requiring sacrifice from others. As George Bernard Shaw said, "Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing.”

Worse yet, with a very few noble exceptions like Mother Teresa, those that promote self-sacrifice do not themselves practise it. Churchmen and politicians tell us that we should do more to help the poor, needy and vulnerable. Yet they do not give up their positions of power and prestige, get out there, roll up their sleeves and get helping these people. They are egoists, yet they preach altruism. Such hypocrites deserve nothing but contempt.

There is, however, a good reason why we should sometimes consider others' interests, even if they have little in common with us. That reason may be paraphrased, "There, but for the grace of God, go I.” When good people suffer accident, or illness, or natural disaster, or are incapacitated by circumstances outside anyone's control, then it makes good sense to do our share to help them out of their troubles. The response of most people to last December's Asian tsunami showed this clearly.

Equally, though, if those concerned are robbers, or spongers, or cheats, or hypocrites, or promote or support political policies to harm us, why should we feel obliged to help them at all? Why should those of us, who value honesty and non-aggression, waste our time, money or compassion on those that cheat us or bully us? No matter how needy they are? After all, isn't rejecting them merely an act of self-defence?

Moralists have tried, with a lot of fiddling about, to find a tenable balance between egoism and altruism. But they haven't succeeded. I think I understand one reason why this is. I think they have been looking for the wrong thing. They have been searching for one great moral system, to knock the socks off all others. They have been seeking a morality that is RIGHT! where all others are WRONG!. They have been chasing after the moral holy grail. Which doesn't exist.

Those who try to balance egoism against altruism have also ignored the very system which can and does provide such a balance – the free market. In a free market, if you start getting too egoist and treating your customers or suppliers badly, you will lose them eventually. And you will get a bad reputation, which will make it harder for you to find new customers or new suppliers. This is an example of what I call common-sense justice. A truly free market balances self and others, by treating individuals in the long term as they treat others.

* * *

When philosopher, activist and student lovers of freedom meet at our international conferences, I am astonished by how relaxed many of us become after a few days. It feels as if, because we have a compatible moral base, including for example bans on initiatory force and fraud, we have far more in common with each other than we do with our so-called countrymen. I think this is something we can and should do much to help along.

We should encourage people to think of themselves as members of a moral community. We should encourage them to think of those far-away people, who share their moral base, as closer to them than the next-door neighbour who doesn't. In this way of thinking, morality does not arise, as it did long ago, from the social group. Rather, the social group arises out of shared morality.

It is clearly in the long-term interest of good people to have a sound moral code, to keep to it as far as they can, and to shun those that don't make an effort to keep to it, or at least something close to it. The question is, what moral code should we choose?

I am going to put into your minds a radical suggestion. What we need is free, open competition between moral codes – as many and varied as possible. What we need is a free market in morality, so that individuals can subscribe to – and be governed by – whichever code suits them best.

What kind of codes will succeed in the moral free market? I will not attempt to pick winners at this stage. Instead, I will try to say what characteristics a successful moral code should have. It will be clear. It will be easy to understand. It will be concise. It will be impartially applicable to everyone. It will bring benefits to its practitioners. And, above all, those who promote it will strive to their utmost to obey it.

Let the competition begin!

The Transition Period

(Neil's Note: This is a brief extract from "Honest Common Sense," discussing some of the steps we will need to make during the transition from current failed political societies into a better world.)

There will need to be a transition period, to get us from today’s shambles into the Age of the Individual and of Civilization. We’ll need to get a lot done quickly.

One important part of the transition will be re-claiming, agreeing and codifying the law. This may not be so easy, because every greybeard in the world will want his two cents’ worth.

A second will be, very quickly, repealing all bad legislation everywhere. Only laws consistent with the law will remain.

A third will be dismantling nation states, demolishing their machinery of power, taxation, bureaucracy, persecution, propaganda and surveillance, and sacking and cancelling the pensions of all those that were part of that machinery. The EU and the UN will go, too.

A fourth aspect of the transition period will be ending the age of conflict, and getting rid of all need for military defence. This may be a little easier; for the way to get rid of wars is to get rid of warmongers. And, in the new era, the dinosaur warmongers will be objects of hatred and contempt.

A fifth will be unwinding the economic and financial mess that the statists and their states have created. And holding those responsible for that mess accountable, as individuals, for their share of putting it right. Those that carried out, or benefited from, the state’s criminal activities will learn how it feels when the boot’s on the other foot.

A sixth will be a large scale scheme of common sense justice against the statists and their cronies. Such justice will be far more exacting than mere revenge. And it won’t take prisoners. (Unless prison is an appropriate punishment for particular individuals). Indeed, it will be so uncompromising that it will serve as a beacon to future ages, to dissuade those born human from ever even thinking about trying to resurrect the state and its politics.

The biggest job, however, won’t be punishing the guilty. It will be compensating the victims of politics. This will include repayment to all those whose lives were damaged by taxation, and compensation to those whose lives or careers were blighted by wars, or repression, or bad policies and legislation.

Company bosses that went to political governments for advantages, too, will be required to compensate those whose lives or careers were damaged as a result. Unless they can show that they were victims of blackmail by officials or others. In which case, the burden of compensation will pass to the blackmailers.

All this won’t be easy. But I think that, given the will, it can be done. And in just a very few years, too.

A Blueprint for Human Civilization

(Neil's Note: This is as big and as radical a set of ideas as I have put forward to date. I worry a little about the length; and I also worry that some of the ideas here may, at first at least, go over many people's heads. But I feel a need to put them forward, even in their current imperfect state. For, as with all such attempts, there will be errors, omissions, bad phrasing and things which simply won't work - and, probably, lots of them. Thus I ask my readers, please, to think hard about the ideas here, and to look at what makes sense and what doesn't, and what can have a chance of working in the real world and what doesn't.

Further note: If you wish to comment, and can't make one here, please go to the Libertarian Alliance website at http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/07/12/a-blueprint-for-human-civilization/ to enter your comment).

Introduction and Summary

To lovers of individual liberty, the political state and the moral privileges it grants to its ruling élites are anathema. Therefore, many liberty lovers oppose government in all its forms and aspects, and come to identify themselves as “anarchists.” But this label creates difficulties. First, because most people associate the word with makers of violent mischief. And second, because anarchism appears, at least on its face, to preclude any possibility of rule of law, or of a system of justice to enable individuals to claim restitution for wrongs.

For me, all constructive interactions between human beings must be based on voluntary choice, and on contract whether formal or informal. But such voluntary interactions can only operate effectively within a framework which encourages all to behave peacefully, justly and honestly. Thus, I value objective justice, the rule of (minimal) law and the defence of human rights. But at the same time, I abhor the state, its politics, and its ruling classes and their privileges. And I see no contradiction in this position.

The fundamental question, for liberty lovers who reject the anarchist label, is: How can we have law and justice without a political state? In this paper, I put forward for discussion a possible basis for an answer to this question. And I aim to do it from the bottom up; that is, from first principles and in a constructive manner.

Preamble

IN VIEW OF:

• The systemic corruption and dishonesty of the political systems currently instituted among human beings,
  

  
  

• The moral and financial bankruptcy of today’s political governments, whether local, national or international,
  

  
  

• The need to defend the lives, security of person, dignity, rights, freedom, and earned prosperity of all civil human beings,
  

  
  

• The need to institute new systems of government to enable civil human beings to live in peace, justice and freedom,
  

THE AUTHOR SUBMITS this Blueprint as an early draft of a potential basis for such a system, and an enabler of discussion.

1: Individuals and Communities

1. Every human being is an individual. Each of us has our own body and our own mind. Each of us experiences our surroundings as an individual, and acts on our surroundings as an individual.
   

   
   

2. On the other hand, human beings are sociable. We naturally form communities at many levels, such as:
   
   1. Partnerships, including marriages.
      
   2. Families.
      
   3. Communes, for example university colleges, monasteries or kibbutzim.
      
   4. The marketplace.
      
   5. Societies with various goals or purposes.
      
   6. Civilization.
      
   2: Voluntary Contract

3. Human beings naturally seek to make, and to carry out, agreements or contracts with others for mutual benefit. Mutual contract, voluntarily entered into, is the basis of all constructive interactions between human beings.
   

   
   

4. Such contracts may be formal or informal, and may involve individuals or groups.
   
   3: Human Nature

   
   

5. Human beings are naturally good, peaceful and honest. Absent perverse incentives, most human beings naturally remain good, peaceful and honest.
   

   
   

6. Human beings naturally seek the truth.
   

   
   

7. Human beings have free will. In consequence, they bear responsibility as individuals for their actions, and for the effects of their actions on others.
   

   
   

8. Human beings are moral agents. We naturally distinguish right conduct from wrong. We seek to improve our understanding of what is right and what is wrong. And most of us have the desire to do right.
   

   
   

9. Human beings naturally seek to adapt to those changes in our environment, which are not of human making.
   

   
   

10. On the other hand, human beings naturally seek to appropriate our surroundings, and to make ourselves masters of them. By applying work to our surroundings, we change our particular corner of existence to suit ourselves. We control it, and make it our own. We bring it to order for our own well-being.
    

    
    

11. Human beings understand that it is wrong to appropriate or to enslave any moral agent, such as a human being. Thus, our mastery over our surroundings does not extend to mastery over other human beings.
    

    
    

12. On the other hand, parents have the responsibility to bring up and to educate their children to become civil human beings. Therefore, they may control the behaviour of their children while they are too young to have yet become moral agents. But they must do it without using force except in extreme need.
    

    
    

13. Human beings naturally make use of the physical resources around them. These resources, whether animal, vegetable, mineral or of some other kind, are ours to use wisely as we see fit.
    

    
    

14. Human beings naturally work and trade with others to create well-being and to build prosperity and Civilization.
    
    4: Civilization

    
    

15. Civilization has three aspects:
    
    1. It is the process, by which civil individuals work and trade with each other to build a fit framework in which all can live.
       
    2. It is the framework, which results from that process.
       
    3. It is the community of all civil human beings.
       

16. On the other hand, Civilization is not a society or a commune. It does not have a “will” of any kind. And its only purpose and goal is to enable civil human beings to live in peace, justice and freedom.
    

    
    

17. Civilization is open to all civil human beings, regardless of race, colour, gender, birthplace, geographical location, language, religion, political or other opinion, culture, social class, wealth, sexual orientation or lifestyle.
    

    
    

18. Civilization is uncompromisingly honest. Among civil human beings, lies, spin, deceit, propaganda, bullshit and hypocrisy are not acceptable.
    

    
    

19. The binding forces of the community of Civilization are shared willingness to behave in a civil manner, and shared desire for peace, justice, rights and freedom for all civil human beings.
    

    
    

20. Civilization respects local, regional, religious, cultural or other traditions, as long as they do not contravene the civil ideals of peace, justice, rights and freedom. On the other hand, Civilization also respects everyone’s right to devise novel ways to do things, and to try them out in company with like-minded others if they wish.
    

    
    

21. Civilization has no geographical boundaries. The only border or wall of Civilization is the one which divides civil human beings – that is, those who behave up to civilized standards – from the uncivil, those that do not.
    
    5: Property

    
    

22. Property is the expression of our mastery over our surroundings.
    

    
    

23. In Civilization, property can rightly be acquired in the following ways:
    
    1. By taking possession of resources not previously owned by anyone.
       
    2. By improvement of property already owned.
       
    3. In voluntary exchange for the provision of labour, goods or services which are valuable to others.
       
    4. By voluntary trade of resources with others.
       
    5. By receipt of a voluntary gift from others.
       

24. All rightly owned property represents part of someone’s life, which has been expended in creating or improving it. Thus, property is life.
    

    
    

25. The owners of resources such as goods, chattels and money (whether one or several persons) have an exclusive right to use these things. They may decide to forgo this right in a particular case if they wish, for example by making a gift or establishing a joint ownership.
    

    
    

26. The owners of goods which they trade to others have a right, at need, to impose reasonable conditions on the subsequent use of those goods. (For example, not to copy a book they have written without permission).
    

    
    

27. The owners of real property have the right to choose who may access their property (or particular parts of it), at what times, and under what conditions. They may agree to forgo this right if they wish, for example if they let the property for a period.
    

    
    

28. The owners of real property may designate parts of their property as easements (such as roads, paths and waterways) for the free movement of people and goods. Such easements (known collectively as the public space) are open to all human beings, without exception.
    

    
    

29. No-one may encircle anyone else’s property and thus prevent access to it from the public space. Nor may anyone refuse to allow easements to such an extent, that their property causes unreasonable obstruction or restriction to the passage of others in any direction, or to services (such as electricity) being provided to other properties.
    

    
    

30. In consequence, the public space is connected. That is, any point of it is accessible from any other without leaving the public space.
    

    
    

31. In Civilization, property rights are sacrosanct, subject only to the Rule of Law and Justice, as described below.
    
    6: Justice

    
    

32. Civilization has a general principle of justice: Each individual, over the long term and in the round, should be treated as he or she treats others.
    

    
    

33. The essence of justice is the balancing of the rights and interests of the individual against the rights and interests of others.
    

    
    

34. Justice aims to avoid gross or persistent treatment of individuals better or worse than they treat others.
    

    
    

35. In Civilization, justice (also known as common sense justice) is objective, without either undue harshness or leniency.
    
    7: Moral Equality

    
    

36. Civilization has a general principle of moral equality: All human beings are morally equal. What is right for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa.
    

    
    

37. Moral equality implies that there exists a code of what is right and wrong. And this is independent of time, place, culture, or the social status of an individual. Thus, morality is universal.
    

    
    

38. This universal moral code, which forms the core of all proper moral systems and is natural for all human beings, is called the Code of Civilization.
    
    8: The Code of Civilization

    
    

39. The Code of Civilization consists mostly of negative rules, or prohibitions. But it allows for two possible sources of positive rules, or mandates:
    
    1. To ensure you can fulfil your obligations to compensate others in the event that you cause them damage. For example, by having insurance if you wish to drive a car.
       
    2. To uphold the principles of Civilization – justice, rights and freedom – when necessary. For example, in a system which uses trial by jury, to perform jury service on reasonable request.
       

40. A draft set of obligations, intended to encapsulate the Code of Civilization, is attached as Annex A.
    

    
    

41. The owners of real property may set additional rules or guidelines for the conduct of those on their property, if they wish.
    

    
    

42. Societies (including communes) may set additional rules or guidelines for the conduct of their members. But no society may make rules to regulate the conduct of anyone other than voluntary members of the society and visitors to its property.
    

    
    

43. Rules or guidelines, imposed by owners of real property on their visitors or by societies on their members, are only valid if they are consistent with the Code of Civilization.
    

    
    

44. The Code of Civilization can evolve as it is applied to new situations through case law. And on rare occasions, new knowledge may become available, which enables a better understanding of the Code. But it cannot be changed by fiat of any individual or group. The Code of Civilization can be discovered; but it cannot be invented.
    

    
    

45. The Code of Civilization has no statute of limitations. It applies to everyone, at all times and in all places.
    

    
    

46. In Civilization, moral equality and the Code of Civilization apply in all circumstances, except if they conflict with justice; in which case, justice will prevail. (Without this proviso, no system of courts of law and justice would be possible).
    

    
    

47. In consequence, the rule which Civilization implements is known as the Rule of Law and Justice.
    
    9: Local Rules

    
    

48. To supplement the Code of Civilization, in specific places there may be local rules. Local rules are sane, sensible, non-politicized conventions for the benefit of all users of the public space in the local area. For example, rules of priority for traffic junctions.
    

    
    

49. All local rules must be consistent with the Code of Civilization.
    

    
    

50. Local rules can be made if agreed by all property owners in the immediate area. They will also usually take account of local traditions.
    

    
    

51. Local rules must be kept to a minimum. They must be clearly publicized and signed, and should not vary unreasonably between neighbouring locations.
    
    10: Rights

    
    

52. Civilization has a general principle of rights: Provided you behave as a civil human being, you have the right to be treated as a civil human being.
    

    
    

53. The rights (human rights) of a civil human being are of three types:
    
    1. Fundamental rights. These result from moral prohibitions of the form “Thou shalt not...” followed by something bad.
       
    2. Rights of non-impedance. These result from moral prohibitions, of the form “Thou shalt not obstruct...” followed by something good.
       
    3. Procedural rights. These represent the best ways so far found to organize Civilization justly.
       

54. A draft list and classification of these rights is attached as Annex B.
    

    
    

55. No-one may claim any “right” (positive right) which can only be provided through violating the rights of others.
    

    
    

56. Rights can on occasion be restricted by the Rule of Law and Justice, as detailed below and as indicated in Annex B.
    

    
    

57. Certain rights may be violated on occasions when there are objective and reasonable grounds to believe that an individual has committed, is committing or is planning to commit some real crime. (For example, it is normally a violation of privacy to film someone, against their will, for longer than a very brief period; but this does not apply in the case of reasonable suspicion of crime).
    

    
    

58. Individuals that fail to respect others’ rights, to the extent that they fail, forfeit correspondingly some of their own rights. It is on this ground that, for example, it is acceptable to deny freedom of movement to convicted criminals in prison.
    

    
    

59. In Civilization, subject only to the exceptions above, the rights of every individual are sacrosanct.
    
    11: Freedom

    
    

60. Civilization has a general principle of freedom: Except where countermanded by justice, the Code of Civilization or respect for others’ rights, individuals are free to choose and act as they wish.
    
    12: Branches of Law

    
    

61. In Civilization, there are three branches of law:
    
    1. Contract law.
       
    2. Restitution law (otherwise known as civil law).
       
    3. Criminal law.
       
    13: Contract Law and Arbitration

62. Contract law enables those, who have suffered or are suffering through breaches of contract by other parties, to claim redress and, at need, compensation for those breaches.
    

    
    

63. Contracts will specify an arbitrator, to rule in the event of a dispute between the parties. The arbitrator’s decision is final.
    

    
    

64. The burden of proof in contract law cases is on the claimant.
    

    
    

65. If the arbitrator becomes unable to continue in the role, the parties to the contract will agree on a replacement arbitrator.
    
    14: Restitution law

    
    

66. Restitution law enables those who have unjustly suffered objective, quantifiable wrongs to claim compensation from the perpetrators of the wrongs. Wrongs include, for example, physical injury, financial damage, or the effects of noise or pollution.
    

    
    

67. Breaches of local rules can be taken into account in restitution law cases.
    

    
    

68. Failure to act, where this failure causes damage to another, can be taken into account in restitution law cases.
    

    
    

69. The burden of proof in restitution law cases is on the claimant. The restitution awarded may vary from what is claimed; this is entirely dependent on the merits of the case.
    

    
    

70. Compensation under restitution law (and, where necessary, under contract law) usually takes, but need not always take, the form of monetary payment.
    
    15: Criminal Law

    
    

71. The need for criminal law arises because certain acts, accompanied by certain states of mind, go against the nature of civil human beings. In John Locke’s words, an individual doing such things “declares himself to quit the principles of human nature and to be a noxious creature.”
    

    
    

72. Thus, criminal law deters the perpetrators of real crimes by punishment, above and beyond compensation to the victims.
    

    
    

73. Real crimes are acts that breach the Code of Civilization or a local rule consistent with it, and are accompanied by a state of “guilty mind” (mens rea), such as greed, malice, irresponsibility beyond the bounds of reason, or a claim of moral privilege.
    

    
    

74. No-one may be punished for any crime unless all three of the act, the breach of the Code or rule, and the mens rea have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    

    
    

75. Criminal punishment must always fit the crime, both in kind and in severity. The punishment may include a period of imprisonment, but only if the criminal is a real danger to others.
    

    
    

76. While the death penalty is not precluded by the Code of Civilization, it is in practice never used.
    

    
    

77. It is possible for either contract or restitution cases to have an additional criminal element. In Civilization, these additional elements are judged separately from the case for redress or compensation.
    

    
    

78. It is possible for a breach of the Code of Civilization to have a criminal element, even if there is no or minimal damage caused to any victim. However, a breach of a local rule cannot have a criminal element unless there is both mens rea and objective, quantifiable damage caused to a victim.
    
    16: Institutions of Civilization

    
    

79. The only institutions of Civilization are justice providers and quality reporters.
    

    
    

80. Both justice providers and quality reporters are subject to the Code of Civilization, and have no moral privileges over other service providers. They compete for customers in the same way as all other companies.
    

    
    

81. Because the Code of Civilization can only be discovered, not invented, there is no legislative in Civilization. Once codified, any proposed change to the Code of Civilization must be approved by all those affected by it.
    

    
    

82. There is no executive in Civilization. Anyone has the right to arrest a suspected criminal and bring them to justice. They may be backed up, at need, by specialists trained in arresting violent individuals. Furthermore, anyone may contract with a justice provider to enforce the decisions of its courts.
    

    
    

83. In Civilization, justice providers and the courts they institute occupy the role of judiciary. However, they are neither centralized nor hierarchical.
    

    
    

84. There is no military in Civilization. All individuals have the right to defend themselves or others at need, with violence in proportion to the attack. Those of demonstrated competence and without criminal convictions may keep and carry weapons, if they wish, to defend themselves or others against attack.
    

    
    

85. Civilization has many currencies. In principle, anyone may issue a currency provided it is backed by sufficient reserves. In practice, currencies are usually based on different baskets of commodities.
    

    
    

86. In Civilization, quality reporters occupy the role of a free press. However, they are neither politicized nor biased.
    

    
    

87. There is no taxation in Civilization. Justice providers are financed by subscriptions and, where appropriate, court fees. Quality reporters are financed by those who choose to pay for the information they provide.
    
    17: Justice Providers

    
    

88. Individuals are free to subscribe to a justice provider, or not if they choose. However, justice providers will normally only take cases brought by their own subscribers. In consequence, those who do not subscribe to a justice provider (or form their own) will be unable to prosecute either restitution or criminal cases.
    

    
    

89. Justice providers institute courts of law, whose function is to make judgements in the three branches of law outlined above.
    

    
    

90. Courts usually follow traditional local rules of procedure, for example in rules of evidence, the ability to call witnesses, and the use of juries.
    

    
    

91. When a court decision has been made in writing and confirmed, and is not subject to appeal, anyone not involved in the case may enter into a contract with the court to enforce the court’s decision. Courts will require that restitution and, if appropriate, punishment are imposed in the correct measure as determined by the court, and without any duplication.
    

    
    

92. Court costs are apportioned by the court according to the merits of the case.
    

    
    

93. The payment of these costs is normally covered in the contract between the plaintiff or defendant and their justice provider. Those who do not subscribe to a justice provider are liable for their full share of the costs.
    
    18: Appeals

    
    

94. In Civilization, after a primary court decision there is generally a single right of appeal to another court.
    

    
    

95. Which justice provider hears the appeal is normally determined by a contract between the court which made the decision and the justice provider of the appellant if he has one.
    

    
    

96. If there is no such contract, or if the appellant is a subscriber to the justice provider which instituted the court, the parties may agree on which justice provider will hear the appeal. If this is not possible, the appellant may contract with any justice provider to hear the appeal.
    
    19: Quality Reporters

    
    

97. Civilization has quality reporters. Their primary function is to investigate and to report objectively on the quality of the goods and services provided by companies, including justice providers.
    

    
    

98. Quality reporters also can test and certify individuals’ competence to perform activities which carry risks to others, for example to drive a car or to use a gun.
    

Annex A: Obligations of the Code of Civilization

This proposal attempts to encapsulate, in ten ethical Laws and five Paths, the obligations, which are imposed on the individual by the core Code of Civilization. These should be considered in conjunction with the conditions in the main part of this Blueprint and the rights in Annex B below.

For more about the Laws and the Paths, please see my book “Honest Common Sense”, ISBN 978-0-9571894-1-6.

A1: Ten Ethical Laws

1. Law of No Harm. Do not do or threaten violence or intentional harm to others, or violate others’ rights or freedom, except as may be justified in the following circumstances:
   
   1. In self-defence,
      
   2. In defence of another, or
      
   3. In the execution of common sense justice.
      

2. Law of Restitution. If your conduct unjustifiably causes harm to others that was reasonably foreseeable, you must compensate them if they require it.
   

   
   

3. Law of No Criminal Intent. Do not act towards others with any of the following:
   
   1. Greed (trying to take more from others than you are justly entitled to),
      
   2. Malice or intolerance,
      
   3. Irresponsibility beyond the bounds of reason,
      
   4. A desire to create or aggravate injustice,
      
   5. An unjust desire to violate rights or freedom, restrict choices or obstruct free trade,
      
   6. A claim that you have moral rights that others do not.
      

4. Law of Civilization. Uphold the principles of common sense justice, human rights and freedom.
   

   
   

5. Law of Reciprocity. Treat others at least as well as they treat you.
   

   
   

6. Law of Truthfulness. Never knowingly lie, deceive, mislead or bullshit, unless strictly necessary to defend yourself or another.
   

   
   

7. Law of Independence. Strive to be independent in thought and actions, to avoid becoming a drain on others, and to take full responsibility for your own life.
   

   
   

8. Law of Contract. Always strive to do what you have freely and knowingly agreed to do.
   

   
   

9. Law of Parenthood. If you have children, bring them up and educate them to be civil human beings.
   

   
   

10. Law of No Aiding or Abetting. Do not knowingly aid, encourage or condone any violation of the Code of Civilization.
    
    A2: Five Paths of Honesty

    
    

11. Be yourself, and let others be themselves.
    

    
    

12. Seek the truth, tell the truth.
    

    
    

13. Seek to know right from wrong, and to do only the right.
    

    
    

14. Create well-being and build Civilization.
    

    
    

15. Practise what you preach.
    

Annex B: List and Classification of Rights

These rights should be considered in conjunction with the conditions in the main part of this Blueprint and the obligations in Annex A above.

B1: Fundamental Rights

Fundamental rights result from moral prohibitions (that is, prohibitions applicable to everyone) of the form “Do not...” followed by something bad. These rights and prohibitions are opposite sides of the same coin.

1. The right to life comes from: “Thou shalt not kill.” It applies to all human beings. It is a purely negative right, and does not impose any obligation to act to preserve life.
   

   
   

2. The right to dignity comes from: “Do not treat any human being as less than a human being.”
   

   
   

3. The right to property comes from: “Thou shalt not steal.” It applies to real property, goods, chattels, money and all other rightly owned property. Because property is life, property rights are sacrosanct, subject only to the Rule of Law and Justice. In particular, any seizure of property or income, other than from the perpetrator of a wrong in order to secure compensation under law to a victim, is a violation of the Code of Civilization.
   

   
   

4. The right to truth comes from: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” It implies a right to challenge false, deceitful or misleading statements made about you, or about issues affecting you.
   

   
   

5. The right to security of person comes from: “Do not commit any physical aggression.” Except, at need, where objective justice may require use of violence, for example to arrest a suspected criminal.
   

   
   

6. The right against fraud comes from: “Do not commit any wrong against any person or their property through fraud, deceit or trickery.”
   

   
   

7. The right against perjury comes from: “Do not make false or misleading statements in evidence to a court, or any other body which can make decisions affecting others.”
   

   
   

8. The right against slavery comes from: “Do not appropriate, enslave or demand forced labour from any human being.”
   

   
   

9. The right against torture comes from: “Do not subject anyone to torture.”
   

   
   

10. The right against cruelty comes from: “Do not subject anyone to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
    

    
    

11. The right against arbitrary arrest or detention comes from: “Do not arrest or detain anyone without objective and reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed, are committing or are planning to commit some real crime.”
    

    
    

12. The right against unreasonable detention comes from: “Do not detain anyone for more than a very brief period prior to a hearing; unless they are a real danger to others, and the detention is a criminal punishment determined according to the Rule of Law and Justice by an impartial court.”
    

    
    

13. The right against trespass comes from: “Do not enter others’ real property, except where the owner has authorized unconditional access (including easements), or where the owner has authorized conditional access and you meet the conditions.” Except, at need, where there are objective and reasonable grounds to believe that an individual has committed, is committing or is planning to commit some real crime.
    

    
    

14. The right to be alone comes from: “Do not interfere with anyone’s right to hold themselves away from the company of others when they choose to.” Except, at need, where there are objective and reasonable grounds to believe that an individual has committed, is committing or is planning to commit some real crime.
    

    
    

15. The right to personal privacy comes from: “Do not interfere with anyone’s right to keep their thoughts and actions to themselves when they choose to.” Except, at need, where there are objective and reasonable grounds to believe that an individual has committed, is committing or is planning to commit some real crime.
    

    
    

16. The right to privacy of correspondence comes from: “Do not intercept, copy or otherwise interfere with anyone’s correspondence not intended for you.” Except for storage in the normal course of data transmission, and at need where there are objective and reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has committed, is committing or is planning to commit some real crime.
    

    
    

17. The right against stalking comes from: “Do not stalk or unreasonably follow anyone.” This includes filming them repeatedly or in different places, or otherwise recording their activities against their wills, even in the public space.
    

    
    

18. The right against unreasonable surveillance comes from: “Do not keep watch on anyone without good and provable reason why particular individuals should be subjected to surveillance.” This includes routine surveillance in the public space.
    

    
    

19. The right against unreasonable search comes from: “Do not search anyone’s bodies or possessions without good and provable reason why particular individuals should be subjected to search.” This includes all random search, including in the public space.
    

    
    

20. The right to security of reputation comes from: “Do not attack anyone’s honour or reputation.” Except, at need, where the statements made are objectively and provably true, and there is no intention to commit or to provoke any breach of the Code of Civilization.
    

    
    

21. The right to say No comes from: “Do not coerce anyone to enter into, or not to enter into, any contract against their will.” This right includes, as particular cases, the right not to be coerced into marriage and the right not to be compelled to belong to an association.
    
    B2: Rights of Non-Impedance

    Rights of non-impedance result from moral prohibitions (that is, prohibitions applicable to everyone) of the form “Do not obstruct...” followed by something good. These rights and prohibitions, too, are opposite sides of the same coin.
    

    
    

22. The right to general liberty comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to choose and act as they wish.” Except where this right is countermanded by justice, by the Code of Civilization or by respect for others’ rights.
    

    
    

23. The right to justice comes from: “Do not obstruct objective, common sense justice, or the honest implementation of such justice.” This right includes the right to restitution for wrongs through contract law, restitution law and criminal law.
    

    
    

24. The right to choice comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to make and to act on their own choices.” Except, at need, where their actions breach the Code of Civilization.
    

    
    

25. The right to pursue happiness comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to pursue their own happiness.” Except, at need, where their actions breach the Code of Civilization.
    

    
    

26. The right to self defence comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to defend themselves against aggression, or to keep and carry weapons for the purpose of defending themselves or others against aggression.” Except that weapons should not be carried by those convicted of crimes, or insufficiently skilled in the use of their weapons.
    

    
    

27. The right to tradition comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to practise local, regional, religious, cultural or other traditions, as long as they do not breach the Code of Civilization.”
    

    
    

28. The right to novelty comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to devise novel ways to do things, and to try them out in company with like-minded others if they wish.” Except, at need, where such actions breach the Code of Civilization.
    

    
    

29. The right to enjoy property comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to enjoy and to use their property as they see fit.” Except, at need, where their actions breach the Code of Civilization.
    

    
    

30. The right to insure against loss or damage comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to set up, or to use, schemes of insurance or mutual aid designed to provide a return to the individual in the event of suffering a specified loss or damage.”
    

    
    

31. The right to free movement comes from: “Do not encircle anyone’s property, or unreasonably obstruct or restrict their passage in any direction.” Except that free movement does not authorize trespass.
    

    
    

32. The right to free association and assembly comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to associate with, or to meet with, whomsoever they choose.” Except, at need, where the association or meeting is intended to do or to provoke violence or some other breach of the Code of Civilization.
    

    
    

33. The right to freedom of contract comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to seek or to make contracts with others.” Except, at need, where the contract breaches or is intended to breach the Code of Civilization. This right includes, as particular cases, the rights to seek work and to engage in commercial activity.
    

    
    

34. The right to the free marketplace comes from: “Do not obstruct or try to obstruct, in any way and for any reason, the economic free marketplace which underpins Civilization.”
    

    
    

35. The right to free trade comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s access to the economic free marketplace, either as seller or as buyer.”
    

    
    

36. The right to pursue betterment comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s attempts, by any means consistent with the Code of Civilization, to better themselves and those they care about, whether in standard of living, in education, in culture, in health or in any other area of life.”
    

    
    

37. The right to marriage comes from: “Do not obstruct the freedom of anyone of full age to marry and to found a family.”
    

    
    

38. The right to freedom of thought and opinion comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to think their own thoughts and to hold their own opinions.”
    

    
    

39. The right to freedom of speech comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to say what they wish.” Except, at need, where what is said is objectively and provably false, misleading or deceitful, or breaches the Code of Civilization, or is intended to provoke such a breach.
    

    
    

40. The right to freedom to publish comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to write and publish what they wish.” Except, at need, where what is written is objectively and provably false, misleading or deceitful, or breaches the Code of Civilization, or is intended to provoke such a breach.
    

    
    

41. The right to freedom to seek and receive information comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media.”
    

    
    

42. The right to data transparency comes from: “Do not store or hold information about others in such a way that they are unable to access and check it if they so wish, or to have it corrected if it is wrong.” Except, at need, for data showing objective and reasonable grounds to believe that an individual has committed, is committing or is planning to commit some real crime.
    

    
    

43. The right to freedom of conscience comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to make their own judgements according to their own conscience.”
    

    
    

44. The right to freedom of religion comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom to hold a religious belief, or to hold no religious belief, or to change his religion or belief.”
    

    
    

45. The right to freedom of worship comes from: “Do not obstruct anyone’s freedom, either alone or in community with others, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
    
    B3: Procedural Rights

    Procedural rights represent the best ways so far found to organize Civilization justly. That is, the best ways so far found to implement the Rule of Law and Justice.
    

    
    

46. The right to access law and justice. Everyone has the right to seek remedy for wrongs, whether contractual, civil or criminal, through the Rule of Law and Justice.
    

    
    

47. The right to institute proceedings on behalf of others. Everyone has the right to institute proceedings to seek remedy for wrongs done to those who are unable to institute such proceedings for themselves, for example because their property has been stolen.
    

    
    

48. The right to habeas corpus. Everyone has the right to seek remedy, either for themselves or for another, where there is good reason to believe that some individual has been or is being unreasonably detained or imprisoned.
    

    
    

49. The right to due process. No-one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
    

    
    

50. The right to personhood before law. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before law.
    

    
    

51. The right to moral equality. What is right for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa.
    

    
    

52. The right to equality before law. Law and justice will make judgements only according to what is objectively just and on the circumstances of the case, without prejudice to who has brought the case or who is affected by it.
    

    
    

53. The right against strict liability. No-one shall be guilty of any crime unless they have committed an identifiable act, in which they showed intention (mens rea) to violate the Code of Civilization.
    

    
    

54. The right to fair and public trial. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
    

    
    

55. The right to speedy trial and full, public hearing. Everyone charged with a crime has the right to a speedy and public trial, at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
    

    
    

56. The right to presumption of innocence. Everyone charged with a crime has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty of an offence.
    

    
    

57. The right against self-incrimination. No-one shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
    

    
    

58. The right against double jeopardy. No-one shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same crime.