An anarchist "constitution"

Economics Political Theory
1

For extra credit in my Political Science class, we are supposed to write our own constitution. We are permitted to do whatever we wish, so long as we can defend it rationally. No problem; I decided that I’d write a “constitution” for a market anarchy.

Below is what I wrote. I call it The Liberty Code. I’m working on a preamble now, which will contain a concise, rational argument for the non-aggression principle and the rights derived from it. Read over it, and if you have any questions or criticisms, have at it. In particular, please point out anything you see that is vague or liable to misinterpretation.

A quick note: I’m aware that some parts are redundant. It’s probably intentional, but if it really seems not to make sense point it out anyway.

THE LIBERTY CODE,

being a description of the rights of individuals,

and of a prescribed means of their protection

ARTICLE I: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

Personal Liberty.

Section 1. Every person shall be considered to hold a sovereign right over their own life, and in their body, and in their faculties, and the just power to exercise that right with full liberty.

1.1 No person or group of persons shall deprive another of their life, or in any manner restrict their liberty to exercise their faculties to whatever end they should pursue.

1.2 No person shall be restricted from the practice of their chosen faith, philosophy, or other moral doctrine so long as such practice does not forceably infringe upon the rights of others.

1.3 Every person shall be free to peaceably associate with others as they choose, for as long as they shall choose, and in whatever manner they shall choose.

1.4 Every person shall be free to refuse association with another person or group of persons, and to terminate all ties to, and to cease all support for any previous association with such a person or group, unless otherwise bound by unfulfilled obligations through legitimate contract.

Defense.

Section 2. Every person shall be considered to have the right to employ force to defend themselves against a clear and present threat to themselves or their property, or against other persons or their property.

Property Rights.

Section 3. All persons shall be considered to hold sovereign rights over their property derived from the fruits of their labor, voluntary exchanges with other persons, wages, successful appropriation of unowned resources, gifts, endowments, and payments made as just restitution for crimes or torts owed them.

3.1 No person or group of persons shall be deprived of their property, or of the liberty to make use of their property in whatever manner they shall choose.

3.2 All persons shall be free to will their property to others on a future date, and that will shall be considered valid in the event of that person’s death.

3.3 All persons shall be free to set terms of license for entry by others onto their premises and for the use by others of their property, and to exclude any other from such entry or use, and to rescind such license at their discretion, so long as such terms and any changes made thereto are fully and immediately disclosed, and in being changed do not entrap, forestall, or otherwise infringe upon the rights of any persons occupying the premises or using the property of the issuer of such license.

General Prohibitions Against Abuses.

Section 4. No contract or other binding arrangement shall be considered valid if a person or group of persons is entered into it against their will, or without their knowledge and express agreement.

Section 5. No person or group of persons shall set regulations, restrictions, or prohibitions of any kind against the liberty of any other person or such group, except as terms in legitimate contracts entered into voluntarily by all involved parties, or as terms of license as described in Article I, § 3.3.

Section 6. No person shall prevent the acquirement by others of unowned resources by any means other than first acquiring it themselves though their labor or that of their agents, or by making a reasonable claim on resources that they shall acquire within a definite period of time.

Section 7. No person shall be deprived of their life, liberty or property without having first been found guilty of a crime by due process in a legitimate court of law. Until such a verdict shall have been duly reached, every person shall be considered innocent in the opinion of the law and to possess all rights and privileges described above.

ARTICLE II: JUSTICE.

Section 1. Every person shall be free to bring suit against others to seek damages for harm done to their persons and property through forceable violations of their rights, or through fraud.

1.1 Every person shall be free to employ agents to represent them in such matters.

1.2 In order to ensure the fair application of the law, a person seeking such damages may challenge the accused to be tried against any accusations made in a fair trial by a court of justice.

Section 2. A court of justice shall be considered to be any person or firm capable of rendering fair judgment on matters of dispute in accordance with the Declaration of Rights. A person or firm so capable

2.1 shall be reasonably informed in matters of law and justice, and shall be competent in finding the facts of a case, and in ruling justly on the basis thereof;

2.2 shall be free of personal bias toward any party involved in the case at hand;

2.3 shall not have been previously found to have taken bribes, or to have ruled unjustly or with bias, or to have exhibited gross incompetence or negligence in previous cases, and

2.4 shall not presently employ any agents who shall at that time be under sentence for an offense previously committed, or who shall be in any other way indebted to another court.

Section 3. A court so qualified shall be empowered to resolve all matters of disputes civil and criminal brought before it, and to order fair compensation to be made to the favored party, and to enforce their just rulings, and to enforce the just rulings of other courts at their request.

Section 4. A court may try or refuse to try a case at its discretion, and may set a fee for its services before accepting a case, and may adjust such fees in accordance with Article I, § 3.3.

Due Process.

Section 5. The accused shall be considered to have the right to due process in a fair and speedy trial by a court of justice.

5.1 The accused shall be considered to have the right to meet their accuser in a mutually agreed-upon court. If the plaintiff and the accused cannot agree on a court in which to meet, the accused may bring the case before a different court of their choice.

5.2 In such cases where the decisions of the respective courts shall be in conflict, their decisions shall in turn be considered by a third party mutually agreed upon by the original courts, who shall not have any prior interest in the case or in any party involved therein, and who shall otherwise be considered capable of rendering fair judgment in accordance with Article II, § 2.

5.3 The accused shall be free to call for fair witness to be present at the trial.

5.4 A person having been found guilty shall be entitled to appeal to a qualified third party, which shall be mutually agreed upon by the appellant and the court which delivered the original ruling.

5.5 In cases of accused murder, the defendant shall be granted at least two appeals against a guilty ruling.

Section 6. A court of appeal shall be entitled to the privileges described in Article II, § 4.

Section 7. No action shall be considered a crime which shall not have violated any of the rights described in Article I, nor shall any person be tried for any crime or tort for which a plaintiff does not exist.

Enforcement of Rights and Punishment of Violators.

Section 8. The punishment for a crime shall befit the violation committed, and all punitive damages shall be limited to no greater than twice that incurred by the wronged party.

8.1 A wronged party shall have the right to forgive, in whole or in part, any debt incurred by a liable party, or to revoke any penalty called for in response to a crime for which another party shall have been duly convicted.

8.2 No penalty shall be carried out in excess of the decision of the wronged party.

8.3 The guilty or liable party shall have the right to propose settlement with the wronged party, and the court shall honor any settlement mutually agreed upon by both parties.

ARTICLE III. PROHIBITION OF THE STATE

The formation of a state, or any action resembling statist behavior, shall be considered criminal.

Section 1. No person or group of persons shall have the power to tax, nor to lay tariffs or duties, nor to legislate in any manner whatsoever, nor to impose any restriction on trade, without the explicit consent of each individual who shall be affected by such action.

Section 2. No person or group of persons shall claim an exclusive right to render services in defense, or justice, or in the enforcement of law; nor shall any such claim be recognized by legitimate institutions of law and justice.

Section 3. Any law that does not recognize the rights described in Article I shall be considered illegitimate.

Your favorite recent Supreme Court Justice (1950- )
Libertarian Pamphlets?
2

I really like Article II, § 7.

I also feel that an Article IV. RECIPROCAL DIPLOMACY might be in good advice; in order to combat atrocious foiegn commerce and war policies held by other nations.

3

I have a problem with the phrase “Legitimate court of Law” in Section 7 of ARTICLE I: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. Who decided what is a legitimate court of law furthermore the word law has implication of a state monopoly. I think you ought to rewrite this Section 7 make it point to Section 1. and §1.1 in ARTICLE II: JUSTICE. For what constitutes a “Legitimate court of Law”.

I think most of what is in ARTICLE II: JUSTICE could be a seperate document drafting an Arbitration Corporation on the market among many other Corporations for hire. Hand that document in as an appendix/attachement. The appropiate parts defining a private juridical system for the THE LIBERTY CODE would in my opinion be Section 1. and §1.1 under ARTICLE II: JUSTICE. If you insist to have this elaborate court system present in the THE LIBERTY CODE document drafting of a market anarchic society. Wouldn’t the enforcment of what is described in ARTICLE II: JUSTICE, be contradicting with what is present in ARTICLE III. PROHIBITION OF THE STATE?

Under ARTICLE III. PROHIBITION OF THE STATE what appropiate actions to be take against a formation of state should be present in my opinion. Either in ARTICLE III. PROHIBITION OF THE STATE or as a seperate article, you ought to specify this constitutional document as a contract between all signatories. After all, no one needs to accept this constitution as their own and enter into the societie. Furthermore how and if one can exit this constitutional contract should be present in a section so to avoid a “civil war over the union”.

I got a problem with the phrase “without the explicit consent of each individual who shall be affected by such action.” in Section 1. under ARTICLE III. PROHIBITION OF THE STATE. There can be contracts on the markets for one party to grant explicit rights to their to another party as described in ARTICLE I: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. Section 1.4. The language in Section 1. under ARTICLE III. PROHIBITION OF THE STATE is to general, you need to point to Section 1.4 in ARTICLE I: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. as a part of Section 1. under ARTICLE III. PROHIBITION OF THE STATE. and specify that such form of expression of rights are not a formation of a state.

In Section 3. under ARTICLE III. PROHIBITION OF THE STATE, I propose there be present an appropiate mechanism for what actions signatories ought to take towards illegitimate laws.

In a case when dealing with a non-signatory, I think a mechanism on how to handle their Claim or Rights needs to be present. As suggested in the above reply mentioning such an article as Article IV. RECIPROCAL DIPLOMACY.

That is my take on what would be a more appropiate for a market anarchic society.

4

McFall, can I post The Liberty Code on the OpenGov wiki (http://opengov.stikipad.com/wiki/), or would you like to post it there?

5

P.S I think you should release this document under a BSD License

6

I decided what is a legitimate court of law because I had to describe a judicial process for this assignment. For purposes other than the assignment, I agree with your statement about making it a seperate document, acting more as an endorsement rather than “law”.

I thought about using different terminology to avoid state-associated concepts. What would you recommend to replace the phrase “court of law”? The word “legitimate” stays, though - I’m trying to make it clear that courts that don’t honor Article I are not to be regarded as proper courts.

Good idea, I’ll do that.

As it is currently written, yes, I suppose so. I could reword it to make it clear that Articles I and III (which maybe ought to trade places with II?) is “law” and the code of justice is simply prescription.

They are simply to be regarded as criminal organizations, and treated as such. Namely, a party that is wronged by a state entity would be encouraged to seek protection and retribution by a market defense and justice firm.

Good points, and I’d already thought of that. That language will be in the Preamble. Naturally association with this system must be voluntary, however I also want to make it clear that it is not the constitution of a geographical area, and anyone under the jurisdiction of a state can seek protection and justice under the Code.

Noted.

Again, the idea is that it will be regarded and dealt with as criminal activity. However, I will make that clearer.

Also noted.

To everyone: I was going to include a section in article II or III for “extraordinary appeal” which deals with states, however, I like the notion of “reciprocal diplomacy” better. Any suggestions on how Article IV ought to be presented?

7

I will, once I’m satisfied with it.

8

I could never reveal my stern belief in anarcho-capitalism in an economics or political science paper at my school without being undergraded by my professor and asked to be “practical” and not ideological. Never, especially only being a teenager - no one would take me seriously.

,

9

Any truly just and moral constitution would have to at least include four interconnected principles:

1.) Natural Rights - moral principles that define and sanction man’s freedom of action in a social context a la Rand

2.) The Non-Aggression Principle - the doctrine that holds that all forms of initiatory force and aggression are immoral and illegitimate

3.) Liberty - the legal absence of or freedom from initiatory force and aggression

4.) Rule of Objective, Rights-Protecting Law - a legal system perpetually open to competition that enforces the non-aggression principle and maintains liberty by employing the use of retaliatory force under strict, inflexible, objective constraints

Your constitution contains pretty much everything stated but using different terms. Just make sure you define your terms. Too many people have misconstrued liberty and rights to imply “positive” powers over the lives and property of others. How many in your class, i’m willing to bet, believes healthcare is a right?

When I stated to my constitutional law class that no one had rights to education, healthcare, credit, housing, jobs, incomes, .etc, the response I received was this: who will provide these services if the government won’t by force???

10

I’m going to shamelessly recycle my half-joking/half-serious charter for a government. See how this would play in your poli-sci/civics class:

Article I. Mind your own business.

Article II. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

(signed)

11

You can add

“Article III. If you think it’s broken, it’s not.”

12

Sounds good. Since you posted here asking for input, I thought the wiki might be a good place, too. I’ll leave you to it. Good work, by the way.

13

Fractional reserve lending should be considered a crime whose victims would be counted starting with the first loan that exceeds reserves. The power of the people to coin and print money shall never be infringed in any way except in the forgery of currency to bear a false value or backer. I think there should also be be strict restrictions on usery - legal council mist be present for any contract incurring greater than five percent intrest in the course of a year and that council must work for the benefit of the individual who has been offered such a contract.

14

I thought of that while I was at work today, but I didn’t add that yet for reasons that probably have nothing to do with the fact that I’m a lazy bum.

I don’t quite agree there. Any involuntary contract is invalid, and any contract that is vague or deceitful is fraudulent. But if a contract is neither of those - if it is entered into with full disclosure and full consent - its regulation would constitute a violation of the principles on which this code is based.

15

You can’t make anything illegal in an anarchistic society and that includes Fractional reserve practice as long as it isn’t fraudulent. Some people may wish to participate in such a monetary system!

16

Even theft and fraud?

Voluntary fractional reserve “practice” is fine, but it can’t be called “banking” to be semantically correct.

17

I don’t think you can put a prohibition in it for fractional reserve banking. Let them do it but eventually the market will drive everyone who does do that out of business as their banks begin to fail. People will naturally go to banks that have stable banking practices. I think market forces will eventually make it so all banks that do practice fractional reserve banking will have such a stigma attached to them they wont get any customers. The great thing about a true market economy with no state intervention is that no one is forcing you to use a bank that practices that form of banking. Without some coercive force making you use them, like we do today, then you are free to choose whatever bank you want. And naturally you’d go to one that will honor your agreements and is stable.

Peace.

18

I guess the usery regulations I mentioned were a bit much. I’ve come a long way from being a communist but I guess I still have some socialist thought patterns. I had just finished watching one of those everybody-in-America-has-a-credit-card-problem videos and had decided that the majority of our public wound need legal council when signing any contract with a less-than-benevolent rate of interest.

I had also thought of something along the lines of certificates of education of letters of reccomendation having no role in employment and that tests for the job would be used instead. Our current system tends to favor people who almost flunked out of Harvard and Yale over valedictorians of technical colleges. This has almost the same effect as titles of nobility - weath and prestige must never be favored over competence knowledge and skill. Some ideas may very well be suited to some “Non-enforced articles”. Suggestions that are to be respected as law yet never granted authority.

19

This is very impressive, MacFall! I think you’ve done great work on this so far. I agree in part with one point made by LordMetroid…I think the use of the word “law” might be misleading, as most people conflate “law” with “government”. I admit that, as soon as I read “court of law” I wondered how you would define it in later sections. Your definition is good, but I think it would be better to call it a “court of mediation” or “court of arbitration”. As far as it goes, you may even rethink the use of “court”, as that could have the same connotation.

Overall, I think the concept is sound, and that some minor changes in verbiage could help reduce the potential for misunderstanding or misinterpretation. I’m very much looking forward to seeing the final product! If I buy an island anytime soon, I may very well adopt it as my own constitution. [;)]

20

I’m a little confused here. If the definition of fractional reserve is lending out more money than what you actually currently have musnt all banks by nature use fractional reserve practices? No bank that I know of if everyone went there on the same day and asked for all of the money from their savings account back would be able to give it back. Because the money you put in the savings a portion of it is going to finance someone else whos taking out a loan. Thats why banks will attach penalties to allowing your account balance to fall below a certain level to discourage that activity and keep the system flowing to make sure they have enough money to lend out in the form of loans.

I thought all financial instututions used fractional reserve practices but the problem was governments using them because they aren’t as good at making a decision on who they should lend to. Wheras private banks have a natural insentive to only lend to people they know who are going to pay the money back and on time.