Yeah, I have some pretty serious problems with it, right from the outset.
The implication of calling this a “law” is that it is law - but it’s not law. The problem with government is the idea that governments are the source of law.
I have a problem with the word “sovereign.” What makes sovereigns sovereign is that they are judges in their own cases, that is, they have the ability to enforce a double legal standard with their overwhelming power. I don’t think democratizing this immorality, historically reserved to royalty and a select few other tyrants, solves anything.
I also have problems with natural law - what is natural law? Who decides what laws count as natural laws and which do not? Reason? Reason is only a tool, a method to aid discussion among people who already share presuppositions, not an accurate description of individuals entangled in conflict (the place where law really matters most).
Then why bother writing all this?
Again, this is content-less. Without a customary-law context in which to fill out the details of what actually constitutes ‘initiation’, ‘physical violence’, ‘credible threat’, ‘any reason’, ‘forfeits’ and so on, even if you had 100% unanimous agreement to this law, it wouldn’t be of any use.
The implication of words like ‘Territory’ ‘Citizens’ ‘Rothbardia’ and ‘protection’ is dangerous. I understand you’re trying to put this in language that people can understand but I don’t think it’s thorough-going enough. Personally, I think the only way forward is political decentralization and secession. Longer-term, I have proposed symbolic democracy as a stand-in for the transition to a natural order society. However, I think it may yet be many generations before we are prepared for natural order society.
Clayton -