[SolarCross]

Following Malatant's insistence that government is needed for civilisation although it has been established in numerous threads that the only thing they do that can't be done by civil organisations is extort cash I thought we could all have a go at a new constitution. Keep it generic such that it can be used for any country with little modification. We shall call it the People's Constitution.

To start some basic principles should be our guide.

- All people who are members of the national corporation are of equal political standing with each other.

- None may impose a rule over another by force except in self-defence.

- Law be determined according to a common law system and by free agreement by contract.

- Ownership of the land and natural resources is held in common. Products of human artifice are held by private easement and may be traded.

[mikema63]

If a group within the national corporation prefers to impose rules upon themselves they may do so as long as all people's free entry and exit of the group is allowed and they do not force other groups.

[SolarCross]

If a group within the national corporation prefers to impose rules upon themselves they may do so as long as all people's free entry and exit of the group is allowed and they do not force other groups.

I think the principle that none may enforce a rule over another except in self-defence covers that well enough. I not sure we can have a rule to say a group must allow free entry. My family is a group of sorts and I am not sure that having a constitution that prevents me from excluding strangers from that group is really helpful. The same goes for a business, church, school or other association. Entering into a contract requires both parties to be consenting. Ending a contract is different maybe; only one party to the agreement need consent to ending the contract especially if the contract wasn't for a specified period of time, indefinite.

[mikema63]

Not what I meant to say.

Oh well I seem to have messed up but honestly this seems a little futile since by definition we wouldn't be setting up an apparatus to enforce this.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please define "self-defense". Thank you.

Oh well I seem to have messed up but honestly this seems a little futile since by definition we wouldn't be setting up an apparatus to enforce this.

Dude, it's in the libertarianism forum. No one expects it to be realistic.

[SolarCross]

Self-defence - means just what it says on the tin. This isn't an orwellian doublethink type distortion of meaning - freedom is slavery, war is peace etc. Self-defence means just that defence of the self.

In the context of this -

- None may impose a rule over another by force except in self-defence.

Eg. If you put someone in prison you are imposing a rule over them by force. This can only be legitimate if you do so to protect yourself or others from that person's aggression - self defence.
A common law court absolutely needs the right of self-defence because otherwise it can't counter act aggression legitimately. Neither can the right of self defence be monopolised all must have it or no one because all individuals are of equal political standing.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, if you operate a combustion engine upwind from my property and therefore unleash a small cloud of cancer causing molecules, can I claim self-defense and make a rule saying you're not allowed to drive cars upwind from private property?

[Elect G-Max]

- All people who are members of the national corporation are of equal political standing with each other.

What does this mean?

[SolarCross]

So, if you operate a combustion engine upwind from my property and therefore unleash a small cloud of cancer causing molecules, can I claim self-defense and make a rule saying you're not allowed to drive cars upwind from private property?

If you can prove you have been injured in this way maybe. No harm no foul. I think in practice that this would be recognised as a willful abuse of the concept of self-defence and any court will throw the case out. If you have a morbid fear of catching cancer you should probably seek psychiatric help rather than taking the whole world to court. If you did catch a cancer it is impossible to say how you got it, it might have been from any number of sources.

@Elect G-Max - 'Equal political standing' again means just what it says, no orwellian twists of meaning, no 'some animals are more equal than others' type perversities. Is it hard to understand?

[Pants-of-dog]

If you can prove you have been injured in this way maybe. No harm no foul. I think in practice that this would be recognised as a willful abuse of the concept of self-defence and any court will throw the case out. If you have a morbid fear of catching cancer you should probably seek psychiatric help rather than taking the whole world to court. If you did catch a cancer it is impossible to say how you got it, it might have been from any number of sources.

So, people would be allowed to poison me and I could do nothing about it.

That sounds great.

What if people sold some food in the local market that contained lead and melamine. Should they be allowed to do that without telling the consumers? Or would the consumers be allowed to defend themselves against such dangerous products by making a law against them?

[SolarCross]

So, people would be allowed to poison me and I could do nothing about it.

That sounds great.

What if people sold some food in the local market that contained lead and melamine. Should they be allowed to do that without telling the consumers? Or would the consumers be allowed to defend themselves against such dangerous products by making a law against them?

Are you being serious? No harm no foul. If someone poisoned you then plainly you have a case against them.
This exercise is meant to be a constitution not a rulebook on everything. Specific cases can be dealt with by common law courts. Stay focused!

[Pants-of-dog]

:?: Are you being serious? No harm no foul. If someone poisoned you then plainly you have a case against them.
This exercise is meant to be a constitution not a rulebook on everything. Specific cases can be dealt with by common law courts. Stay focused!

So, let's say people always drive upwind of my property, and after years of healthy living, my family and I all come down with different breathing disorders that have been shown to be caused by automobile exhaust.

What would the common law courts decide about the harm caused to my family and me?

[mikema63]

The road owner is usually pointed out as the one who should be held liable in these kinds of theoretical systems.

[Pants-of-dog]

The road owner is usually pointed out as the one who should be held liable in these kinds of theoretical systems.

What exactly did the road owner do to me and my family?

[mikema63]

Operated a business which by its nature creates damaging pollution without either procurring your permission or without taking precautions to limit or prevent the pollution.

[SolarCross]

I would suggest a class action against the vehicle manufacturers or the fuel manufacturers. Basically pick your target. You should try to aim at someone actually plausibly responsible though. I don't think road owner can plausibly be held liable especially as very likely it will be owned by everyone . You will actually have to prove that your disorders were caused by the cars and not by something else such as the paint in your house, dust mites or your glue sniffing habit. I know its a pain having to prove guilt but anything else isn't reasonable, otherwise you might as well go around accusing people of witchcraft.

[Pants-of-dog]

Operated a business which by its nature creates damaging pollution without either procurring your permission or without taking precautions to limit or prevent the pollution.

No, they did not. Having a road does not cause pollution. Driving a vehicle with an internal combustion engine does. You seem to be saying that the property owner is responsible for any acts of aggression that are done on their property. Is that what you are saying?

----------------------------------------

I would suggest a class action against the vehicle manufacturers or the fuel manufacturers. Basically pick your target. You should try to aim at someone actually plausibly responsible though. I don't think road owner can plausibly be held liable especially as very likely it will be owned by everyone . You will actually have to prove that your disorders were caused by the cars and not by something else such as the paint in your house, dust mites or your glue sniffing habit. I know its a pain having to prove guilt but anything else isn't reasonable, otherwise you might as well go around accusing people of witchcraft.

Let us assume that I have designed a house that is completely VOC free, and is as carcinogenic as pure water, and we own and operate an organic farm, as well as ride a bicycle. Consequently, I can show that the respiratory illnesses that we suffer from are definitely caused by the traffic on the heavily used road upwind from us.

Do I then sue all the manufacturers of all the cars that drove on the road? Or all the fuel manufacturers? What if I have very little money due to medical bills? How do I afford a lawyer?

[mikema63]

Clearly the owner would be allowing cars to drive on his road, I fail to see how you could reasonably argue that he isn't liable for allowing it or operating a business that uses it.

If he is knowingly running a business that everyone knows full well involves pollution he certainly should be liable.

As for taxizens everybody owns it point, that introduces another set of circumstances that would probably involve community regulation rather than lawsuits

[SolarCross]

None of this about talk about liability for harm done really belongs in a thread about a constitution for a national government. Not even the most insanely bureaucratic governments have that kind of regulation in their constitutions.

But I will indulge you a little more Pants if it will prevent the thread being derailed any further. If you are the only person suffering this problem then you are probably out of luck and will just have to take one for the team. However if this problem is caused by something in the fuel or the way the cars burn that fuel then likely you are not the only person with this problem. You can get together with all the other people suffering and make a class action lawsuit aimed at whoever is most responsible. The owners of roads, private or communal are an unlikely target in my opinion because they couldn't possibly know that the cars caused this problem and their 'business' is equally used by other forms of traffic such as horse-drawn carriages, pedestrians, cyclists and such. You don't necessarily have to litigate against all car makers or fuel makers just the worst offenders. If you win the case then a precedent will be set and then ALL makers of cars and fuel will have it powerfully in their interests to clean up their products or face similar lawsuits which will be easier to win for the litigants due to the precedent. Problem solved.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think the two of you need to figure out who is responsible for damages caused by group behaviour, as well as finding a way to limit the damage of externalities.

The common solution of "let's sue the bad guys" has the problem that it is only open to those who have money, and it also assumes that you have a gov't in form of a court with the authority to enforce its judgements.