Take Liberty.com
Don't Ask Permission - Just Take It


The Territory of Freedom
by   Richard   Rieben
April 11, 2005.
 
Initially, the Contract for Liberty contained the following clause:

That this contract defines the population of a given territory, such as to command, as the sole price of entry, the voluntary signing of this contract by all visitors to said territory.

A reader commented that, "Territories are usually lines drawn on maps staking a claim by politicians. I recognize no such claims. The only claims I recognize are individual property claims. I think this is critical to differentiate."

In response, I hedged:

I don't know that it's the same kind of "political" territory that most people think it is. I think we get used to seeing territory as a political concept, whereas the mandate for mutual respect is species-wide regardless of borders. I think I need to add or subtract something to make this more clear.

The point is, there isn't a "government" or political entity above the people, nor is the contract local. It is predicated upon such an essential foundation of our humanity as to be universal. Moreover, the enforcement procedures and terms would be more or less the same - the people would govern themselves everywhere and wherever they are.

This could be a simple matter of my failure to communicate very well ... I see an idea, but then I write something else and shoot the idea in the foot. It's hard to crash through group-think programming sometimes. Both in my incompetence at making the case and in other people's difficulty seeing something that is outside the envelop (and beyond their programming).

It's like using the word "political" to describe the contract - that completely messes it up for many people, who only understand "political" in one way, that is, only to describe existing governmental structures (and not as a reference to the political boundaries of individuals which are defined by our natural rights).

I may need a new language; bummer.

But, no, I just needed to look at it in a different way.

Let's begin with the territoriality of the agreement. Is this, perhaps, something like "the code of the West," which was voluntarily subscribed to by some and not by others? Thence, those who did not subscribe to it ran around in gangs (mini-govts) disrespecting the property rights of others and violating the "code." But, the thing is, those who subscribed to the code - or a number of them, individually - went around "enforcing penalty" against those who violated the code ... even those who didn't subscribe to it. And if they didn't subscribe to it, then they were, logically, not subject to it. The penalties for violation should only have been imposed upon those who did subscribe to it.

The next level of discussion, I think, is the concept that the "code" is actually natural rights - inherent to human existence - which no human being has the "option" of not subscribing to (insofar as either deserving respect for them from others or being obligated to respect them in others). It is not an arbitrary "moral" code; it is the essential quality of "respect" that makes us human - without it, we may pretend to rationality and all manner of things, but we fail to be human; definitively.

If this is the case, then the enforcement of the code (respect for the natural rights we all possess qua human beings) is the issue of dispute between anarchists and governmentalists. This is also what is disputed in regard to territory ... because if the "code" is universal (derived of our inherent humanity), then the codification (law) and enforcement of the natural code will vary culturally ... and, historically, this has meant geographically (as cultures arise regionally as social or collective understandings of things).

Because the base code is inherent to the species, without variation, then the variations between cultures are objectively reconcilable by reference to the actual, basic, inherent code. However, in point of fact, there is not more than one code for the human species, because our inherent, natural rights are universal prior to any type of codification. What may need to be done for the most part, in regard to the codification of those natural rights, is to cut through the cultural doo-dahs and add-ons, to the essentials, which do not vary from individual to individual nor from culture to culture.

A variation will still remain in regard to the enforcement of the code - the manner of achieving respect for those inherent, natural human rights; i.e., commonly referred to as "protection" or "security." Governments, whether "public" or private, handle this in varying manners, but all of them ineptly, such that very little individual security of natural rights is actually achieved ... more in some cultures, less in others.

The tribalism of the culture both affects and is affected by the design of the "enforcement" machinery, such that those with more efficient machinery (to the goal of actually effecting security of individual rights) tend less toward tribal collectivism and more toward cooperative individualism. However, since the base of rights is universal, and since the codification of these rights can be reconciled, objectively, from culture to culture, THEN the machinery of enforcement can also be reconciled objectively in regard to its efficiency in protecting those rights (and not by any other measure).

An examination of all cultures on the planet, throughout the ages, shows that no culture has constructed an efficient enforcement machinery, though some have been more effective than others, specifically to the end of securing the rights of the individual human being. The most easily seen and demonstrated lesson is that less machinery is more effective, but that because cultures arise geographically and pertain to territorial regions (informing these regions with a cultural meme that affects and is affected by the enforcement machinery, often reinforcing that machinery regardless of its efficiency in actually providing security - indeed, often more concerned with comfort, luxury, wealth or entertainment, as a measure of its "efficiency," by cultural standards, views and expectations), thence culture (the manifestation of a collective meme) is more wedded to certain political machinery than to security of natural rights.

Indeed, natural rights of individuals are minor to the perceived well-being of the majority of individuals in these tribal societies - the world over and throughout history. Security of human rights is critical to the development of the species, but the development of the species is not critical to tribal collectives; which place a higher priority on the status quo, stability, familiarity, ritual and social morality (which may or may not be ethical by an objective human standard).

Since the way of the world is cultural, this also means that these variations of enforcement of human rights are all inept and all territorial. They are not territorial to protect individual rights - i.e., the code and its enforcement - but to protect the values of the clan, which is what the clan machinery of enforcement is designed to secure.

Now, a peculiar non-clan machinery which was designed to protect the natural rights of the human being, objectively and universally, would not be party to any culture or region, but would invalidate or repudiate the protection of the clan (which is always at the expense of the individual) in every quarter. It would, further, not recognize or validate the clan machinery of the planet (all of which is, in varying degree, not only inept in securing the rights of the individual, but inherently in violation of the rights of the individual).

This means that the codification and enforcement of the natural rights of human beings is universally embattled by the existing clan machinery - at this time. Moreover, no clan machinery will or can ever be designed to effect security of natural human rights, because that would not be in the interests of the clan. Therefore, the only effective machinery to enforce the natural rights of individuals must reside entirely in individuals, and never be construed as a group of any description. It has universal application as a code - the rights themselves - but not, as yet, any sense of effective enforcement.

All efforts at enforcement have been predicated upon the clan's machinery (none of which is designed to that end, all of which is designed to subvert that end); hence all efforts thus predicated are doomed. Effective enforcement lies outside the designs of clan machinery - and beyond the grasp of clan memes. It is something new.

It is not mere anarchy, for that reverts to clan - rather quickly - especially for "former" clan members (which, as an internalized identity, can never be truly repudiated).

The point is that enforcement of the code must be fashioned in a manner that zips right past the existing clan machinery, and supplants it (without even needing to overpower it), rendering it entirely superfluous in all respects. But, to be effective in securing the natural rights of individuals, and because the enforcement machinery must reside in individuals and not in groups, then it must be effected BY individuals and WITH other individuals, such as to exclude those who do not want effective security of their natural individual rights; explicitly such that the enforcement thereof is effected only through voluntary agreement and not imposed (as to benefit or penalty) upon those who do not agree to - essentially - forsake the group on behalf of their own security.

Because of this, and because of the invasiveness of groups (and the inherent resentments and insecurities of clan members), individuals contracting an agreement with one another must, in addition to codifying and enforcing natural human rights, from person to person, provide themselves with security, qua individuals, from the groups on various sides, the members of which would violate the agreement with seeming impunity.

To this end; and not inherent to the codification and enforcement of natural rights, but only as a contextual matter in a world overrun with tribal groups (governments, corporations, religions and other institutional devices of the group), they need to withdraw from the tribal grounds and congregate in some region, ever expanding, and without regard to local clan machinery, but overrunning it. Thence to effect a continually expanding contractual agreement to a basic code and the simple enforcement of it amongst the contractees, with no other parties or agents involved, and nothing delegated, including responsibility.

And, so, eventually, I would agree that the "territory" would comprise the greater share of the planet's surface, so that moving around would not pose a problem except as to pure cultural differences of language and units of exchange, while yet there will remain enclaves of nonparticipating clans composed of individuals who have opted-out of their personal responsibility and relinquished their individual security in favor of the benefits of belonging to a clan ... and who would also be territorially distinct, protective and xenophobic (which is the natural condition of collectivists). Moreover, such clan individuals will have shunned or refused an agreement to respect the rights of other individuals. (If you think that sounds ludicrous, where is your signature of contractforliberty.com? Clan scum.)

To the eventual point, perhaps that all people generally would be signatories to a contract effecting the enforcement of their rights, without any particular sense of territory, excepting that those collectivist enclaves would remain, defining themselves territorially, and, in contradistinction to them, the rest of the free planet surface would also constitute a "territory" of sorts.

In other words, then, the concept of territory for the signatories to the contract is not envisioned as a partitioning of the world by cultural regions, but of having essentially no partitions where the contract (code) is in force and, then, the only real partition or territory would be those of the governmentally retarded clans; which would stake their territorial enclaves in the midst of a free and unpartitioned world - in which a contractual agreement is in force throughout.

I do not see this contract as most people will: as a mandatory political bond, forced upon people against their will. Most people will see it this way because that is the essential dimension of clan political machinery. That's the only political meme they understand.

The mutual contract to codify and enforce the natural and universal individual rights of human beings, is a contract of security effected in the only manner that can actually provide security; i.e., not through an agent or a group, but only in conjunction with other individuals; in which manner it is not only a common, universal human value and blessing, it is as gold or nectar or any other prized asset by any individual who knows the worth of things.

Therefore, not a thing to be reluctantly attested, nor forced, nor demanded, but, rather, a thing prized, sought, embraced as more essential than air or foodstuffs to human well-being ... and not by social or cultural proclamation or estimation, but by personal experience. Moreover, it is not a thing which "costs," but, rather, a thing which, for a trifle, pays dividends unimagined by the limited, ineffective clan machinery (all of which, additionally, has a very high cost).

And saying that, within this territory everyone "must" be a signatory to the contract, is very much like saying that everyone within "this" territory must be free and secure in their rights. Sheesh - such a hardship, I declare!

Sorry, my humor is misplaced. I realize that many people (the majority in the uSA and many other countries), would find enforced freedom and security extremely hateful and unnatural; moreover, I suspect the uSA will remain a collectivist enclave long after the rest of the world is free. A little partitioned territory with visions of grandeur; pretty much just like it is presently.

Enough. I think I have addressed the concept of territory as it arises the in the contract presented at contractforliberty.com. It applies initially within the context of a partitioned world, with the objective of defining itself as "outside" the partitioned world; and eventually becoming that, as the partitioned and collectivist world shrinks into small, protective, xenophobic territories.

I should rephrase the contract, then, to something like this:

That this contract defines the natural human population of this planet, external to the governmental territories, from which said territories all visitors must sign this contract in order to gain exit from those partitioned enclaves and, by this choice, join the human race in securing their natural individual rights. And that the name of the territory defined by this contract may be generally referred to as "planet Earth" or "outside," depending on individual perspective and taste.

So be it.


Later revised to:

That this contract defines the natural human population of this planet, external to governmental territories; and that, to exit those territories, visitors/emigrants must sign this contract with full comprehension.

 

copyright © 2005 by Richard G. Rieben