Ray Bradbury said, ""

An Imperial Declaration of Rights

Go read the discussion of an "Imperial Declaration of Rights" at Little Green Colloquium. What started out as a request for help by an author in drafting the bill of rights of a limited government in a story, has become a quite detailed discussion on the enunciation of rights in a libertarian society.

Her premise:

An alternate-universe Terran Empire has arrived here, set up a small base in Antarctica, and one of the Empire's representatives is offering Imperial citizenship and protection to anyone willing to accept all the terms of the Imperial Declaration of Rights. Unless any country is willing to give up all forms of socialism and apply for membership in the Empire, only individuals may gain citizenship.

Here is her drafted Imperial Declaration of Rights:

Imperial Declaration of Rights

Article 1.

The right of Imperial Citizens and subjects not in custody for a crime to keep and bear any arms of their choice shall not be infringed.

Article 2.

 No jurisdiction may make any law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, so long as said religion causes no proximate harm to another sapient being.

Article 3.

No jurisdiction may make any law abridging freedom of individual or collective speech or expression, providing that exercise of said freedom causes no proximate harm to another being and is not a deliberate falsehood.

Article 4.

The right of the Empire’s people to assemble peaceably for any reason, and to petition their immediate jurisdiction for redress of grievances, may not be denied. If the immediate jurisdiction denies such redress, the petition may be appealed as necessary through higher jurisdictions until it is addressed and a remedy applied, or it is denied by the Sovereign or a Ranger.

Article 5.

The right of all Imperial Citizens and subjects to be secure and private in their persons, properties, effects, and papers and other records in whatever form, against intrusion shall not be violated without a warrant issued on probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation, clearly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

Article 6.

 No person shall be put in jeopardy of penalty more than once for the same offense, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Article 7.

 Private property may not be taken for public use or controlled by other than the owner without compensation at twice the true market value.

Article 8.

 A. In all criminal or civil cases, the accused is entitled to a prompt and public trial; to be informed of the nature and cause of the action against à; to be confronted with the witnesses against à; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in à's defense; and to have the assistance of counsel in said defense. Facts in the case shall be determined by the most accurate means available.
B. In Imperial cases not involving a ruling noble, the trial shall be before Administrative Service judges if such are available within one standard week; otherwise, before the senior Imperial Marine or Navy officer available. In cases involving a ruling noble, said noble shall preside unless the accused requests the next senior noble to judge.

Article 9.

 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party has been duly convicted, shall exist within the Empire.

Article 10.

 Aggregate taxes may not exceed five per cent of any jurisdiction’s gross product or ten percent of an individual’s income, must be easily visible to the ultimate individual payer, and may not involve taxation of property of any sort. A jurisdiction’s publicly owned resources must be utilized for essential services before taxation of any sort may be implemented.

Article 11.

Any questions about the interpretation of this Declaration not resolvable by reference to the Commentaries are to be decided by a Ranger or the Sovereign.

Join the discussion and tell her (if LGC will permit you to leave comments) where you see contradictions and vague terms.

I immediately have problems with the applicability and delimitation of the term "proximate harm," the apparent interchangeability of the terms "sapient beings" and "beings," the justification for and applicability of the "deliberate falsehood" clause in Article 3, the rigor and integrity of Article 7 against infringement, the rigor and integrity of the "most accurate means available" clause in Article 8, the wording of Article 10, the applicability and rigor of the "not resolvable" clause in Article 11 (which brings into question permissible construction), and (not to impugn her storytelling) the grounding of such a minarchical government in what appears to be an aristocratic monarchical order with no republican institutions.

More subtle problems appear in the expansive definition of "freedom," which is extended to include acts which violate the freedoms of others through "proximate harm," the absence of any textual definition of nobility and delegated powers of Rangers (how does a noble differ from a common Imperial citizen? Are Rangers a hereditary class granted supreme judicial review along with the Sovereign? Why do Rangers have the same power of veto and judicial review as the Sovereign?), the lack of enumerated exigent circumstances concerning the granting of warrants,  the apparent distinction between slavery and involuntary servitude,  the absence of any explicit statement regarding the permissible construction of the Declaration (perhaps this is in the Commentaries), and the lack of any clause enumerating penalties for Sovereigns and Rangers who transgress their powers.

Yet if this is representative of her writing, Heinlein has some serious competition.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at October 12, 2005 23:40 EST | Permalink | comments (12) |
books, economics, discoveries, libertarianism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

#1  13 October 2005 - 21:22

 

I couldn't comment over at LGC because I'm not on the team. If I were, I'd have asked whether the the Empire were constituted via a written document that enumerated the powers of the government, and was constructed to be free of "sweeping clauses" or clauses that might become sweeping. Much more important than any bill of rights, as we have learned to our regret.

Anonymous

#2  17 October 2005 - 14:03

 

Reminds me of the Constitutional Notes Days of the old times, you know, I still have to do the ammendments.

"This might make people go to another village." This possibility is destroyed by the autarky necessary under the threat of warfare. How exactly is an autarky neccessary when there is a threat of war?

As I said before, unless every other nation was at war with you, you would still be able to trade with others.

War, or the threat of it, will make any reasonable nation look for someone to replace a hostile country. There probably will be a 99% cut in any links between the countries at war, but you could still even create new links.

To use your example of crime, simply because you know some people are criminals does not mean you cut off all contact with all people.

Anonymous

#3  17 October 2005 - 14:04

 

Sorry, forgot to type my name for above comment.

Scriptor

Anonymous

#4  19 October 2005 - 21:44

 

Tom hasnt posted in a while, his arch-enemy killed him most likely, indeed, indeed, indeed....

G Reynolds

Anonymous

#5  09 December 2005 - 22:27

 

Where did you run off to, Tom?

I'm starting to worry about you.

Anonymous

#6  09 December 2005 - 22:28

 

That was me, Pastorius, from CUANAS.

Anonymous

#7  10 December 2005 - 03:56

 

yeah, Tom, where are you?

Anonymous

#8  10 December 2005 - 03:58

 

sorry, that was me, moehawk on that last comment.

Anonymous

#9  13 December 2005 - 14:26

 

Dude! I put you on my blogroll, and they you don't post a single time since then. What am I??? A jinx?

(Come back, please.)

Anonymous

#10  16 December 2005 - 14:53

 

Tom, what happened? We haven't seen you in ages. Guess Isiah finally got passed your dog. Either way, we here have been forced to fight off socialist raiders ourselves. They seem to be taking advantage of your absence and raising havoc comong Libertarians. We need you...back...soon. Can't hold out...much...more

Anonymous

#11  16 December 2005 - 14:54

 

And that was me, Scriptor

Anonymous

#12  02 January 2006 - 08:57

 

I am going to investigat today to see what happened to him.

Anonymous

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit Here.