Tuesday, December 1, 2009

My Constitution, Section 6

Section - 6 Freedom of action and its defence

6(1) All individuals have the right to act in any manner they judge fit:
(i) irrespective of how morally odious that another might declare any actions to be;
(ii) irrespective of whether any actions are in those individuals’ interests or not;
(iii) whether alone or in association; and
(iv) whether directly or by means of property;
except to breach rights; and all individuals’ actions shall be presumed not to breach rights.
A man is entitled to do whatever he pleases and in whatever manner he pleases except to violate the rights of others. How advisable or otherwise these actions might be are his concern and nobody else’s. No man is his brother’s keeper, and each man has the right not to be treated as such under any application of that damnable dictum.

This is the broadest and fundamental right in respect of civil society. Indeed, a very large part of law would be based on this one clause because it covers pretty much everything except due process. The rest of this division is essentially clarification and further detail on the implementation of this right.

6(2) All physically-adult individuals shall be presumed capable of abiding by the rights of others until proven otherwise, and, except in relation to application for citizenship, presumed willing to abide by the rights others until proven otherwise.
The first part is connected with the recognition of sound-mind status and proper consideration for those who aren’t of sound mind. Those who are incapable of abiding by the rights of others will have their ability to exercise their rights delegated to others to act on their behalf and restricted from acting on their own account to the extent of their inability. As before, part of the intent of this clause is to make sure that these mechanisms aren’t improperly applied.

The second part is connected with the mechanisms of due process. Those who can but knowingly wont abide by the rights of others, and are demonstrably about to commit an act of initiating force against others, are to be made subject to curtailment of liberty as the mechanisms of due process. In the same vein as for sound mind, the point of this clause is to ensure that these mechanisms aren’t applied to innocent people either.

6(3) All individuals have the right to the immediate use of as much reactive retaliatory force as is reasonable in the circumstances (including deadly force to lethal effect) to defend their or anyone else’s rights when the Reasonable Person would on balance of probabilities hold that the delay associated with waiting for appropriate government to proactively initiate due process would jeopardise those rights; but all individuals being made subject to another’s force against them have the right not to be made subject to force beyond what is reasonable in light of their demeanour to be made to desist and await being made subject to due process.
Justice and the rule of law requires that the non-immediate use of retaliatory force be delegated to a single body holding a monopoly on its use. However, that does not translate into people being unable to use any retaliatory force whatever. They are still entitled to defend themselves on the spot by use of force, and that does include the right not to be prosecuted for killing the guilty in the process of doing so. However, people cannot do this in an unreasonable manner. For example, while it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to use a shotgun against a home intruder or armed robber it would not be reasonable to use that same shotgun against a graffiti vandal. Thus a balance has to be struck between the rights of the innocent and the rights of the guilty.

The balance in question has to be exactly that, a balance, rather than beyond reasonable doubt (the reasonable doubt requirement only holds for use of force by government when they are at leisure to gather facts and make considered judgement). The innocent party has the right to make judgement based the lesser requirement of fifty-fifty rather than be held to the higher standard of reasonable doubt because they are not at leisure to gather facts and make long considered judgements, and instead have to act in the heat of the moment. The guilty party has the right to make the innocent party at least give that guilty party a fifty-fifty chance of demonstrating why the innocent party should not actually inflict harm while awaiting for law enforcement officers to arrive because no individual’s rights supersedes any other individual’s rights, not even when one of the two is guilty of wrong.

6(4) No individual shall be made subject to physical injury or medical procedure without that individual’s consent except as a consequence of breaching others’ rights; but in the absence of reasonably knowable prior objection individuals who are not lucid may be presumed to consent to reasonable medical procedures to attain medical stability and sufficient lucidity for decision-making.
As well as absolving innocent parties of wrongdoing when they use reasonable force to defend themselves and it hurts the guilty, this particular specification of liberty has to be made to cover the case where someone would reasonably be taken to require medical help NOW and there is no time or no ability to gain that someone’s permission.

6(5) No government shall compel any individual to act or refrain from acting in any manner except as is reasonable for:
(i) parents and guardians of those not fully of sound mind;
(ii) upholding legally-binding agreements;
(iii) due process; or
(iv) other direction as this Constitution permits governments to make.
This clause closes out the section by expressly prohibiting restrictions of liberty and only authorising the use of compulsion as a means to ensuring that people’s rights are upheld.


No comments:

Post a Comment