I agree with all 5 of these, except that #5 should drop "regardless of their geographic location". Having a neighborhood where everyone agrees not to murder is important, and I would take issue with a neighbor who decides to act on their recent switch to a "murder is fine" government model... I do NOT support their freedom to murder... so I really don't support their switch while remaining my neighbor. They would need to go away first.
That's right. These five are not exhaustive but are starting points for contest entrants. While common Law includes torts, which proscribe any sort of injury to another's person or property, proscriptions on harm, up to and including murder, could/should probably be included in some set of enumerated rights.
Oh, and "regardless of geographic location" is important for top-level non-territorial governance. This is an essential part of Panarchy, but it doesn't mean you have to live among murderers.
Good question, if I understand it. It depends on how the law evolves and who agrees to use it. There are already ancient examples in the Lex Mercatoria and customary law in England. Modern examples include international business law. Theoretically, there is a benefit to ex-ante agreement on a body of law (plus arbitration) and a heavy cost to settling disputes other ways, such as war. We can also imagine law evolving between legal systems, which occurs today in international disputes. The point of this exercise will be to create competition among legal systems, the worst of which will hopefully die off given more choices and reduced exit options. Right now, much of the world uses some variation on Justinian Law (Code Civil), while use of the common law is shrinking. Nick Szabo has written on this at Uninumerated, which is defunct, but still live: https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2006/06/jurisdiction-as-property-paper.html Another question is whether the locus of law rests on the individual or the nation, and to what degree individuals can agree -- wherever they are -- to a common body of law. See Balaji Srinivasan's Network State concept for more on this. https://thenetworkstate.com/the-network-state-in-one-thousand-words
I agree with all 5 of these, except that #5 should drop "regardless of their geographic location". Having a neighborhood where everyone agrees not to murder is important, and I would take issue with a neighbor who decides to act on their recent switch to a "murder is fine" government model... I do NOT support their freedom to murder... so I really don't support their switch while remaining my neighbor. They would need to go away first.
That's right. These five are not exhaustive but are starting points for contest entrants. While common Law includes torts, which proscribe any sort of injury to another's person or property, proscriptions on harm, up to and including murder, could/should probably be included in some set of enumerated rights.
Oh, and "regardless of geographic location" is important for top-level non-territorial governance. This is an essential part of Panarchy, but it doesn't mean you have to live among murderers.
What happens in the government is so small that it is ONLY those simple common-law concepts... doesn't it apply regardless of territory?
Good question, if I understand it. It depends on how the law evolves and who agrees to use it. There are already ancient examples in the Lex Mercatoria and customary law in England. Modern examples include international business law. Theoretically, there is a benefit to ex-ante agreement on a body of law (plus arbitration) and a heavy cost to settling disputes other ways, such as war. We can also imagine law evolving between legal systems, which occurs today in international disputes. The point of this exercise will be to create competition among legal systems, the worst of which will hopefully die off given more choices and reduced exit options. Right now, much of the world uses some variation on Justinian Law (Code Civil), while use of the common law is shrinking. Nick Szabo has written on this at Uninumerated, which is defunct, but still live: https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2006/06/jurisdiction-as-property-paper.html Another question is whether the locus of law rests on the individual or the nation, and to what degree individuals can agree -- wherever they are -- to a common body of law. See Balaji Srinivasan's Network State concept for more on this. https://thenetworkstate.com/the-network-state-in-one-thousand-words