0 votes

Draft> Ethics: "Ideal of the Individual"

The composition of Ideal of the Individual is a specific response to the loss of confidence in current American government, including issues of political dissolution, institutional abuse and personal violation.

Ideal of the Individual suggests that although partially ascribed and repeatedly inferred, an amended clause which formally enunciates the principles of natural rights is critically absent from the Constitution of the United States. Ideal of the Individual further proposes that the primary means of domestic expression originates within the individual, its highest development is communicated through virtuous liberty, and a just body of law is founded upon validating a dignified ethic accordingly.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States confines the legal actions of government and the American Declaration of Independence articulates the precepts of local self-rule, Ideal of the Individual therefore claims to complement the Constitution and parallel the Declaration by ordinating representational autonomy, acknowledging the divine providence of human freedom, and issuing the following decree

1) The rights of an individual shall not be infringed by
i. any other individual
ii. any fraternal entity
iii. any chartered organization
iv. any governmental chapter

These principles include

A) The property of an individual shall not be subjugated to
-personal theft (ex. pocket robbery)
-instituted seizure (ex. wage tax)
-licensed appropriation (ex. firearm confiscation)
-bureaucratic acquisition (ex. 'eminent domain' usurpation)
committed reflexively by free parties (ex. inc. transfer financial bailouts)

B) The agency of an individual shall not be suppressed by
-counterfeit record (ex. fraudulent documentation)
-censored press (ex. classified 'state secrets privilege')
-indentured contract (ex. mandated insurance)
-specious currency (ex. fractional reserve banking)
consigned commutatively among free parties (ex. inc. covert military operations)

C) The corporality of an individual shall not be coerced under
-confidential abuse (ex. domestic violence)
-instrumental violation (ex. forced vaccination)
-mortal deprivation (ex. bodily torture)
-martial assault (ex. official brutality)
predicated accordingly between free parties (ex. inc. undeclared foreign war)

D) The sovereignty of an individual shall not be restricted by means of
-native encroachment (ex. residential trespassing)
-party persecution (ex. racial segregation)
-itinerant obstruction (ex. highway 'point-checks')
-municipal surveillance (ex. private wire-tapping)
attributed respectively across free parties (ex. inc. United Nation pacts)

E) The philosophy of an individual shall not be restrained from
-expounding whichever ideals (ex. freedom of speech)
-constructing whichever hypotheses (ex. freedom of thought)
-fashioning whatever implements (ex. material freedom)
-practicing whatever vocation (ex. professional freedom)
determined responsively concerning free parties

F) The spirituality of an individual shall not be limited through
-assumed authorization (ex. inc. religious creed)
-imposed rectification (ex. inc. sexual custom)
-codified dogma (ex. inc. artistic craft)
-virtual dictate (ex. inc. political campaign)
reciprocally ascribed considering free parties

When breaches are not independently resolved between the individual and charged parties, the impasse is subject to a just trial and forfeiture under the due process of constitutional law. Similarly assuming the function of government is to exemplify these principles and distill conscience, the author petitions the redress of extant legal code.

Here endorsed and procured,
Steward of Self
Philadelphia, PA, USA
22 January 2010

*please note substantial revision since incipit publication

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
reedr3v's picture

Wordy, but good at the heart



for all to see

This is impressive.

I take it 'instrumental violation' would include an M.D. arbitrarily labeling someone 'schizophrenic' and forcing poisonous 'drugs' say on an elder person forcing them to live in a nursing home once they knew that person had no 'family'?

It would mean if that person didn't want their care or drugs they were 'free to go home'?

I just want to cry.

Thanks, Anisha for the note

According to this canon (btw this is the first occasion I've been asked to interpret the clause), a medical professional would be free to issue whichever diagnosis they saw fit [under the principles of philosophy and agency], however the issue of forced ingestion I believe would indeed fall under the principle of corporality, should therefore be judged illegal, and the individual would remain free.

Similarly, the issue of forced interment (ex. a nursing home) would fall under the principle of individual sovereignty and therefore should be judged illegal, while I suppose the principles of agency and corporality would ensure that the patient could shop elsewhere in the free market.

I must admit my professional occupation is actually outside the Bar (teaching music history), however I'm hoping other constitutional scholars can lend their legal expertise and refine a number of points that I would be unaware of.

PS don't know if you've had a chance to check, but I'd actually sent an e-mail given a shared interest in CC2009 and am hoping for the best :)

Looks very interesting

bump for discussion. Thanks, for sharing this.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Survey bump