fbpx

THE FREEDOMIST DECLARATION

A WORK IN PROGRESS

Inspired by the US Bill of Rights, but based on the concept of inherent God-given individual spiritual sovereignty, we propose and will pursue a Freedomist Declaration as a Universal Bill of Human Rights for all human beings on the planet.

Note: this is a work in progress, so please return for updates and submit suggestions or questions to bill@freedomist.com

This “Universal Bill of Human Rights” is otherwise known as “The Freedomist Declaration.”

Preamble and Declaration of Originating Authority

We declare and affirm and we hold it to be a priori fact that every human being is created equal before God in His Image, that they are spiritually sovereign individuals who are endowed with certain inherent rights, corresponding to certain responsibilities for their own welfare and support and for the common good, such as life in peace and safety from all harms and torts, liberty as defined by these rights, and ownership of property and a freehold by which one may pursue happiness, wealth, and purpose.

Among the rights we proclaim come from God, we do not acknowledge the moral authority of any human agencies or power that curtails these rights in any substantive way except for brief and major emergencies as consented to by the population in question.

In our application of these rights and our demands for respect and justice we don’t appeal to the state or to history, we appeal to God and rely upon Him to uphold and protect our rights which He has given so that we might worship, serve, and be a witness for Christ in peace. But these rights are universal and eternal and are owned by every person so that the degree to which any entity or power, be it official or private, violates thes rights, is the degree to which it is morally legitimate or illegitimate.

Our willingness to compromise even these rights for peace or to avoid conflict or harm is expedient and it is not freely given through consent. Our specific approach, which is peaceful persuasion, and our willingness to submit to laws and regulations which violate these rights is GRACE on our part, it is not acknowledgement of any moral legitimacy as applied to the laws or regulations or the authorities which force this compliance.

Unlike the US Bill of Rights, which sought to be succinct, our Freedomist Declaration seeks to be thorough so as to minimize the opportunity for watering down or misinterpreting or otherwise denying its original spirit and intent.

A norm in law is to not include explanation or commentary of any kind. The Freedomist Declaration contains all that as a means of hedging would-be opponents of these rights from watering them down or reinterpreting them in a dishonest manner. These rights are not a “living document”, they are set in stone and are inviolable. While we recognize that the law may not yet conform to these rights, it is our intention to seek the support of our fellow citizens to make these rights a litmus test for supporting any Party, candidate, or media operation especially.

Briefly, we list these rights not as a comprehensive list but as a foundation from which we may discern other rights, so long as none of these new rights can be used to limit any other right. Rights are the basis of justice and law: to uphold these rights and to promote and provide for the infrastructure of society to enable people to freely practice these rights, while punishing evildoers and protecting those who do good, is the moral duty of any magistrate, state, or government.

Rights are applicable as the basis of all law and govern how all persons, private entities, and the state behave toward their fellow human beings. A private entity can no more act in ways that materially violate the rights of other human beings than can a criminal or the state. Through free association, any entity can choose who can participate in their community or association, provided this is made clear and does not change in future without the consent of their members, subscribers, users, or customers.

No law that violates these rights or allows their violation is legally enforceable on moral grounds. Those who enforce such laws can never be said to be following orders but make themselves criminals who are subject to criminal prosecution. Those who propose such laws are committing criminal conspiracy and those who pass such laws are guilty of organized crime.

Free association, which is also a right, is not valid if one or more parties to the association are in any way coerced or placed in a position where their only choices are acceptance and compliance or very real monetary or other harm to their rights, person, or property. Private entities in invoking free association cannot do so in a manner that leaves those who once became participants with a choice that is coercive or manipulative in nature. Moreover, when or if private entities change the terms of use or standards for participation, they must first gain the consent of their customers or users where the rights of their customers or users are to be lessened.

For instance, one cannot have a platform or social network which includes as its membership base more than 20% of the population and that begins with an open and broad standard that then changes the standard substantially and in a manner that limits the free exercise of rights within the community more tightly than was before the standard without gaining consent from those participants.

This consent must be gained through a third party, independent referendum of users who ratify the changes by a 60% plus majority. 

All this is meant to say: our rights apply to all persons and entities of every kind and only through our freewill association, which we can later modify, can these rights be limited. To violate these rights is a crime whether the perpetrators are governments, individuals, or private entities. The old saying that the US Bill of Rights only limits government does not apply: respect for the rights of others is for us the basis of law for everyone and every kind of entity.

The purpose of society is to perpetuate the human race, to protect our rights, and to produce offspring who are most of the time raised by their own biological parents, their mother and father, and to ensure that the basic fractal of human society, the nuclear family attached to an extended family, is the favored sociocultural arrangement.

This statement does not mean the government must ensure certain types of families and freewill associations or domestic arrangements are the only legally allowed structures. It does acknowledge that government cannot proactively undermine these structures and that in any land where the Electors give their consent laws and policies favoring the nuclear and extended family and children tending to be raised by their own mother and father, whether biological or adopt, may be enacted.

Generally speaking, we acknowledge that a society that does not tend to produce offspring raised by their own biological or adopted mother and father will tend to surrender and lose its rights and become unstable.

Rights are not the goal, they are the means to the goal, which is a happy, healthy, peaceful, safe, and prosperous society of free people who may worship and serve God if they choose but who would neither be compelled to do so nor practically presented from freely and openly doing so. Any laws which tend to prohibit the exercise and practices of the historic “Christian”, or any other peaceful, faith must necessarily be considered illegitimate.

The four core ideals which are the ideational foundation of these rights include Unity in diversity, Popular sovereignty, Democratic equality, and Rule of law. We hold these ideals in balance with one another and base our understanding of them on Romans 12 and other Biblical principles. These ideals are the basis of our civic virtue and provide an ideational framework for good governance.

Among our rights, we list and will explain:

1. Free speech

Whatever is not a tort, the individual has a right to say, and to hinder this speech through any act of coercion or threat or to discriminate for any reason on this basis is a tort.

With the exception of private clubs and religious groups and for jobs in which the employee or contractoe is the speaker or representative of that entity, no entity may make the private speech of an individual the basis of employment or discrimination of any kind.

While it is true the image of an entity can be tarnished through the speech of its agents or employees, the universal standard of non-discrimination is such that all entities have the same hazard. The need to protect free speech is the greatest need in this case and the public will be aware that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of private speech.

2. Free association

Individuals may form such free associations as they see fit, according to their own rules, and without dictation by any third party, provided such free associations that do not have as their end a criminal enterprise or the violation or revocation of any of these rights.

They may dwell together on the basis of identifiable fraternal bonds provided the property is owned through shares and the need is held by their common entity and they may only sell shares to members of that entity.

They may form fraternal or domestic nations or tribes with their own sociocultural and socioeconomic institutions and standards, within the limits of common law and without violation of the rights of anyone, including their members, provided their membership exceeds .3% of the population in total or at least 20,000 persons.

A free association of any kind must allow for freewill covenant association and consent and may not use any means of selling memberships that would be a tort under commercial law. They may not constrain members from renouncing or discontinuing their membership and must compensate members who leave or who are removed with cause for any shares they own or property they have loaned except when the individual has practiced a tort against a fellow member under common law or criminal law.

In any free association, be it an online community or platform or club, business, or society, the terms and conditions and standards which govern membership or employment may not be changed after 36 months without the consent of the stakeholders.

Any entity deeming itself to be a mere platform or provider or communications and information services must apply these rights as its standards and may not violate these rights. Any editorial content it wishes to provide and promote to its membership, it may, to the exclusion of all others. But as the to communications and content of the membership it must be as inclusive as these rights or it must become a free association through the consent of a majority of its members.

3. Freedom of conscience

4. Freedom of religion

5. Freewill covenant association or free association

6. Self-determination

7. Freeholder rights

8. Trial by a jury of one’s peers, including jury nullification of unjust laws

9. Self-reliance

10. Self-preservation

All human beings own the inherent and magisterial authority and right to provide for the security and safety of the persons, rights, and property of themselves and those they are associated with through individual and corporate means, against all hazards, foreign or domestic, official or unofficial, by all reasonable, proportional, and legitimate means.

11. The right of Electors participate in community policing and local emergency and security through the right to keep and bear arms

12. Rights and responsibilities of citizens as clients of the magisterial authority

13. Rights and responsibilities of Electors as stakeholders of the homeland

14. Right to privacy and ownership of your own data and information

15. Right to legal counsel in all proceedings initiated by the government

16. Community sovereignty

17. Domestic nationhood and national homelands

18. Consumer’s rights to freedom from fraud and abuse

19. Worker’s rights to freedom from exploitation, fraud, and abuse

20. Equal treatment and opportunity

21. Equal access to public resources

22. Free market and economic rights

23. Right To Life

Human life begins at conception. With the exeption of choosing the life of the mother over the life of the unborn, and with the consent of the mother or her legal representative, no unborn life shall be terminated. In this case, the consenting party shall be guilty of manslaughter and the persons providing the service shall be guilty of murder. Clemency may be provided to the mother but not to the persons providing an abortion service or product.

No person who has committed murder with the proof of 2 or more witnesses or incontrovertible forensic proof shall be allowed to live lest the blood they shed be counted against the land, lest the whole land be guilty of the blood of the innocent.

Murder is the taking of innocent human life through unlawful acts or in the execution of unlawful acts, whether intentional or not.

23. Inviolability of these rights

Those who use their powers, influence, or public trust to seek to end or lessen these rights must be considered to be violators of the law. One does not have a right to agitate against the right of others. While free speech allows anyone to say they don’t like or agree with these rights, the active mobilization of resources to change the laws and make them work against these rights is not itself a right but constitutes a moral outrage against the People. As impractical as it is to make such actions “criminal” for our part we shun and disassociate with those who commit such an outrage.

CONCLUSION

Nobody is required to live by this Declaration, but we demand the right ourselves to live thereby. To prevent anyone from living out these rights in peace, or to coerce them to live them out, is a tort against humanity and God Himself.

Does the reader have any thoughts or insights to add?

9 + 7 =