Rethinking the U.S. Constitution
I posit that most people who involve themselves in politics have, at one point or another, considered writing their own constitution. If they are American, they've probably considered rewriting The U.S. Constitution. Admittedly, it's mostly an exercise in LARPing; not only is creating or changing a constitution which has the weight of law very difficult, but Lysander Spooner showed that government don't stay within the boundaries of those constitutions. The power of law is ultimately the power of men, and the rule of law is ultimately the rule of men. Humans are good at rationalization and judges can find ways that something which should clearly be unconstitutional can be sold as constitutional by way of expediency or the preferences of the electorate. The Myth of the Rule of Law is a good eye-opener.
What's acceptable depends on the type of world we would like if the proposed constitution were followed, and I propose modernizing quite a bit of The U.S. Constitution because a lot of it is ignored for vagueness or in need of updating. My proposals are based on one or more of the following
What follows isn't a written-out constitution, but a set of proposals and challenges which can act as a springboard to develop a new constitution.
What's acceptable depends on the type of world we would like if the proposed constitution were followed, and I propose modernizing quite a bit of The U.S. Constitution because a lot of it is ignored for vagueness or in need of updating. My proposals are based on one or more of the following
- Compatible values - the nation should be comprised of people with compatible values. This doesn't imply ethnonationalism, but it doesn't preclude it. The Constitution assumed that the country would be "white people of good character (read: self-sufficient)."
- Families - The family is, or should be, a fundamental unit of a nation. Without families, there is no reproduction and eventually, there is the dying out of a people and culture. The Constitution, and the government it enables, should serve the nation, not the institution of government for its own sake.
- Meritocracy - Families are made of individuals and individuals must contribute. What is subsidized will grow in abundance; subsidizing failure will produce more failures. The Constitution should enable the best and brightest to succeed and raise everyone else up by example or eugenics via differential birth rates.
- Individual Choice - Though the nation needs families, people should be free to choose the life they want. It is better for someone to become a childless doctor who helps numerous children survive than for the doctor to have a few children but the greater number of children to either die or suffer.
- Dynamism and Localism - While the system should not be chaotic, it needs to be able to adapt to technology and global changes.
- No Forced Association - Why be put into a box with people that you hate or who hate you? Diversity plus proximity equals conflict. Some diversity is necessary for dynamism but, in the case it's destructive, people should be able to reduce their legislative proximity to others.
- Power decentralization - This is related to localism, but is more broad. When any group has a lot of power, whether that's access to weaponry, population, wealth, or information, and another group doesn't, it leads either to instability, a potential lack of meritocracy, a potential lack of dynamism, or a potential for forced association. It also undermines the best aspects of capitalism. The power of governments and corporations within the country need to be checked so that one group cannot severely outmatch another.
What follows isn't a written-out constitution, but a set of proposals and challenges which can act as a springboard to develop a new constitution.
Critical Problems
For the purposes of this post, I'll assume a rewrite of The U.S. Constitution or the creation of a new political system using The U.S. Constitution as a starting point. That there are large shortcomings in The U.S. Constitution should be obvious for libertarians and identitarians. Here are a few:
Vagueness in Certain Areas
I don't believe this is so much a problem with The U.S. Constitution, but with any constitution which assumes a nation of people with similar culture and outlook where the authors are blind to their assumptions of the norms and prejudices of the times. Rather than attempting (and failing) to define every possibility which might be encountered, the framers assumed that enough people would have similar outlooks on things that a document could be built on top of those norms. I'd like certain areas to be more specific, but would focus primarily on cultural nationalism and secession as more fundamental solutions to the problem of vagueness.
Still, there are obvious loopholes which should be closed
Enforcement mechanisms
As Lysander points out, the constitution is powerless to stop abuse. People respond to incentives and the incentives have to be correct for both proper behavior of rulers and the citizenry, as well as for attracting and retaining better government employees. Punishment can't come in the form of "voting them out" or "checks and balances" which exist only on paper; there must be a force which isn't beholden to the same rulers who may be charged with corruption, and it's more important for punishment to be certain than it is for it to be harsh.
It's better for open-source technology to enforce rules than for humans to do so. Open-source technology can be audited and, while it will have the biases of its creators, those are obvious to experienced individuals reviewing the code. Technology can't have a public and a private position on issues, nor will it garner a cult-of-personality who will look the other way when "their" candidate does shitty things.
It needs a Legally-Binding Companion Document
The U.S. Constitution has The Federalist and Antifederalist Papers, which clearly lay out a lot of the meaning in The Constitution which the judicial system struggle with, but it carries no weight of law. A constitution should be short enough that the citizenry can memorize or nearly memorize it, but it's good to have an expanded set of examples, test cases as I would say in software engineering parlance, to run against proposed laws to check for constitutionality.
Too Much Centralized Power
This isn't a problem with what's in The U.S. Constitution, but how it's interpreted. I look at law from a Software Engineering perspective, because that's what I'm comfortable with. The Federal Government should things related to
More specific laws should exist at the smallest governmental level possible counterbalanced by considerations such as predictability and economies of scale.
Residency Problems
The U.S. is one of only two developed nations which practice Jus Soli. This has created an absurd system where anyone who can get to the U.S. or overstay a travel visa gets to have children who are American Citizens regardless of whether they have compatible values. Since it seems cruel to break up families, the parent or parents may also get to stay. A nation isn't some stupid fucking game where if you get to "ghouls" you're safe. The U.S. is experiencing the fruits of displacing the founding stock with new people who have new values.
Currency Problems
How much U.S. currency exists? Does anyone know the actual M0 figure? How much credit is there? What happened to the trillions of dollars The Pentagon lost? Notwithstanding the land monopoly, manipulation of currency is the primary rent-seeking mechanism in operation today.
Big Corporations and Power Disparity Problems
The federal government is the largest corporation, but it's not the only corporation and corporations do things which can hurt the nation. I remind libertarians who may be quick to defend such entities that, firstly, it should be that the results generally matter more than the methods and, secondly, corporations are creations of the state. Limited liability, protected IP ownership, and the like are not things which would occur in ancapistan. It is time to differentiate between companies and corporations.
Vagueness in Certain Areas
I don't believe this is so much a problem with The U.S. Constitution, but with any constitution which assumes a nation of people with similar culture and outlook where the authors are blind to their assumptions of the norms and prejudices of the times. Rather than attempting (and failing) to define every possibility which might be encountered, the framers assumed that enough people would have similar outlooks on things that a document could be built on top of those norms. I'd like certain areas to be more specific, but would focus primarily on cultural nationalism and secession as more fundamental solutions to the problem of vagueness.
Still, there are obvious loopholes which should be closed
- An unbounded supreme court, allowing other branches to threaten stacking the court
- 10th amendment end-runs by danging carrots in front of states which the states or the residents thereof themselves paid for
- The horrible interstate commerce rulings (i.e. Wickard v. Filburn)
- "General welfare"
- A lot of the shit that the legislative branch pulls, like riders, closed-session voting, how committees assignments are made
- A lot of the shit that the judicial branch pulls, like blanket warrants, reading the phone book on charges, no punishment for bad DAs
- A lot of the shit that the executive branch pulls, like bureaucracies which make most of the actual laws (called regulations) without any real public oversight.
- That treaties have the weight of constitutional law even if they violate the rights of residents
Enforcement mechanisms
As Lysander points out, the constitution is powerless to stop abuse. People respond to incentives and the incentives have to be correct for both proper behavior of rulers and the citizenry, as well as for attracting and retaining better government employees. Punishment can't come in the form of "voting them out" or "checks and balances" which exist only on paper; there must be a force which isn't beholden to the same rulers who may be charged with corruption, and it's more important for punishment to be certain than it is for it to be harsh.
It's better for open-source technology to enforce rules than for humans to do so. Open-source technology can be audited and, while it will have the biases of its creators, those are obvious to experienced individuals reviewing the code. Technology can't have a public and a private position on issues, nor will it garner a cult-of-personality who will look the other way when "their" candidate does shitty things.
It needs a Legally-Binding Companion Document
The U.S. Constitution has The Federalist and Antifederalist Papers, which clearly lay out a lot of the meaning in The Constitution which the judicial system struggle with, but it carries no weight of law. A constitution should be short enough that the citizenry can memorize or nearly memorize it, but it's good to have an expanded set of examples, test cases as I would say in software engineering parlance, to run against proposed laws to check for constitutionality.
Too Much Centralized Power
This isn't a problem with what's in The U.S. Constitution, but how it's interpreted. I look at law from a Software Engineering perspective, because that's what I'm comfortable with. The Federal Government should things related to
- The External Interface of The Nation - treaties, diplomats, military, immigration
- The Laws and Items Common to All States - no slavery, a common currency
- Maintaining a Federalist System - that states may enter or secede, communication between states, laws preventing disorder/collapse
- Maintaining Commerce - enable trade between the states, that states may not blockade one another, stop immigration, or raise tariffs
- Maintaining an Operating Environment for States - providing a legal framework, services which are useful to almost everyone, necessary to fulfill its other missions, such as a public weather service.
- Arbitration Between States - when state can't agree, federal government steps in
- Laws Regarding Extra-State Entities - e.g. corporations
- Providing Defaults - default standards for pollution, etc. which states can adopt, reject, or override
More specific laws should exist at the smallest governmental level possible counterbalanced by considerations such as predictability and economies of scale.
Residency Problems
The U.S. is one of only two developed nations which practice Jus Soli. This has created an absurd system where anyone who can get to the U.S. or overstay a travel visa gets to have children who are American Citizens regardless of whether they have compatible values. Since it seems cruel to break up families, the parent or parents may also get to stay. A nation isn't some stupid fucking game where if you get to "ghouls" you're safe. The U.S. is experiencing the fruits of displacing the founding stock with new people who have new values.
Currency Problems
How much U.S. currency exists? Does anyone know the actual M0 figure? How much credit is there? What happened to the trillions of dollars The Pentagon lost? Notwithstanding the land monopoly, manipulation of currency is the primary rent-seeking mechanism in operation today.
Big Corporations and Power Disparity Problems
The federal government is the largest corporation, but it's not the only corporation and corporations do things which can hurt the nation. I remind libertarians who may be quick to defend such entities that, firstly, it should be that the results generally matter more than the methods and, secondly, corporations are creations of the state. Limited liability, protected IP ownership, and the like are not things which would occur in ancapistan. It is time to differentiate between companies and corporations.
Who Gets to be a Resident?
This is probably the most important change for any nation because, given that a nation is comprised of people, for a nation to retain an identity and culture, the members must also conform to that identity. My proposed changes:
Categories of Resident
I define the following categories of resident. Anyone entering the country should be vetted for criminality, ability to fund oneself while here / living arrangements, and communicable disease.
Nationals must be born of at least one national who hasn't renounced nationality
This one should be an obvious first step. It nearly eliminates the "pop out a baby on U.S. soil" trick.
Residency
Residents are always residents of a lowest-level-polity for the purposes of voting, state or council representation, and ownership or employment in companies. Residency is changed when an individual spends more than 3 contiguous month living within a polity. Changing polities resets the clock for eligibility for federal office. Sub-federal polities may, but are not required to, reset the clock for eligibility for local offices.
Categories of Resident
I define the following categories of resident. Anyone entering the country should be vetted for criminality, ability to fund oneself while here / living arrangements, and communicable disease.
- Visitor - someone who is just coming over to go to Disney World or see The Grand Canyon, etc. May have a temporary currency account which expires. There should be a non-intrusive way to roughly track whereabouts. Not legally allowed to work, but the federal government won't involve itself in some police state investigation on that for non-corporations; if Joe wants to give his visiting cousin some consideration for raking the yard, that's fine. May not own real property. Visitors should not be able to stay for more than 3 months and require 3 months between visits without a very good reason (i.e. their parent is imminently dying of cancer.)
- Guest Worker - while foreign workers for common jobs should be limited, there are obvious cases where people need to come in temporarily and work: a world-class neurosurgeon giving a lecture, a foreign band on concert tour, the management team of a foreign subsidiary of a corporation transitioning some aspect of the corporation. These individuals should have a temporary currency account which expires. There should be a non-intrusive way to roughly track whereabouts. Legally allowed to work. May not own real property.
- Permanent Resident - A non-national who may work. These could be refugees or the non-national parent or partner of a national, or the half-siblings of a child who is a national who were born before the child but were not yet adults at that time. Would have a permanent currency account and may own real property and form companies and corporations, but is not entitled to vote, run for office, be employed by any polity, or receive a UBI.
- National - a person born of at least one national who hadn't renounced nationality prior to birth of the person. Same rights as permanent resident, but eligible for UBI if one exists and they're adult. May work in government if an adult and not a dual national.
- Citizen - a national who has undergone whatever the requirements are to become a citizen. Same rights* as a national but can vote or run for office. *-if citizenship is predicated on renouncing UBI, then all rights as a national except to UBI.
Nationals must be born of at least one national who hasn't renounced nationality
This one should be an obvious first step. It nearly eliminates the "pop out a baby on U.S. soil" trick.
Residency
Residents are always residents of a lowest-level-polity for the purposes of voting, state or council representation, and ownership or employment in companies. Residency is changed when an individual spends more than 3 contiguous month living within a polity. Changing polities resets the clock for eligibility for federal office. Sub-federal polities may, but are not required to, reset the clock for eligibility for local offices.
Who Gets to Vote?
I support restricting the right to vote or run for elected office to citizens. Only adult nationals would be allowed to become citizens. I'm undecided on the what allows nationals to become citizens. Here are some possibilities
Options I didn't Cover Above
- Nothing. Any adult national is a citizen automatically.
- Military service. This could help people find shared experience with their time in the service and get people comfortable around guns, making it less likely that they would become gun grabbers. It could also help people find some greater purpose to get them out of addictions, including food addictions. It would also balance the military so it's not just poor people, else the poor are the only ones with votes. On the negative side, a big military is just begging to be used for something.
- Something painful. This wouldn't have to be the military but could be something which would help the nation but be hard enough to weed most applicants out. This could have many of the benefits of military option above, though not necessarily all. It would still fulfill the "a vote must be earned" criteria.
- Renouncing UBI. Not just for one year, but forever. This would skew the electorate toward people who had the means to not require the UBI, but it could turn into votes only for the rich. This is easy to implement, but isn't great.
- Enforcing laws. I like this one the most, but it has some practical problems. To be able to make laws either as a voter or a legislator, you'd have to be part of a lottery to enforce the laws. This would skew the electorate toward men, marginalizing cat ladies. However, it could also skew it toward sociopaths who don't mind, or even look forward to, directly imposing their will on people.
- In all of the above, a citizen should be expected to serve on a jury if called.
- In all of the above, no citizen may be a national of another country. Anyone accepting secondary nationality loses the right to vote or be in office immediately. Anyone found to have violated this provision, especially legislators, should be severely criminally punished.
- Options 2-5 might have a maximum age as well, something like 40. If you haven't become a citizen by that time, you're permanently a national.
Options I didn't Cover Above
- Married, optionally with children - This one is okay. I appreciate this option because it selects for people who are invested in the future of the nation, but there are plenty of people who contribute to the nation in ways which don't involve having children. There is also the issue of young males being a force for revolution; if they don't feel like they have a voice there might be chaos.
- Landowner - I reject this option for the reasons which lead me to support LVT.
How does Voting Work?
I propose one of either of two drastically different ways to structure voting. The choice of system has profound implications on taxes, secession, the distinction between the legislative and executive branches, and more.
In both of these systems, the vote of citizens should be digitally provable but anonymous. There are various systems which purport to allow anonymous digital voting with auditing at the cost of the individual vote itself (e.g. you can reveal how you voted, but it makes that vote not count). Cheating becomes a statistical improbability with only a few audits so long as citizenship is bounded and those bounds are known. The votes of all legislators would be public.
Option 1: Bicameral Legislature
The first system is close to the bicameral legislative system which existed in the U.S. at its inception. States exist and may join, merge, split, or depart from the federation. Localities do not directly interface with the federal government, and the federal government has little direct interaction with localities. Unlike today, states splitting or merging, or leaving would not require permission from other states or the federal government. States joining the union would require the votes of a 3/4 majority of states and the federal legislatures.
There would exist a lower legislature filled with 3 congressmen elected by citizens within a state divided equally between them. Their voting weight would be equal to some combination of the area of the state and its population. The following restrictions would exist for congressmen:
There would be an upper legislature filled with 2 senators elected by the government of the state. Their voting weight would be equal to every other senator. The following restrictions would exist for senators:
In the case of death, incapacitation, or incarceration of a congressman, a special election may be held for a replacement. In the interim, the voting weight held by the absent congressman will be awarded to the remaining congressmen for that state. The newly elected congressman will serve the remainder of the term of the absent congressman, but it shall count as a full term served for purposes of re-election.
In the case of death, incapacitation, or incarceration of a senator, the state may appoint a replacement. In the interim, the voting weight held by the absent senator will be awarded to the remaining senator for that state. The newly elected senator will serve the remainder of the term of the absent senator, but it shall count as their full term.
The president and vice president can be elected directly with the following restrictions
Option 2: Cellular Democracy
The second option is cellular democracy.
Within cellular democracy, contiguous polities of a few hundred or a few thousand residents are from the smallest unit of government. Residents in the polity elect a council of a few individuals, say 5-20 people, to represent them. Councils internally elect two representatives, one active, and one backup, to the be on the council of the next level of government which is comprised of councils of contiguous lower-level councils. From the uppermost council, a president is selected.
Funding is provided to higher level councils from lower level councils. This allows diversity in the way in which funds are raised. The lowest level council defines the boundaries of a unit-of-government which may secede from a larger unit or from the country itself. This allows groups as small as a few hundred or a few thousand individuals to form their own countries or escape oppressive larger-level polities.
I'm interested in this idea, but I'm not convinced it's workable given both the existing structure, and the potential chaos it could create. It's better for localism, and secession, but a harder sell. The remainder of this document is geared around the country not using cellular democracy.
In both of these systems, the vote of citizens should be digitally provable but anonymous. There are various systems which purport to allow anonymous digital voting with auditing at the cost of the individual vote itself (e.g. you can reveal how you voted, but it makes that vote not count). Cheating becomes a statistical improbability with only a few audits so long as citizenship is bounded and those bounds are known. The votes of all legislators would be public.
Option 1: Bicameral Legislature
The first system is close to the bicameral legislative system which existed in the U.S. at its inception. States exist and may join, merge, split, or depart from the federation. Localities do not directly interface with the federal government, and the federal government has little direct interaction with localities. Unlike today, states splitting or merging, or leaving would not require permission from other states or the federal government. States joining the union would require the votes of a 3/4 majority of states and the federal legislatures.
There would exist a lower legislature filled with 3 congressmen elected by citizens within a state divided equally between them. Their voting weight would be equal to some combination of the area of the state and its population. The following restrictions would exist for congressmen:
- A national for at least 5 years
- At least 30 years old
- Not a dual citizen of any nation
- At least 2 years a current resident of the state they represent prior to election, and during the duration of their holding office.
- Serving a term of 2 years, limited to not more than 3 terms within a lifetime whether contiguously or not.
- Potentially some limits on felonies prior to election. This has upsides and downsides which warrant further analysis.
There would be an upper legislature filled with 2 senators elected by the government of the state. Their voting weight would be equal to every other senator. The following restrictions would exist for senators:
- A national for at least 5 years
- At least 35 years old
- Not a dual citizen of any nation
- Serving a term of 6 years limited to not more than 1 term within a lifetime.
- At least 4 years a resident of the state they represent prior to the election, and during the duration of their holding office.
- Potentially some limits on felonies prior to election. This has upsides and downsides which warrant further analysis.
In the case of death, incapacitation, or incarceration of a congressman, a special election may be held for a replacement. In the interim, the voting weight held by the absent congressman will be awarded to the remaining congressmen for that state. The newly elected congressman will serve the remainder of the term of the absent congressman, but it shall count as a full term served for purposes of re-election.
In the case of death, incapacitation, or incarceration of a senator, the state may appoint a replacement. In the interim, the voting weight held by the absent senator will be awarded to the remaining senator for that state. The newly elected senator will serve the remainder of the term of the absent senator, but it shall count as their full term.
- Laws may be introduced by either house, except spending bills, which must originate in the house.
- Both houses must pass bills by a 2/3rd majority, but may repeal bills by a simple majority.
- Supreme court justices must be approved by a majority of senators.
The president and vice president can be elected directly with the following restrictions
- A national for at least 10 years
- At least 40 years old
- Not a dual citizen of any nation
- Serving a term of 6 years limited to not more than 1 term within a lifetime.
- At least 4 years a resident of the state they represent prior to the election, and during the duration of their holding office.
- The president and vice president must be residents of different states
- Potentially some limits on felonies prior to election. This has upsides and downsides which warrant further analysis.
Option 2: Cellular Democracy
The second option is cellular democracy.
Within cellular democracy, contiguous polities of a few hundred or a few thousand residents are from the smallest unit of government. Residents in the polity elect a council of a few individuals, say 5-20 people, to represent them. Councils internally elect two representatives, one active, and one backup, to the be on the council of the next level of government which is comprised of councils of contiguous lower-level councils. From the uppermost council, a president is selected.
Funding is provided to higher level councils from lower level councils. This allows diversity in the way in which funds are raised. The lowest level council defines the boundaries of a unit-of-government which may secede from a larger unit or from the country itself. This allows groups as small as a few hundred or a few thousand individuals to form their own countries or escape oppressive larger-level polities.
I'm interested in this idea, but I'm not convinced it's workable given both the existing structure, and the potential chaos it could create. It's better for localism, and secession, but a harder sell. The remainder of this document is geared around the country not using cellular democracy.
Age of Majority, Trial as Adult
The human brain stops developing around age 24. I propose that the age of majority is raised to 20 as it's closer to 24 and is a nice round number. An adult is eligible to receive the UBI, start and invest in companies or corporations, join the military, enter into contracts, be employed by a polity, and run for local offices.
Individuals below the age of 20 may petition for emancipation or may enter into certain contracts backstopped by parent or legal guardian. States may set their own marriage, parenting, and age-of-consent laws for unemancipated minors.
Individuals 13 and older may be tried as adults, but only in the case where the crime isn't predicated on them being a minor, and, if the prosecution loses, the individual is accepted as an adult, otherwise it'd be self-contradictory. For instance, if a 14 year old takes a nude picture of themselves, they can't be tried as an adult for possession of child porn because to try them as an adult would mean they are considered an adult, in which case a picture of them would be a picture of an adult.
Individuals under 13 may be removed from society to a juvenile or mental health ward if they can't be rehabilitated, but may not be inmates with adults, and must be released upon successful rehabilitation.
Individuals below the age of 20 may petition for emancipation or may enter into certain contracts backstopped by parent or legal guardian. States may set their own marriage, parenting, and age-of-consent laws for unemancipated minors.
Individuals 13 and older may be tried as adults, but only in the case where the crime isn't predicated on them being a minor, and, if the prosecution loses, the individual is accepted as an adult, otherwise it'd be self-contradictory. For instance, if a 14 year old takes a nude picture of themselves, they can't be tried as an adult for possession of child porn because to try them as an adult would mean they are considered an adult, in which case a picture of them would be a picture of an adult.
Individuals under 13 may be removed from society to a juvenile or mental health ward if they can't be rehabilitated, but may not be inmates with adults, and must be released upon successful rehabilitation.
Secession
The fundamental right which isn't codified into The U.S. Constitution is the right of secession. Despite this right existing in at least one state constitution at the time of joining the union, the federal government considers the civil war to have settled the debate. Without such a right, any nation based on cultural or ethnicity is at risk, therefore the right of secession must be made explicit.
Polities should be able to leave their parent polity and join to or create another parent polity of equal level, or to leave the country entirely. Within cellular democracy, there are an unknown level of polities in the hierarchy depending on the number of representatives per council and the number of people they represent. Within the bicameral legislative system, the hierarchy is: federal, state, county, city/town, ward where the last two are levels are optional (i.e. unincorporated areas). If cellular democracy isn't used, higher-level polities should be able to create new lower-level polities (i.e. states can create new counties and counties can create new towns).
Mechanics of Secession
A polity may announce its intention to separate from a parent polity to take effect at the longer of: 2 years, the end of the next full 2-year legislative term. 3/4 of the permanent residents, nationals, and citizens residing in the affected area must agree to the move, and 3/4 of the permanent residents, nationals, and citizens in the target polity must agree to accept the child polity unless the polity is seceding from the country. This is the only time which non-citizens can vote and all votes are public if the secession occurs. Note owners of real property who do not reside in an area cannot vote. This prevents large landowners from blocking secession.
Breaking up is Hard to Do
While I consider the right of secession a must for any new constitution, there are numerous problems with break-up. I list these and my proposed solutions below:
There are additional issues if the polity is leaving the country
Limits to State Size
There must be limits to state size both in population and land mass. The greater the size of a state, the harder secession is. I recommend something like the population over 1 million if contained within greater than 500 square kilometers (193 square miles), or unlimited if contained within an area equal to or smaller than 500 square kilometers (e.g. New York City or L.A.).
Polities should be able to leave their parent polity and join to or create another parent polity of equal level, or to leave the country entirely. Within cellular democracy, there are an unknown level of polities in the hierarchy depending on the number of representatives per council and the number of people they represent. Within the bicameral legislative system, the hierarchy is: federal, state, county, city/town, ward where the last two are levels are optional (i.e. unincorporated areas). If cellular democracy isn't used, higher-level polities should be able to create new lower-level polities (i.e. states can create new counties and counties can create new towns).
Mechanics of Secession
A polity may announce its intention to separate from a parent polity to take effect at the longer of: 2 years, the end of the next full 2-year legislative term. 3/4 of the permanent residents, nationals, and citizens residing in the affected area must agree to the move, and 3/4 of the permanent residents, nationals, and citizens in the target polity must agree to accept the child polity unless the polity is seceding from the country. This is the only time which non-citizens can vote and all votes are public if the secession occurs. Note owners of real property who do not reside in an area cannot vote. This prevents large landowners from blocking secession.
Breaking up is Hard to Do
While I consider the right of secession a must for any new constitution, there are numerous problems with break-up. I list these and my proposed solutions below:
- The rights of residents who didn't elect to leave and who are unwilling or unable to move.
- These become residents of the new polity or, if the polity left the country
- residents living abroad for any resident who voted to remain or abstained from voting (or too young to vote at the time)
- non-nationals for any resident who voted to leave, considered same as renunciation of nationality, but only if the secession occurs.
- These become residents of the new polity or, if the polity left the country
- Companies which have employees and owners bound to a polity having to restructure
- Two year lead time allows companies to prepare or upgrade to corporations
- Investments made by others, such as roads and schools, many of which may not yet be paid off
- Government loans and bonds at all levels may not have terms longer than 30 years.
- The sudden addition of laws from the new polity and removal of laws from the old polity
- By default, the newly seceded political unit has the same laws and, if applicable, constitution as the source political unit. Changes can be made thereafter.
- When joining a new polity, the moving polity must conform to the laws of the new polity
- Government agency closures and employee shuffling
- Two year lead time allows employees to prepare
There are additional issues if the polity is leaving the country
- Changes to immigration policy
- Residents who didn't vote to remain become residents living outside of the country, residents who voted to leave lose residency and the rights associated with it.
- The federal government does not protect individuals, property or corporations operating abroad - remain at your own risk.
- Changes in currency and how to pay off existing debts in different currencies
- Return of military assets including nuclear weapons and remuneration for bases
Limits to State Size
There must be limits to state size both in population and land mass. The greater the size of a state, the harder secession is. I recommend something like the population over 1 million if contained within greater than 500 square kilometers (193 square miles), or unlimited if contained within an area equal to or smaller than 500 square kilometers (e.g. New York City or L.A.).
Local Control and Funding
- The law enforcement and bureaucracy of political sub-units are not required to aid law enforcement and bureaucracy of higher political units except that they must delivery up fugitives in their possession to other political units where they are charged with a crime.
- The federal government may not send federal money to any specific political sub-unit or group of political sub-units for any reason.
- If an area is known for hurricanes, it is that area's responsibility to prepare for and fund recovery.
- The federal government may not take money from individuals in political sub-units then use that as a carrot to gain compliance in soft non-compliance with the 10th amendment. For instance, currently states could legally lower the drinking age to 18, but they'll lose access to federal highway funds which people in their state paid for via federal income tax.
- Funds sent to military bases or border security which happen to be within a political sub-unit do not count as funding a political sub-unit.
- Funds sent to suppliers of the federal government which happen to be based within a political sub-unit do not count as funding a political sub-unit.
- Non-federal political units may fund political sub-units.
Rights Available within the Country
Justice
Legislative
Travel
Currency
Property
Expression
Except where otherwise under contract prohibiting the same
Slavery and False Imprisonment
Bodily Autonomy
Parents and doctors collaborating on surgeries and medical treatments for their child which a reasonable person would expect the child to accept having been performed when they are an adult.
Explicitly-requested euthanasia of adults shall be federally legal.
- The right to face your accuser and be told the charges against you
- The right to bring civil charges against others, your polity, or representatives
- The right to sell a civil suit, or remuneration in a criminal suit to another entity
- The right to a trial by a jury of peers
- The right to a public defender in criminal cases
- The right to a quick and public trial.
- The right to have legal fees paid by the other party if they lose, up to the average of the expenses of both sides. The state is not entitled to remuneration and state-provided legal defense does not count as expenses incurred by a defendant.
- The right to equal protection of the legal system regardless of status, post-adult age, race, religion, sex, politics, or preferences and opinions.
- The right to compensation for false imprisonment, my proposal is $1 million per year, with the first two weeks (speedy trial) waived. If the individual wants to delay the trial to have more time to build a case, that time period also doesn't count.
- The right to appeal a court's decision to a higher court or to the same court when a judge, DA, or prosecutor has been found to be corrupt, or when new evidence is discovered
- The right to see a warrant issued against your, or your property. The right to see any warrants issued in your polity or any parent polity within one week of the warrant being served, including the charges, the target, the signing judge, and the officers requesting the warrant.
- To represent yourself or hire someone or a group of people to do so.
- The right to not be charged with an ex-post-facto law.
- The right to not be criminally charged twice for the same crime.
- The right to not incriminate oneself or one's spouse in a criminal trial, the right to not be subject to forced confessions.
Legislative
- The right to run for office and serve if elected
- The right to vote for representatives
- The right to know how your representatives voted for any law
- The right to see any proposed laws at least one month prior to a vote being taken on them. The right for that law to be the one voted on.
- The right of laws to be expressed in easy-to-understand language, with common uses of terms, without attempts at connivance or legal trickery.
- The right to view deliberation occurring in legislatures or councils, up to 1 week delayed.
Travel
- The right to travel in all public areas of a polity, to travel between polities, or to leave the country unless a fugitive, to return to the country, but other countries may restrict entry.
Currency
- The right to transfer currency to any resident, company, polity, or corporation within the country
- The right to receive currency from any resident, company, polity, or corporation within the country
- The right to transfer currency to any neutral or ally entity outside of the country
- The right to receive currency from any neutral or ally entity outside of the country
Property
- The right to buy, sell, own, trade, use, create or dispose of real or personal property where the property and uses of the property are legal within the polity, and any parent polity.
- The right to form companies operating within the state, to divest from companies, or to invest in companies within the same state
- The right to form corporations, to invest in or divest from corporations operating within the country
- The right to compensation for property lost due to eminent domain. If the property was owned for less than 3 years, fair market value. If the property was owned for 3 or more years, 3 times fair market value.
Expression
Except where otherwise under contract prohibiting the same
- The right to express opinion
- The right to speak truth
Slavery and False Imprisonment
- The right to not be enslaved or imprisoned except with
- For taxation based on labor (wage taxes), the combined load on labor of taxation at all polities shall not exceed 50%. The federal government is prohibited from levying labor taxes.
Bodily Autonomy
- The right to bodily integrity, to be free from murder, assault, torture, or involuntary surgery.
Parents and doctors collaborating on surgeries and medical treatments for their child which a reasonable person would expect the child to accept having been performed when they are an adult.
Explicitly-requested euthanasia of adults shall be federally legal.
Limitations on States and Sub-Polities
States and sub-polities are banned from infringing on the rights listed above and additionally prohibited from
- Preventing adults from entering or leaving the polity using public ways, unless a fugitive
- Sheltering or harboring fugitives
- Placing tariffs on goods or services from other polities
- Preventing corporations operating locally from selling items to entities outside the polity even if those items are locally illegal
- Preventing goods which are locally illegal from traveling through the polity, so long as they are legal in their final destination, and the goods are protected from being disbursed into the polity.
- Creating their own currency
- Interfering in the execution of constitutional federal laws
- Charging someone who performed an action which was legal where and when they performed it, even if it was illegal in the polity unless under contract to not do so. For instance, if a person resides in a state where possession or use of marijuana is illegal, but then travels to another state where it is legal, and consumes marijuana, then returns having no marijuana on them, they may not be charged by the state prohibiting marijuana. This applies federally as well, except for treason which consists of physically undermining or preparing to undermine the country from abroad or, in time of war, providing aid to enemies or physically undermining or preparing to undermine allies.
The Legislature
The current federal and state legislatures are horrible. The Constitution assumed that legislators could operate unchecked and produce good results, but we haven't seen that borne out. The following apply to any legislatures and councils at all levels.
Public Availability / No Last Minute Changes
Bills must be publicly available for one month prior to a vote. They must be cryptographically signed by all authors and sponsors. Any changes to the bill require the new version of the bill to be public for one month prior to a vote. Votes may not occur on any other version of a bill.
No Riders or Amendments
Bills may only address a single topic and may not have non-related riders or amendments. A spending bill cannot, for instance, carry a ban on some type of drug. Those are separate topics, and must be in two bills.
Long Bill Prevention
Prior to voting on a bill, it must be read aloud without break (save for drinking provided water) or mechanical by a single representative. If that's too hard to do, the bill is too long.
Expiration and Revocation
It shall take 2/3rds of both legislative houses, or all councils to enact a new law, but only a simple majority to revoke a law. All laws expire automatically 10 years after the date of passage. Constitutional amendments require 3/4th of both legislative houses and, if an amendment of the federal constitution, 3/4 of all state legislative bodies or councils to enact, and do not expire.
Voting and Vote Tracking
The votes of all legislators are public and electronically secure. Voice or hand votes are not allowed. Absence of a vote for any reason is considered a no in the case of introducing or changing a law, or yes in the case of repealing a law.
Legislators are Under the Same Laws as Their Constituents
Legislators are not allowed to be under a different set of laws than residents in their domain. For instance, under this system, congress could not exempt itself from the Obamacare individual mandate or firearm laws.
Pensions, Healthcare and Wages
Legislators receive no pension and receive a wage and health coverage only for the term served plus a pro-rated "transition back to civilian life" period of 1 year per full term served. For instance, a congressman would get paid for 3 years - 2 years of legislating and 1 year afterwards. A congressman who took over for a congressman who died 3/4 of his way through office would get paid for 3/4 of a year - 1/2 of a year for legislating, and 1/4 of a year for the 1/4 of a normal term served.
Public Availability / No Last Minute Changes
Bills must be publicly available for one month prior to a vote. They must be cryptographically signed by all authors and sponsors. Any changes to the bill require the new version of the bill to be public for one month prior to a vote. Votes may not occur on any other version of a bill.
No Riders or Amendments
Bills may only address a single topic and may not have non-related riders or amendments. A spending bill cannot, for instance, carry a ban on some type of drug. Those are separate topics, and must be in two bills.
Long Bill Prevention
Prior to voting on a bill, it must be read aloud without break (save for drinking provided water) or mechanical by a single representative. If that's too hard to do, the bill is too long.
Expiration and Revocation
It shall take 2/3rds of both legislative houses, or all councils to enact a new law, but only a simple majority to revoke a law. All laws expire automatically 10 years after the date of passage. Constitutional amendments require 3/4th of both legislative houses and, if an amendment of the federal constitution, 3/4 of all state legislative bodies or councils to enact, and do not expire.
Voting and Vote Tracking
The votes of all legislators are public and electronically secure. Voice or hand votes are not allowed. Absence of a vote for any reason is considered a no in the case of introducing or changing a law, or yes in the case of repealing a law.
Legislators are Under the Same Laws as Their Constituents
Legislators are not allowed to be under a different set of laws than residents in their domain. For instance, under this system, congress could not exempt itself from the Obamacare individual mandate or firearm laws.
Pensions, Healthcare and Wages
Legislators receive no pension and receive a wage and health coverage only for the term served plus a pro-rated "transition back to civilian life" period of 1 year per full term served. For instance, a congressman would get paid for 3 years - 2 years of legislating and 1 year afterwards. A congressman who took over for a congressman who died 3/4 of his way through office would get paid for 3/4 of a year - 1/2 of a year for legislating, and 1/4 of a year for the 1/4 of a normal term served.
The Judiciary
The judiciary needs to be rethought.
Term and Size Limits
Judges serve for a maximum of 30 years. This eliminates the potentiality of life-extension technology allowing judges to serve indefinitely. It also helps remove judges before their loss of ability to serve becomes severe.
The Federal Supreme Courts and the ones of all sub-polities must be limited to 9 justices. This eliminates the threat of packing the court with sympathetic justices by an executive or legislative system which isn't getting their way.
Skin in the Game
Judges, prosecutors, and police need to have skin in the game. The following should impact pensions, pay, and the ability to serve of the principal parties involved in
This shouldn't be a "one time ruins everyone's career" situation, but it should be move toward forfeiture of pension, pay, and loss of title so that parties who are either corrupt or negligent are punished.
Individuals with standing, or those who standing has been sold to, can sue the principal parties for illegal or corrupt behavior.
No Reading the Phonebook - Stop Big-Timing Part 1
This is a problem with both the legislative and judicial systems. People can be charged multiple times for the same action and effect to person or property. For instance, if someone assaults someone, they may be charged with the assault, being drunk in public, and violating a person's civil rights. At least two of those charges are for the same action and the same victim.
By allowing prosecutors to use multiple overlapping charges, they are more likely to get something to stick.
One charge per victim-property unit per (in)action.
Examples:
Proximate Causes Only - Stop Big-Timing Part 2
Only proximate and likely causes may be charged. If someone is a getaway driver for a someone they can be charged with murder if
Strict Reading
A strict reading of the law is expected, and challenges can be made against vague laws based on alternate potential interpretations that a reasonable person would expect.
Plea Bargains
I'm not sure that these should be allowed. It's nice for people to have choices which can help them reduce fines or prison time, but it also allows the prosecutorial system to grow - if all criminal charges had to go to trial, it'd overburden the system and force it to hire more staff or to push back on the legislature to not make so many people mala prohibita criminals.
Term and Size Limits
Judges serve for a maximum of 30 years. This eliminates the potentiality of life-extension technology allowing judges to serve indefinitely. It also helps remove judges before their loss of ability to serve becomes severe.
The Federal Supreme Courts and the ones of all sub-polities must be limited to 9 justices. This eliminates the threat of packing the court with sympathetic justices by an executive or legislative system which isn't getting their way.
Skin in the Game
Judges, prosecutors, and police need to have skin in the game. The following should impact pensions, pay, and the ability to serve of the principal parties involved in
- Rulings which are overturned
- Discovery of suppressed evidence
- Falsifying evidence
- Discovery of evidence obtained illegally or coerced confessions
- Warrants issued which are overturned, illegal, or fail to find what they sought to discover
This shouldn't be a "one time ruins everyone's career" situation, but it should be move toward forfeiture of pension, pay, and loss of title so that parties who are either corrupt or negligent are punished.
Individuals with standing, or those who standing has been sold to, can sue the principal parties for illegal or corrupt behavior.
No Reading the Phonebook - Stop Big-Timing Part 1
This is a problem with both the legislative and judicial systems. People can be charged multiple times for the same action and effect to person or property. For instance, if someone assaults someone, they may be charged with the assault, being drunk in public, and violating a person's civil rights. At least two of those charges are for the same action and the same victim.
By allowing prosecutors to use multiple overlapping charges, they are more likely to get something to stick.
One charge per victim-property unit per (in)action.
Examples:
- Someone punches someone and steals their wallet.
- This is one action and two action-victim/property units: body and wallet. Max of 2 charges.
- Value may is combined with a single charge: if the wallet contained 2 $20 bills, that's not 2 thefts, it's 1 theft of $40. If someone gets punched in the head and stomach, that's not 2 assaults, that's 1 assault with a higher medical/suffering cost.
- Someone steals a car and then, in a high speed chase, crashes into a car and a fence post.
- Three actions/inactions: theft + reckless driving + failure to stop. Three "harms": theft, car crash, damage to fence post. Damaging the car and theft of the car overlap because the victim is deprived use of car, equivalent to total loss.
- Owner of car-(max of theft or damage)
- Owner of car 2 - damage
- Owner of fence - damage
- "Society" - reckless driving
- "Society" - failure to stop
- Up to 5 charges
- Three actions/inactions: theft + reckless driving + failure to stop. Three "harms": theft, car crash, damage to fence post. Damaging the car and theft of the car overlap because the victim is deprived use of car, equivalent to total loss.
Proximate Causes Only - Stop Big-Timing Part 2
Only proximate and likely causes may be charged. If someone is a getaway driver for a someone they can be charged with murder if
- They had reasonable reason to believe that a person could be murdered (i.e. getaway driver for robbing someone, not getaway driver for "I'm going to yell at this person")
- Their buddy isn't the one getting murdered, if a cop shoots your crime mate, that's not on you anymore than a person shooting a cop makes other cops liable for their friend being shot.
- If a cop is speeding to the scene of the crime and runs someone over, that's not on the criminals
Strict Reading
A strict reading of the law is expected, and challenges can be made against vague laws based on alternate potential interpretations that a reasonable person would expect.
Plea Bargains
I'm not sure that these should be allowed. It's nice for people to have choices which can help them reduce fines or prison time, but it also allows the prosecutorial system to grow - if all criminal charges had to go to trial, it'd overburden the system and force it to hire more staff or to push back on the legislature to not make so many people mala prohibita criminals.
Currency
This is one of the most controversial changes, but it drastically reduces a lot of rent-seeking. I don't see a way it could be transitioned to, but it's worth proposing.
Have a
Reserve Auditing
This would effectively eliminate banking and fractional reserve lending as it's practiced now. People could still issue credit, but there'd be much less need to. This should eliminate or make less severe boom/bust cycles.
It will eliminate a major source of rent-seeking and will give more power and wealth-generating abilities to residents.
It will make government much more transparent; where did the billions of dollars lost in Iraq go? In a public system, we would know. We would see the CIA paying contras in south and central Americas.
Dangers
A fully-public system can create problems for people buying guns or otherwise purchasing things which government or other individuals don't like. However, it's better from a power disparity metric that either no one can know what anyone else is doing, or everyone can know what everyone else is doing. David Brin's The Transparent Society tackles a lot of the concerns here.
Multiple Accounts
Entities should be able to have multiple accounts. An individual might want to keep funds separate to make things easier to track and manage. Companies and corporations would almost certainly have multiple accounts because it'd be risky for any group of people to have full control over accounts with a lot of funds in them. For instance, a non-franchise restaurant with multiple locations might have different accounts so that any manager of a location can't spend funds from any of the other accounts, but doesn't have to go to the restaurant owners for every little purchase.
Full Private Custody and Legal Right of Transfer
Funds have to be spendable only by those with the account's private key, or, better, the individuals authorized on the account if that can be determined in a cryptographic and publicly auditable way. This means that the governments can't take existing currency from an individual. Moreover, the government cannot legally block any transfer even for things which are illegal.
The government can throw people in jail until they pay up, or arrest them for hiring a hitman, but they can't just go to the bank and get them to pay up on the person's behalf. This gives the government a lot less power relative to individuals.
Attaching to UBI
If a UBI is paid out, the governments are allowed to attach to that for any legal purpose.
Have a
- nationalized, public and fully-auditable, electronic blockchain currency
- under full custodial control of individuals
- the transfers of which are not legally allowed to be blocked, excepting public digital contracts on the chain signed by the custodian(s)
- with accounts associated with individuals, corporations, companies, or government entities
- with a fixed supply or a supply based on an easy-to-verify formula such as a steady inflation rate or based on resident population
- where new units of currency enter at the federal level by lowering taxes or as an increase to a UBI and
- where removed currency increases federal taxes or decreases a UBI
- the transactions of which are one of
- fully transparent to everyone
- private with a fee which reduce taxes or into a UBI
- fully private for everyone (i.e. MimbleWimble)
- for which transaction fees, tariffs, or taxes may be charged only
- if transactions are made by an entity more than a certain number of times per day
- if a private transaction fees, if that system is chosen
- on payments to non-residents outside of the country, or to corporations which are not U.S.-based
- for which a non-tax, non-fee portion of currency cannot be directed to a third party unless the account or owner of the account has a blockchain contract stating such
Reserve Auditing
This would effectively eliminate banking and fractional reserve lending as it's practiced now. People could still issue credit, but there'd be much less need to. This should eliminate or make less severe boom/bust cycles.
It will eliminate a major source of rent-seeking and will give more power and wealth-generating abilities to residents.
It will make government much more transparent; where did the billions of dollars lost in Iraq go? In a public system, we would know. We would see the CIA paying contras in south and central Americas.
Dangers
A fully-public system can create problems for people buying guns or otherwise purchasing things which government or other individuals don't like. However, it's better from a power disparity metric that either no one can know what anyone else is doing, or everyone can know what everyone else is doing. David Brin's The Transparent Society tackles a lot of the concerns here.
Multiple Accounts
Entities should be able to have multiple accounts. An individual might want to keep funds separate to make things easier to track and manage. Companies and corporations would almost certainly have multiple accounts because it'd be risky for any group of people to have full control over accounts with a lot of funds in them. For instance, a non-franchise restaurant with multiple locations might have different accounts so that any manager of a location can't spend funds from any of the other accounts, but doesn't have to go to the restaurant owners for every little purchase.
Full Private Custody and Legal Right of Transfer
Funds have to be spendable only by those with the account's private key, or, better, the individuals authorized on the account if that can be determined in a cryptographic and publicly auditable way. This means that the governments can't take existing currency from an individual. Moreover, the government cannot legally block any transfer even for things which are illegal.
The government can throw people in jail until they pay up, or arrest them for hiring a hitman, but they can't just go to the bank and get them to pay up on the person's behalf. This gives the government a lot less power relative to individuals.
Attaching to UBI
If a UBI is paid out, the governments are allowed to attach to that for any legal purpose.
Taxes
At the federal level taxes may only be laid upon one or more of
At the federal level, taxes may only be spent on one or more of the following
Federal taxes may not be spent on
State and Sub-Polities
States are allowed to tax whatever they want except
- States in proportion to some combination of population and landmass (i.e. T=aP + bL where T is the tax, P is population of a state, L is the landmass of a state, and a and b are coefficients).
- If cellular democracy is used, each council determines how to fund parent levels
- Corporate revenue tax, either flat or progressive
- Intellectual property taxes if intellectual property is co-owned by government
- Tariffs on imported goods
- A Land Value Tax using the building-residual method and plot value normalization where up to 0.5% of the revenue raised may be used to administer the fund, and the remainder paid to all adult nationals as a UBI.
At the federal level, taxes may only be spent on one or more of the following
- Federally constitutional actions and bureaucracies and employees supporting those actions
- Contribution to constitutionally legal treaties
- Payment to plaintiffs in lost court cases, or to victims of false incarceration
- A universal basic income, or a universal basic service which is in a UBI's stead (e.g. UBI-funded retirement)
Federal taxes may not be spent on
- Any specific state or sub-polity, due to that polity's needs. For instance, if a state has a lot of earthquakes, that's that state's problem.
- Funds spent to federal installations within a state such as military bases, post offices, border patrol, NASA, etc. are allowed.
- Funds spent to repel invasions within a state is allowed.
- Any specific state or sub-polity, to bribe those polities
- The federal government can't bribe states with tax money to change their laws (i.e. raise the drinking age to 21 or no highway funds)
- Foreign aid unless to allies in a declared war
State and Sub-Polities
States are allowed to tax whatever they want except
- The practice of a right in the polity or any parent polity. E.G. a tax or fee for expressing an opinion in a private venue.
- Taxes on classes of personal property are allowed if they're uniform.
- Taxes on real property are allowed if they go to infrastructure investment or environmental protection.
- Taxing individuals on property or labor occurring outside of the polity
- Taxing entities on goods or services differently when sold to a certain class of people or entities based in a certain polity
- Taxing entities differently depending on who they are (i.e. there can be an Orange tax, but there can't be a tax on Tropicana Oranges, but not Florida Natural Oranges)
- Taxing wages more than 50% combined.
- Taxing goods passing through the polity, but not sold within the polity. Sales and wage taxes on truckers and port workers does not count as taxing goods in this manner.
Trade
There are a few reasons to support free trade (and automation)
There are counterarguments to all of those
Bad counterarguments:
Trade should either be
There is no need to ensure that trade deals are reciprocal or not.
No Entangling Alliances
There should be no entangling alliances. Treaties should last for a maximum of 20 years and should not include any unconstitutional provision - sovereignty is more important than trade or alliance.
- It lowers the cost of goods for consumers
- It allows (or forces) producers to either become more efficient or shift production to something where there is a domestic comparative or absolute advantage.
- It forces those who want ridiculous wages or regulation to cost domestic jobs
- It provides people in other countries with jobs which they deem better than the alternatives, which helps stabilize those countries.
There are counterarguments to all of those
- It raises costs in other areas. While the cost per domestic laborer retained will be higher under restricted trade (economic inefficiency), there are other aspects of society which aren't priced in.
- In some cases they can't compete because regulations or living standards are too high to compete.
- Rarely do the people who make these arguments face the results of their proposals. People generally blame corporations instead of the government when it's more often the government making things worse. Regulation and ridiculous wages will cost domestic jobs either way, outsourcing is just a way to save business owners and consumers from feeling the pain.
- This is true, but corporations such as Union Carbide, and Coca Cola have done some horrible things which have put people into situations where there best alternative is to work for global corporations.
Bad counterarguments:
- Comparative or absolute advantage are fake/toy economics. No, they're real and the cost per job kept will almost always be significantly more than what the laborer is getting paid. The issue is that people might care about social stability, the "dignity of work," etc. more than they care about the economic efficiency.
- A "right to a job"
- Protectionism in general - caring about the destabilizing effects of job loss due to outsourcing is different than "we must protect this nascent industry."
Trade should either be
- Free - people can trade with one another for any legal item, this is the most economically efficient
- Socially-priced - people can trade with one another for any legal item with tariffs built in which fund
- In the case of lost jobs, assistance/stability programs / worker retraining, or a UBI
- In the case of IP violations - to owners of the IP, whether foreign or domestic
- In the case of pollution
- Within the foreign country - to the citizens of that foreign country since they're the ones suffering
- Which make it to the domestic country - to the domestic citizens since they're the ones suffering
- In the case of regulation differences - to the workers in that foreign country so that inefficient domestic regulation cannot be subsidized; a higher standard of living is its own reward.
There is no need to ensure that trade deals are reciprocal or not.
No Entangling Alliances
There should be no entangling alliances. Treaties should last for a maximum of 20 years and should not include any unconstitutional provision - sovereignty is more important than trade or alliance.
Invention
Intellectual property is technically public property, but there are numerous issues with fully treating it like public property. A compromise of limited duration private intellectual property is suggested.
Trademarks
Copyrights
Patents
Another option is to have patents and possibly copyrights to be co-owned by the government with a Vickrey Auction setting the price for use, such that patent trolls and defensive patents are reduced.
Trademarks
- Cannot trademark a term in common use for something (e.g. a sub shop can't trademark "steak bomb.")
- A company's trademark extends only throughout the state, corporate trademarks are national
- Trademarks exist only for 2 years beyond the disbanding of the company or corporation which owned them, or 2 years from lapse
- Trademarks can only be owned by companies or corporations
- Government agency logos, names, typeface may be used except to impersonate communication or endorsement from said agency
Copyrights
- Copyright needs to be registered with the federal government to be protected. They last 20 years from date of registration, but may be explicitly abandoned by the owner before that point.
- Copyrights may be owned by and sold or willed to a single individual, and corporations. Governments and companies cannot own copyrights.
- Copyrights may be owned by an employee of a company, but the company cannot enter into a contract with an employee for exclusive licensing.
- Government cannot compel companies to monitor for copyright violation, but can compel corporations to do so.
- Items created by any polity are placed into the public domain
- Fair use for copyright remains
- To criticize or analyze, using short clips or snippets
- To parody
- Something which is incidental, and won't result in loss of revenue - i.e. someone caught an explosion on film and there's a shitty radio playing a song in the background, that's fine, no one's watching the video for the song
- In forms where it won't cause loss of revenue and can't be confused for endorsement - if someone wants to quote a few lines of a song in a book, that's not causing loss of revenue because people don't read lyrics INSTEAD of buying music.
- Fan fiction, within limits
- Re-cuts of existing videos expressed by markers not actual content (e.g. the phantom edit)
- Links to copyrighted material are legal, and an individual who has purchased a right to an item, has a right to make obtain unlimited copies, but may not sell or lend any copies.
- Discussion and analysis of circumvention techniques are not illegal
Patents
- Patents are granted by the federal government. They last for 14 years from the date of granting, but may be explicitly abandoned by the owner before that point.
- Patents may be owned by and sold or willed to a individual, trust, corporations, or governments.
- Patents owned by governments or whose discovery used more than 50% public money are public domain.
- Patents may be owned by an employee of a company, but the company cannot enter into a contract with an employee for exclusive licensing.
- Government cannot compel companies to monitor for patent violation, but can compel corporations to do so.
- End-users of items protected by patent are granted full access to their property, to circumvent protections (e.g. bypass ink refill lockouts on printers)
- Discussion and analysis of circumvention techniques are not illegal
Another option is to have patents and possibly copyrights to be co-owned by the government with a Vickrey Auction setting the price for use, such that patent trolls and defensive patents are reduced.
Corporations
I part with my many of my libertarian peers and call for a distinction between corporations and companies. To be fair, some libertarians want to do away with corporations entirely, which I think is too extreme as corporations are useful, but it's better to think of them as a public-private partnership or a semi-private subsidiary of a government.
For the purposes of this document, companies are a person or group of people within a non-federal political sub-unit, optionally chartered by that sub-unit which receives income for goods and services and, if a single individual, operates under a separate name and account from that individual. A corporation is a federally chartered company. I propose the following differences:
For the purposes of this document, companies are a person or group of people within a non-federal political sub-unit, optionally chartered by that sub-unit which receives income for goods and services and, if a single individual, operates under a separate name and account from that individual. A corporation is a federally chartered company. I propose the following differences:
Item |
Company |
Corporation |
Chartered |
State or local level, if required |
Federally |
Protections |
State or local, if provided Local trademarks |
Limited liability Federal and international trademarks Federal government contractor option Out of state legal production protection Out of state legal information protection |
May Operate Out Of |
Only within state |
Anywhere within country Outside of country |
May Hire |
Only residents within state |
Any resident Some restrictions on non-residents |
May be Owned By |
Any resident within state |
Any resident Some restrictions on non-residents |
May Own Copyrights / Patents |
No, but may licence IP or IP may be owned by employee but cannot have lock-in contract with employee. |
Yes |
May Own Land |
Only within state |
Anywhere within country Outside of country |
Subject To |
Federal constitution State and local constitutions and laws |
Federal constitution and laws State and local constitution and laws, notwithstanding out-of-state legal protections |
Taxes |
State and local taxes, if any |
Federal corporate revenue tax Tariffs, if applicable |
May Sell To |
Anyone, except federal government |
Anyone |
Becoming a Corporation
Any person or group of people may register as a corporation to provide any currently federally legal good or service, or, if acting internationally, any legal good or service in the localities of their customers.
Breaking up a Company in Secession
If a state is splitting such that a company would operate out of multiple states, that company must become a corporation or become multiple separate companies with different owners.
Taxes
There are no federal sales taxes on corporations, nor federal taxes of any kind on companies, or employees or contractors of corporations or companies.
There will be a federal revenue tax on corporations, which may be progressive and have a minimum tax-free amount ($500k or $1m)
The reason a revenue tax (true income tax) is chosen is that the current tax structure promotes expansion, rent-seeking, write-offs involving hard-to-quantify items such as IP or land, and offshoring. When certain classes of write-offs are allowed and others aren't, the government is picking winners and losers. Efficiency should be its own reward. Corporations may grow more slowly under this model, but that's acceptable to maintain a power balance.
The only write-offs allowed are loans, which must be encoded publicly in the public currency blockchain. The interest is not allowed to be written off, only the principal.
Ownership
A resident may own shares in any corporation. A resident may own shares in any company which is in the same state as the resident.
Non-residents may not own shares in a company.
U.S.-based corporations may be limited to a certain percentage ownership by non-residents (recommended 20%)
Foreign-based corporations may have their own restrictions, but must pay tariffs to sell within the country, even from a local factory.
Limitations on Corporations
Corporations are subject to federal safety, non-discrimination, sexual abuse, pollution, wage, accessibility, and other standards. For information processors, free speech and non-censorship within the bounds of the purpose of the site, but non-discriminatory thereafter. For each area of operation, state and local regulations also apply and, if more strict than federal regulations, override the federal regulations.
Limitations on States
States are prohibited from
Limited Liability
If you invest $10,000 for a 10% share in a corporation and the corporation is fined a million dollars, you lose your $10,000 if the company goes out of business. If you invest $10,000 for a 10% share in a company and the company is fined a million dollars, you're on the hook for $100,000 as a 10% owner, minus whatever insurance and reserves the company has. In no cases are mere investors criminally liable for what a corporation does.
Intellectual Property
Corporations, e.g. Disney, and individuals can own patents and copyrights, and sell them to or purchase them from other individuals or corporations.
Companies may not own patents or copyrights, but may exclusively license them. Employees of companies who develop IP own the developed IP and the company may not enter a contract of exclusive licensing beyond the duration of employment.
Any person or group of people may register as a corporation to provide any currently federally legal good or service, or, if acting internationally, any legal good or service in the localities of their customers.
- Corporation formed to sell marijuana, headquartered in a state where marijuana is illegal - fine
- Selling to customers in that state - illegal
- Corporation formed to sell some federally banned substance - illegal
- Selling to some country where it's okay - fine, but can't sell domestically
Breaking up a Company in Secession
If a state is splitting such that a company would operate out of multiple states, that company must become a corporation or become multiple separate companies with different owners.
Taxes
There are no federal sales taxes on corporations, nor federal taxes of any kind on companies, or employees or contractors of corporations or companies.
There will be a federal revenue tax on corporations, which may be progressive and have a minimum tax-free amount ($500k or $1m)
The reason a revenue tax (true income tax) is chosen is that the current tax structure promotes expansion, rent-seeking, write-offs involving hard-to-quantify items such as IP or land, and offshoring. When certain classes of write-offs are allowed and others aren't, the government is picking winners and losers. Efficiency should be its own reward. Corporations may grow more slowly under this model, but that's acceptable to maintain a power balance.
The only write-offs allowed are loans, which must be encoded publicly in the public currency blockchain. The interest is not allowed to be written off, only the principal.
Ownership
A resident may own shares in any corporation. A resident may own shares in any company which is in the same state as the resident.
Non-residents may not own shares in a company.
U.S.-based corporations may be limited to a certain percentage ownership by non-residents (recommended 20%)
Foreign-based corporations may have their own restrictions, but must pay tariffs to sell within the country, even from a local factory.
Limitations on Corporations
Corporations are subject to federal safety, non-discrimination, sexual abuse, pollution, wage, accessibility, and other standards. For information processors, free speech and non-censorship within the bounds of the purpose of the site, but non-discriminatory thereafter. For each area of operation, state and local regulations also apply and, if more strict than federal regulations, override the federal regulations.
Limitations on States
States are prohibited from
- Blocking the production of any product on the grounds that it's illegal in their locality so long as it's not sold locally - e.g. if a corporate gun manufacturer operated out of California, California could not block it.
- Blocking information processing, sharing, or storage by a corporation operating within a locality - e.g. if NJ bans 3D printed guns, and the NJ data center of a corporation has such information, NJ cannot block it.
- Laws which favor local companies over corporations, excepting government contracts. Connecticut can't impose special taxes on corporations over companies which do the same thing, nor make laws with the intention of disparate impact.
Limited Liability
If you invest $10,000 for a 10% share in a corporation and the corporation is fined a million dollars, you lose your $10,000 if the company goes out of business. If you invest $10,000 for a 10% share in a company and the company is fined a million dollars, you're on the hook for $100,000 as a 10% owner, minus whatever insurance and reserves the company has. In no cases are mere investors criminally liable for what a corporation does.
Intellectual Property
Corporations, e.g. Disney, and individuals can own patents and copyrights, and sell them to or purchase them from other individuals or corporations.
Companies may not own patents or copyrights, but may exclusively license them. Employees of companies who develop IP own the developed IP and the company may not enter a contract of exclusive licensing beyond the duration of employment.
Speech and Expression
Speech, publication, and otherwise transmitting information from mind to mind are federally legal in the following cases unless the "speaker" is contractually bound to not speak or otherwise transmit the information. For this section, speaker refers to a transmitter or publisher of information in addition to one who physically speaks vocally.
Opinion and Hyperbole
Speakers may express opinion or what is clearly to a reasonable person to be opinion. "That guy sucks." "I hate Jill." "The music here is great." "I could eat a horse right now." are all protected at the federal level.
Truth
Statements which are factually accurate are protected and proof of factualness provide protection regardless of the harm otherwise caused. "The theater's on fire!" (if it actually is), "There's a speed trap ahead." "I just got subpoenaed." "I saw Jill kissing that guy." "The bike lock guy lives at 123 fake street" (doxxing). I'll tell this true statement unless you do something for me (blackmail).
Copyright violation via speaking large portions of a text using a truth defense are not allowed, e.g. "J.K, Rowling wrote a book, it says '... proceeds to read entire Harry Potter book to audience ...'"
Expressed wishes of harm
Expressed wishes of harm are an extension of opinion and are protected. "I wish that guy would get hit by a bus." "Someone should kill that guy." "I hope his house burns down with him in it." "I would be eternally grateful if someone took care of that prick." (Close to consideration/solicitation, but the favor of an individual is not federally considered to be compensation.)
Insults
"Fuck you!" "Go back to Africa, Nigger!" are federally protected, but you might get punched.
What's not okay, federally
Lies, including Libel and Slander
Lies (excepting hyperbole), libel and slander are not federally protected. Since lies pollute the social commons and diminish trust, any resident has standing to challenge lies, not just the person, company, or corporation being lied about.
"Politician X is a baby rapist" - actionable unless true.
"Politician X is an asshole" - okay, because it's known by a reasonable person to be opinion not that (s)he's literally an anus
"That bitch is big as a house" - hyperbole
Fraud and Connivance
Fraud is not federally protected, nor is connivance where the intention is to mislead into the purchase of a good or service.
"This pill cures cancer" is not protected unless true, counts as lying to those not involved in the purchase.
"First prize is a toy Yoda" - made to sound like Toyota, no indication given otherwise, knowing that it'll trick people but not TECHNICALLY lying.
Solicitation (I'll give you X if you do Y)
"Kick that guy in the nuts for $500." "Kill her and I'll give you an autographed whatever."
Gratefulness is not solicitation unless directed to a specific person or group of people.
"Hey Joe, I'll be eternally grateful if you rob that bank." - not okay
"I'd be eternally grateful if someone robbed that bank." - okay
"I'll give $500 to whoever robs that bank." - not okay
Opinion and Hyperbole
Speakers may express opinion or what is clearly to a reasonable person to be opinion. "That guy sucks." "I hate Jill." "The music here is great." "I could eat a horse right now." are all protected at the federal level.
Truth
Statements which are factually accurate are protected and proof of factualness provide protection regardless of the harm otherwise caused. "The theater's on fire!" (if it actually is), "There's a speed trap ahead." "I just got subpoenaed." "I saw Jill kissing that guy." "The bike lock guy lives at 123 fake street" (doxxing). I'll tell this true statement unless you do something for me (blackmail).
Copyright violation via speaking large portions of a text using a truth defense are not allowed, e.g. "J.K, Rowling wrote a book, it says '... proceeds to read entire Harry Potter book to audience ...'"
Expressed wishes of harm
Expressed wishes of harm are an extension of opinion and are protected. "I wish that guy would get hit by a bus." "Someone should kill that guy." "I hope his house burns down with him in it." "I would be eternally grateful if someone took care of that prick." (Close to consideration/solicitation, but the favor of an individual is not federally considered to be compensation.)
Insults
"Fuck you!" "Go back to Africa, Nigger!" are federally protected, but you might get punched.
What's not okay, federally
Lies, including Libel and Slander
Lies (excepting hyperbole), libel and slander are not federally protected. Since lies pollute the social commons and diminish trust, any resident has standing to challenge lies, not just the person, company, or corporation being lied about.
"Politician X is a baby rapist" - actionable unless true.
"Politician X is an asshole" - okay, because it's known by a reasonable person to be opinion not that (s)he's literally an anus
"That bitch is big as a house" - hyperbole
Fraud and Connivance
Fraud is not federally protected, nor is connivance where the intention is to mislead into the purchase of a good or service.
"This pill cures cancer" is not protected unless true, counts as lying to those not involved in the purchase.
"First prize is a toy Yoda" - made to sound like Toyota, no indication given otherwise, knowing that it'll trick people but not TECHNICALLY lying.
Solicitation (I'll give you X if you do Y)
"Kick that guy in the nuts for $500." "Kill her and I'll give you an autographed whatever."
Gratefulness is not solicitation unless directed to a specific person or group of people.
"Hey Joe, I'll be eternally grateful if you rob that bank." - not okay
"I'd be eternally grateful if someone robbed that bank." - okay
"I'll give $500 to whoever robs that bank." - not okay
Guns
While I don't believe in American Exceptionalism, there are some things about The United States which are exceptional - primarily the first and second amendments to The U.S. Constitution.
Despite the second amendment being pretty clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the federal government makes a bunch of law which are purported to be necessary for social stability but are not consonant with the amendment as written. There's a lot of debate about the purpose of the second amendment despite The Anti-Federalist Papers being pretty clear on the issue.
Some conservatives are at least willing to state that the purpose of the second amendment is to make it more costly for governments to impose the will of legislators or, by proxy, the will of a majority on a minority who is willing to fight back. It's bullet nullification. Conservatives fall into the trap of arguing what should be regulated or not by making a distinction between arms and ordinance whenever the left baits them with the "should you be able to privately own a nuclear weapon?" question.
A much better way to handle this is to divide weapons into two categories
Nuclear weapons clearly fall into the first category. You can't enforce (non-international) laws with nuclear weapons. You can't use nuclear weapons inside the country without severely damaging the country and turning a lot of people against the government. Cops don't walk around with nuclear weapons. They don't even walk around with flamethrowers (which are legal in the U.S.), because those are not good at enforcing the law.
The worry which led to the second amendment is that the government needs to be kept in check. This indicates that people should have the same weapons as the government, but not those which would destroy the country. This leaves the weapons which can be used to enforce the laws, which essentially means the weapons (and tools) which law enforcement agencies can possess. The following policy positions meet this goal.
Limitations on the Military
The military, including national guard, isn't allowed to enforce laws, but may be allowed to keep the peace in exceptional cases, for instance, a major natural disaster. They are not allowed to take any non-law-enforcement tool outside of their bases. Possession and use of such tools on the ocean or at the border of the country are acceptable. Examples:
The End of Incorporation / State Bans on Weapons
I go against a lot of second amendment fans and say that gun laws shouldn't be incorporated to the states. If New Jersey wants to ban semi-automatics, I can live with that if that allows people in Montana to have anti-aircraft guns. States should be able to try their own things and let the results speak for themselves. If a state or locality bans weapons, those bans don't have to apply to law enforcement.
Federal Bans on Weapons
Any federal bans on weapons or tools (i.e. flashbangs, body armor, night vision), apply to all law enforcement both federally and at all political subunits. If the federal government bans new fully automatic weapons, then the FBI and local SWAT teams better get used to using the ones they already have.
No Federal Taxes on Rights
There cannot be imposed any federal tax or roadblock to rights, including the right to weaponry of law enforcement. The federal government cannot, therefore, specifically tax ammunition, lower receivers, etc. Those items may be taxed indirectly as an effect of corporate taxes and tariffs. The federal government may not make licensing requirements for gun ownership or possession outside of federal possessions and prisons, but states can. The federal government may not create a registry of weapons or tools.
Right of Pass-Through
The federal government shall ensure a right of travel between localities. For travel by road, states must allow items which are locally illegal through their state so long as they are protected from theft. The state may create requirements beyond the federal requirements and require travelers to meet these requirements at the expense of the state. For items where the risk of danger of theft, pollution, or death is especially great and such danger can be clearly articulated, the traveler may be required to have insurance, a police escort, etc. Examples:
Despite the second amendment being pretty clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the federal government makes a bunch of law which are purported to be necessary for social stability but are not consonant with the amendment as written. There's a lot of debate about the purpose of the second amendment despite The Anti-Federalist Papers being pretty clear on the issue.
Some conservatives are at least willing to state that the purpose of the second amendment is to make it more costly for governments to impose the will of legislators or, by proxy, the will of a majority on a minority who is willing to fight back. It's bullet nullification. Conservatives fall into the trap of arguing what should be regulated or not by making a distinction between arms and ordinance whenever the left baits them with the "should you be able to privately own a nuclear weapon?" question.
A much better way to handle this is to divide weapons into two categories
- Weapons used to pacify an area and to kill or break the will or ability of people there to fight, can hurt innocents or destroy the economy of the area.
- Weapons used to enforce laws or gain the compliance of individuals or small groups without hurting other individuals or the economy.
Nuclear weapons clearly fall into the first category. You can't enforce (non-international) laws with nuclear weapons. You can't use nuclear weapons inside the country without severely damaging the country and turning a lot of people against the government. Cops don't walk around with nuclear weapons. They don't even walk around with flamethrowers (which are legal in the U.S.), because those are not good at enforcing the law.
The worry which led to the second amendment is that the government needs to be kept in check. This indicates that people should have the same weapons as the government, but not those which would destroy the country. This leaves the weapons which can be used to enforce the laws, which essentially means the weapons (and tools) which law enforcement agencies can possess. The following policy positions meet this goal.
Limitations on the Military
The military, including national guard, isn't allowed to enforce laws, but may be allowed to keep the peace in exceptional cases, for instance, a major natural disaster. They are not allowed to take any non-law-enforcement tool outside of their bases. Possession and use of such tools on the ocean or at the border of the country are acceptable. Examples:
- If fully automatics weapons aren't allowed to civilians, then the national guard during Katrina can't walk around off base with them even if they are there to maintain order.
- If someone walks up to a national guardsman (off base) smoking a joint, the national guardsman can't arrest them unless deputized by the local police because they're not law enforcement, unless the locality allows anyone / any resident to enforce the law, in which case it's the individual enforcing the law, not a member of the national guard.
- The military could line the southern border with mines if approved by the legislature because that's not an internal part of the country.
The End of Incorporation / State Bans on Weapons
I go against a lot of second amendment fans and say that gun laws shouldn't be incorporated to the states. If New Jersey wants to ban semi-automatics, I can live with that if that allows people in Montana to have anti-aircraft guns. States should be able to try their own things and let the results speak for themselves. If a state or locality bans weapons, those bans don't have to apply to law enforcement.
Federal Bans on Weapons
Any federal bans on weapons or tools (i.e. flashbangs, body armor, night vision), apply to all law enforcement both federally and at all political subunits. If the federal government bans new fully automatic weapons, then the FBI and local SWAT teams better get used to using the ones they already have.
No Federal Taxes on Rights
There cannot be imposed any federal tax or roadblock to rights, including the right to weaponry of law enforcement. The federal government cannot, therefore, specifically tax ammunition, lower receivers, etc. Those items may be taxed indirectly as an effect of corporate taxes and tariffs. The federal government may not make licensing requirements for gun ownership or possession outside of federal possessions and prisons, but states can. The federal government may not create a registry of weapons or tools.
Right of Pass-Through
The federal government shall ensure a right of travel between localities. For travel by road, states must allow items which are locally illegal through their state so long as they are protected from theft. The state may create requirements beyond the federal requirements and require travelers to meet these requirements at the expense of the state. For items where the risk of danger of theft, pollution, or death is especially great and such danger can be clearly articulated, the traveler may be required to have insurance, a police escort, etc. Examples:
- New Jersey bans high-capacity (standard) magazines. Someone want to travel from New England to North Carolina. So long as they are a resident of a locality where such magazines are legal and they don't stop within New Jersey, except for gasoline, or possibly to sleep at a motel, New Jersey cannot charge them with possession of an illegal item.
- If New Jersey is worried about theft, they could provide specially locking, tracked briefcases at the border, at their own expense.
- If someone needs to transport spent uranium through New Jersey, New Jersey could require insurance and a police escort, at the expense of the shipper.
Privacy
Privacy, in the sense of removing oneself from others in society, is respected federally for all residents, but not for corporations or non-residents.
For all entities
Individuals
Sharing
Warrants
Camera/Satellite Feeds
For all entities
- The government can't force entities to spy for them, but can subpoena information if the info is kept.
- Government can't block the fact of subpoena indefinitely, nor can they prevent an entity from divulging the fact that a subpoena (or a new subpoena) exists (with the exception that the entity cannot divulge details other than the time received and from which agency, and a hash of the subpoena).
- Government and individuals cannot transmit "energy" into private areas to extract info, but info "emitted" from private areas to a public area or a private area owned by an entity or where an entity has a right to be is considered public
- E.G. you can't irradiate a house to see through the walls
- If you video someone sunbathing in their yard from the road, that's public, the individual is responsible for the concealment of the photons leaving their property
- E.G. you can't irradiate a house to see through the walls
- Individuals and companies are federally free to discriminate against others for any reason unless contractually bounded otherwise, corporations may not discriminate against employees or customers on the basis of any protected category.
- Entities are free to divulge or refrain from divulging true information, except when under oath or subpoena
Individuals
- Individuals are protected in their private communications and enjoyment of property unless served with a warrant specifying the items or information required
- Individuals are not required to incriminate themselves or their spouse
Sharing
- All information gathered from the government shall fall into one of the following categories
- Public
- All information gathered from public spaces which are not part of an ongoing investigation (e.g. satellite imagery, weather, traffic cameras)
- Government contracts
- Public and private account ownership
- Public transfers between accounts
- Delayed - this information will be made public after a short amount of time with an electronic proof
- Information gathered for an ongoing investigation
- Warrants
- Weapons Patents
- Secret - this information is required for government operation and cannot be shared.
- Private keys
- Identities of government agents
- Public
Warrants
- All warrants must be digitally signed by a judge and a prosecutor and officer(s) in good standing in the state where the warrant is to be served (or federally)
- All warrants must be unsealed and made public no more than 6 months after being served.
- Warrants leading to trials where the entity is not convicted of the crime the warrant was used to build a case for count against the signers (need some rule here)
Camera/Satellite Feeds
- Feeds from government properties such as traffic cameras and satellites shall be made public and provably non-altered, but may be delayed for up to 7 days.