Special to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

Context and Question

So you see our culture collapsing around you. Distrust of government in all its forms has never been higher. You have your food and ammo stockpile, your secure location with power, water, garden and livestock, your gold and silver coins, cryptocurrency and your trade-able skills, but do you have an explicit political arrangement with your friends, neighbors and like-minded associates?

Have you given consideration to the following question? It is a question that Preppers and libertarians DO NOT ask and one that Authoritarians WILL NEVER ask.

• What *IS* the ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM that two people or more need to agree upon, in order to live together peacefully and productively?

 

Prologue

The TOTAL DISTRUST of central governments has already led to conditions in which relationships between individuals need to be examined and redefined.

*Politics is the branch of philosophy that studies the relationships between people.

Politics does NOT presuppose government. It presupposes and is a subcategory of morality and ethics. Government is a subcategory under politics. Politics is MORE THAN government. All politics start with two people. The most well known example in English speaking cultures is found in fiction, the day that Robinson Crusoe discovers that he is not alone on his island. Until that day, he needed a rational moral code of personal conduct in order to cope with existence and to survive. But from that particular “Friday” onwards, he was also involved in politics—something that had been utterly useless and meaningless to him since his shipwreck.

[10]

What *IS* The Bare Minimum…?

Starting from the basics of politics (the relationship between two people) and working up to more complex relationships, one should eventually ask…:

“What *IS* the bare minimum that two people need to agree upon, in order to live together peacefully and productively?”

A master/slave relationship (one of many possible political arrangements) might easily answer with:

“Do everything I say and we will get along just fine.” “Yes, Master.”

For the rest of us who choose individual freedom and trading instead of slavery, something a little bit more is needed.

Any attempt to answer that question will find a lot of useful advice (such as “do not steal or murder”) in various religions. But religions come with much more than the bare minimum requested in the opening question—far too much, actually, and some (most?) of it contradicts the useful advice. Therein lies part of the problem.

All systems of philosophy—including Ayn Rand's Objectivism—have some of the same characteristics. They encompass far more than the bare minimum that individuals need to agree upon, in order to live together peacefully and productively. It is NOT NECESSARY that everyone become an Objectivist or Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddist, etc in order to live together peacefully and productively. In fact, it is readily apparent that even groups of individuals who claim to adhere to Objectivism or some other philosophy or religion cannot agree on many essential core elements of their own philosophy or religion. Furthermore, all “Objectivists” are not at the same level of knowledge about Objectivism. The same is true of ANY philosophy or religion. There will always be newcomers, students and children coming into adulthood.

Yet evidence abounds that it actually *IS* possible for some Objectivists to live peacefully and productively with some non-Objectivists—even without an EXPLICIT bare minimum. And the United States is (or at least used to be) evidence that it is possible for people of differing religious views to live peacefully and productively together.

Here is the original question restated as a universal…:

Is there a bare minimum upon which *ALL* humans can agree?

Given what is know of socialpaths, psychopaths and people who gravitate to positions of power[12], the answer is “DEFINITELY, NO!”.

And that answer leads to a more specific question…:

Is there a bare minimum upon which *YOU AND I* can agree?

If the two of us[1] can agree upon something, perhaps there is one other person that you know, or that I know.

So what might an EXPLICIT bare minimum look like?

Keeping in mind all of the foregoing, I submit for your appraisal and evaluation, L. Neil Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent.[2] It is rational, simple, easy to read and understand and even short enough to memorize if desired.

If you agree and become a Signatory, at the very least you will have a single piece of paper that you can copy, point to and proclaim:

• “These are MY terms for dealing with other people. They are explicit and they are the bare minimum. Does any one other person agree with these terms? If so, let the two of us agree to treat each other according to these terms!”

Like the Darknet, Free or “Black” Markets, PGP encryption, BitMessage, Forth, Puppy Linux, Creative Commons, open source software, “mesh” networks, Diaspora, gold, silver and Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies, the Covenant does not and will not appeal to everyone—and like all the named items, it is not necessary that “everyone” embrace them. Those who *DO* use them, create their own value amongst themselves without depending on corrupt and collapsing governments, their crony corporate handmaidens and other government camp followers and dependents.

If you are organizing or are involved in a Voluntary Group such as described in Footnote [1], you may find the Covenant a useful way to qualify individuals for membership. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent—or something like it, if such exists—is a necessary, essential and indispensable core document around which small secession groups can stabilize and grow. It is objective law at the very foundation of such societies. [See Post Script]

At Footnote [2] there are links to several articles exploring various aspects of the Covenant. They may be of use during your appraisal and evaluation.

I have encountered a few other Covenant-like agreements[9] but none yet has been as clear, concise and comprehensive.

To live together peacefully and productively:

Follow the Precepts of the Covenant and no “government” will be necessary;
Violate the Precepts of the Covenant and no amount of government will be sufficient.

Live long and prosper.
Dennis Lee Wilson
Signatory: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent

 

Post Script: A New Model

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
— R. Buckminster Fuller

We do NOT suffer from a lack of rules!!

Our culture—the world/country/state/city—does NOT suffer from a lack of rules. What *IS* lacking is a rational, reliable, objective means by which to judge which rules are good, valid, proper and which rules should be ignored, invalidated, and discarded.

A fully defined, rational moral code provides the key but is beyond the scope of this article.[14] The Non Aggression Principle (NAP) provides sufficient moral justification and the Covenant of Unanimous Consent with its Five Precepts explicitly based on the NAP, provides the Political Statement, i.e. the "Supreme Law" by which ALL other laws and rules can be judged.

There is an important connection between The Covenant of Unanimous Consent[2] and Customary/Merchant Law[3] and Blackstone's Commentaries[4].

One might argue that the Covenant is too simple and ask “What about 'everyday' laws against theft, murder, fraud, and property and contract issues?” In the past[5], Merchant Law and Blackstone's provided those details—and they continue to do so to this day. In spite of the existence of government “laws” and government courts, many people still resort to private arbitration to resolve disputes! Merchant Law and Blackstone's are the precedents and the foundations for these private arbitrations.

The Covenant of Unanimous Consent provides the means by which individuals can and should judge, accept, modify or reject particular instances of Merchant Law and Blackstone's,— i.e. the Covenant *IS* Supreme Law for those groups that chose to utilize it. The Covenant—when viewed as Supreme Law—*IS* what the Constitution of the united States was allegedly intended to be, and attempted to provide but failed.

The Constitution of the united States[7] and similar historical documents relied upon “other”, delegated people (government) to “make”, care for and enforce sensible and rational laws. We are witness to and living with the results[8] that are neither sensible nor rational.

The Covenant expects the individual Signatories to be responsible for themselves and their own actions, and to organize themselves as they deem to be appropriate. This is no utopian expectation! Some groups of people have relied on themselves for hundreds of years,[5] the most recent example being the pioneers who settled from the Appalachian Mountains thru-out the American West and especially in the California mining camps.[6] Merchant Law and Blackstone's Commentaries ALREADY EXIST! There is no great effort needed to utilize them. They are made, cared for and enforced by the individuals who use them and they are excellent tools for Covenant societies and associations[1].

 

Footnotes: