To build a healthy society you need some basic laws,
something easy to understand, to use as foundation.
To this day in human history you will never find something more solid than The Ten Commandments.
Because faith can be internal & personal, read from the bottom-up. The 10th Command provides security, neighborhood is safe from mischief,& 9th = No false witness.
Is this not easy to understand and accept ?

There is nothing new under the sun, we remain humans, even as time has moved forward and there is technological progress.

However, I think this view of the Constitutionalists is irrational. Why? Because I think that’s going against the incentive structure that is in place…as Public Choice theory economists have been pointing out, it is rational for average Joe to be ignorant of politics and “public policy” (there busy working, raising families, trying to make ends meet, etc–they don’t have time for political clap trap).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Hope that helps.

Otherwise, fantastic George! And hi, James.

[...] your Bill of Responsibilities to your Statement of Principles and you have the makings of your own personal constitution. Now that’s some parchment worth [...]

Bring me a danish.

Bryce, death as punishment for trespassing is absurd. It is not reasonable. Just because there is no government, doesn’t mean there will be no law. See the common law. Violations of the NAP should be responded to symmetrically. IOW, you don’t respond to a footstep on your property with a nuclear bomb.

Where do I say, imply or where it can be inferred that I support imposing the NAP on everyone? It is so boring and tedious when people try to force their assumptions into the discussion or put words in my mouth.

The whole point of the Constitution was to lay a groundwork for the nation people wanted to have, so “We the People” would willingly uphold the belief in freedom and liberty. If the people don’t support it, of course it won’t work. Nothing will.

As for creating smaller areas of tyranny, via secession, I think the ultimate goal IS personal secession, of a sort, in creating communities of like-minded people who govern themselves. Every time there’s a problem, segregate yourself, and avoid interacting with those who wish to do you harm; continually smaller pieces until everyone is free.

Even in a free society you’ll have people that disagree on specifics. Some people may decide that trespassing should be punished with death. That makes sense to me under the idea of Castle Doctrine, though people always draw the line in different places. Is it your bedroom, or your whole house, or everything within a certain distance of your front door? Must the trespasser knowingly be armed? Must you give him/her a chance to retreat? The idea of consolidated areas to define these particulars is why states were created, otherwise one set of rules could be completely different from those on the other side of the fence, to someone like Thoreau, walking across the countryside (though really, Thoreau was a momma’s boy who didn’t stray far from home).

I understand that the idea behind statehood was to well define these areas of assumptive law. If your response is something along the lines of “I believe that ALL people should fall under the definition of NAP as I personally see it” then you’re really just arguing for a less-restrictive world government.