The following articles are presented as a basic framework for a fundamental rule set around which a society turns. Although different cultures and different times create their own priorities and significance, there are dynamics common to all humans because the species shares a neurological system that underpins any subsequent variation.
Actual documents may differ across the borders, may emphasise this or that aspect, and in turn the understating of some other may have been balanced through further detail. Such hierarchy of values matters however when it comes to the daily life. Progression locks and/or assumed freedoms can emerge, clouding not only the concrete arena of societal events but also the perceived image of one's society and what kind of possibilities it offers as well as its limitations.
The present articles also follow a hierarchy, with the upper always overriding the lower. Their apparent simplicity hides their respective ramifications once they are considered in terms of their consequences. In any case, a basic charter should be as compact as possible.
Human affairs never reflect some elegant vision, regardless how well-meaning its designer may have been. Instead they are often obtuse, convoluted, and opaque. Still, there is a difference between arguing about what can be done and spending energy on what cannot be done. Both set up their own flow of events, affecting whatever they touch.
A charter of this nature not only protects society from its members, it also protects the members from society. Migrants for instance warrant an appropriate level of scrutiny to safeguard the national interest, but at the same time require the means to demonstrate their suitability regardless of their cultural or religious characteristics. Australia will be one country in the forefront of such necessities when rising sea levels force entire Pacific states to relocate to other regions. A top-level document that states clearly the essential principles of a nation is an anchor for the citizen and their multiple.
These articles appeared originally in "Logic and Order in Society" under the pen name Peter Wenger (published 1989, ISBN 0 7316 7059 0), see Museum.
1. The ultimate goal of any nation must be the mastery of its environment, whether that be naturally given or artificially created.
For this to be successfully accomplished the intellectual character of the community has to be of a quality that supersedes the demands of present systems. Within the privileges of every fully functioning citizen is incorporated the fundamental duty to uphold this quality to his or her best ability and knowledge.
Before any rights can be ascertained and given, the system must have the capacity to comply with that demand. A top priority must therefore be the safeguarding of this capacity.
No system can survive a challenge to its nature without possessing the sufficient degree of latency to assemble responses to its current state. Hence the capacity of the system needs to include the potential for overcoming stasis.
2. It is the inherent right of every human being to express freely any ideas or thoughts deemed necessary. The judgment of this necessity must always be the property of the originating person and must be defensible.
Flow of information is essential for the health of a system, whatever the nature of data. Given the possibility of high to low or low to high conceptual intersections, exceptions can occur that require a withholding of information to particular other domains. Since the judgment about applying an exception rests with the originator, the informative value of an event entailing the creation, distribution, or containment of information will be as high as possible.
3. Every citizen, regardless of age and gender, has the right to happiness and the quest towards it. This includes education; medical care; erotic fulfillment; meaningful employment; and social care.
It is the duty of every citizen to utilise these rights in such a manner that no-one else's pursuit of happiness will be jeopardised objectively.
It is the nature of humans to exercise their inherent optionality throughout their life. Curtail any one aspect and substitutes will be sought outside a given framework (centering on but not limited to the one designed to apply such constraint). The availability of benefits to some at the cost of limiting them to others is akin to unchecked censorship regarding information. A system suffers if the potential of its domains should be restrained through the influence of others.
Para. 2 also serves as a fundamental right to defend oneself, be that in the context of animals attacking humans, of bullying, or general aggression; regardless of any other regulation possibly attached to the aggressor.
4. No endeavour which seeks to influence and define people's lives may be enacted that has as its basis and justification the dogma of any religion, culture, or tradition.
Similarly, no activity pursued by any individual or individuals may be prohibited through justifications derived from the realms of religion, culture, or tradition.
The larger the system, the greater the need for functional synchronicity. While niches of idiosyncratic dynamics can exist anywhere, the moment they interact denominatively with the dynamics of other member domains (at whatever scale) such an interaction becomes a constraint leading to degeneration. In terms of the dynamics between two or more domains, it does not matter whether there is an act that seeks to prescribe or proscribe, or whether there is a prescription or proscription in relation to some act.
Governments have a tendency to legislate on morals derived from ideology. In a democracy the potential exists for special interest groups to fill up public bandwidth with the result that policy is enacted on the behest of a few.
Imposed moralism causes ethical vacuums where common civility is unseated in favour of extremes, which in turn leads to disrespect for the law because the latter's artificiality makes criminals out of many.
When resources become scarce the response to excesses imposes an unsustainable burden on society as a whole. Unfortunately, history shows that the overturning of obsessive laws only occurs once circumstances forces a society to come to its senses.
5. The governing process of the nation must at all times be open and accessible to any citizen, and the justification for access must be the sole property of the initiator. It is the duty of every governing body to utilise the best available technology in order to facilitate such access.
In line with the previous paragraphs free flow of information must be maintained, including the need for updating the necessary infrastructure.
6. The purpose of the law is to enable any course of action to proceed harmoniously and efficiently. Notwithstanding any previous paragraph only those laws are allowed that contain the following structure: the objective goal; the relevant event; and the principles underlying that event.
Any law that seeks to achieve its purpose through discrimination against any human characteristic is invalid. The only justifiable limiting measure is the degree of capability in relation to the goal, the event, and/or its principles.
Similarly, no person or group of persons is entitled to claim special privileges on behalf of anyone due to race, religion, or cultural background.
Contrary to some beliefs the law should serve the people, rather than the people serving the law. Unless a law can demonstrate its utility under the parameters given above, it runs the risk of being discriminatory and exclusively self-serving.
Further in line with the above the purpose of a law is to provide a format to instantiate a useful event under the auspices of the document. Apart from any safeguards specific to the event there is no justification for any other constraint applied to a person.
7. This text is the binding document defining the basis for the existence of all individuals who freely and unhindered subscribe to its tenets as the framework of their lives, their intellectual and materialistic endeavours; and who have thus established the geographical extent of their activities by virtue of territory and boundaries.
Domains can be defined and from a certain complexity onwards the domains define themselves. Whether in terms of physical size or cognitive dynamics a system attains a greater degree of justification if it has consciously chosen to assert its existence.