Your browser has JavaScript turned off.
You will not be able to make use of major viewing features of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project website unless you turn JavaScript on.

A Revered Freedom Document Critique

Articles of Confederation (USA)

A mutual cooperation statement which lacked important contractual clauses

Even before issuing the Declaration of Independence (TDOI) on July 4, 1776, (see also my critique of TDOI) the revolutionary leaders of the various rebelling States knew that not only did they need to declare the sovereignty and independence of each State from Great Britain, but that some statement must be made about the relationships between the individual sovereign States to guide their joint purposes and prevent the interstate rivalries and wars which were the norm between sovereign governments everywhere else. The Articles of Confederation, promulgated on November 15, 1777, was a statement of mutual cooperation between sovereign entities (the 13 States which ratified it). Since the States were to each continue to be fully self-sovereign, the Framers appropriately limited the terms of the Articles of Confederation to deal with those items which were related to the external environment of each of the member States, and said very little about the laws, regulations and conduct of justice within each State. Although this may seem to be correct in principle, political entities which differ significantly in their internal ethics and operations will not be able to cooperate as fully as such a confederation needs, because of the unavoidable conflicts engendered by these internal differences and their extended domains of application directly abutting the differing neighbors.1 Ultimately, this "problem of cooperation" was even true for the stronger Union created by the Constitution, since it was just such a significant difference, with respect to slavery, which played a major part in starting the Civil War - the ultimate form of non-cooperation between self-sovereign entities in a federation. In addition the Articles: omitted some important clauses which are needed in any contractual relationship; did not account sufficiently for the different populations and wealth of the member States; and included, in highly unalterable form, several items which would clearly need to be altered with time as the world changed. Although some of these flaws were quite correctly criticized by the "Federalists", many of the aspects for which they criticized the Articles (in favor of the much stronger central government later instituted by the US Constitution) were, in fact, entirely necessary if the member States were truly to remain sovereign entities, and some of those aspects were actually the strengths of this confederation arrangement.

My critique applies to the context of that time

Note that once again in this critique my comments are meant to apply to the context of what information and thought was available at the time. By my current thinking, the entire basis for the Articles of Confederation was invalid, most especially any existence of governments, representation and voting. In addition some of the Articles and many of their subparts are merely somewhat arbitrary administrative details about which there was nothing to say relating to any fundamentals of freedom and I have therefore made no comments at these points.

Critique of the Original2

Article I

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

1) The word "Stile" appears to have meant "official name" at the time. Note that it is a "Confederation" (an alliance of equals), not a union. However, this clear statement that it was a Confederation, with all that implies, was contradicted by the addition in Article XII of the phrase "perpetual Union". In fact, there is a confusion and alternation throughout the whole document between "Union" and "Confederation" with the last even having a variation of capitalization between different articles. These and other variations in the document clearly indicate that it was the work of a committee and was never thoroughly checked for consistency of thought and word usage. In retrospect, the authors should have called it an "Alliance" of States. This would have made it much clearer that the member States were to be always considered separate self-sovereign political entities.

This is a prime example of why it is so important to define the special words of any document as technical terms at the beginning and then to use them throughout with this same precise meaning. Great care has been taken to do this within the Natural Social Contract.

Article II

Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

2) The alliance was between self-sovereign entities and only for strictly enumerated purposes which were assigned to the Congress of representatives from each State. The balance of all other rights and powers remained with the individual States. As I have noted elsewhere however, the idea that a non-human entity (a state, corporation, country, etc) can have human attributes (sovereignty, freedom, jurisdiction, rights, etc) is totally without any basis in reality.

Article III

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

3) This Article declares each States' mutual respect and friendship for the others and clearly names the major reason for their cooperation as being primarily for their common defense, a task which was too much for each of them individually or which could be more optimally accomplished by joint effort. What was not considered here, or anywhere else in the Articles, was what should happen if any of the member States came into conflict or dispute with another. Any agreement between parties without arrangements to either settle disputes or allow an orderly termination of the relationship is doomed to failure. Note once again that such human attributes as "mutual respect", "friendship", and "cooperation" are not meaningful for collections of humans in any form, since those attributes depend on the evaluations and decisions of individual human minds, and the actions of individual human bodies.

Article IV

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.

4) This is an excellent statement detailing just how independent legal systems and courts in difference areas could cooperate to mutual advantage by:

a) not creating or maintaining any travel barriers between States,

b) granting a visitor all the rights and privileges of a resident of the State in which he is visiting,

c) requiring interstate importation of goods without duty by the State(s) through which they were transported,

d) providing extradition of accused or convicted criminals on demand of the State from which they fled,

e) accepting the decisions of the courts of another State in that State's jurisdiction, as applying to its own citizens.

5) Some of these ideas could even be applied to independent legal systems and courts within the same area. However, the statement lacks any delineation of a minimal legal and social standard of conduct which each member State (whose laws would be upheld and respected by all others) should satisfy in order to be acceptable as an equal participant in the Confederation. Such differences have been the major causes of friction and sometimes violence between the member States even under the stronger Federation engendered by the Constitution. This problem was exacerbated even further by Article XIII which forbad the succession of member States and by similar measures in the Constitution which replaced these Articles.

Article V

For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States.

In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.

6) Although the ideas of restricting delegates from also being employees and of each State maintaining its own delegates is admirable, the first major flaw in the terms of this alliance occurs in this Article. Since both the populations and the wealths of each State were different at the start and would change differently with time, voting power of each State's delegates should have been based on some formula related to these two assets (just as are those factors recognized with respect to manning and supporting the common army and navy detailed below).

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

7) This statement contains a grave violation to the equality of rights of all citizens, since the delegates to this Congress of United States were granted immunity from the need to restitute anyone they might violate during the time they were delegates to the Congress (except for certain named severe criminal acts). This is an example of what has become more and more prevalent in the United States of America as time passed: the elevation of certain categories of government employees or elected officials to a status with more rights than those of other people - ie. the creation of distinctly different classes of citizens. It is so clear a violation of equal justice that it is utterly incomprehensible how it could have ever been allowed to begin back in 1778. In actuality, this kind of special status of immunity from prosecution also contradicts the major reason for the prohibition against the granting of titles and special favors which is stated in Article VI of this document. While such grants of special status have always been the rule and continue under governments worldwide, it is particularly regrettable that the American Revolutionaries chose to recreate the very "aristocracy" which they were fighting so hard to eliminate.

Article VI

No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

8) These are unreasonable prohibitions of the right of association and contract of the member States. Any contacts and contracts with individuals or States outside of the alliance which do not violate the other Articles of Confederation or the terms of contracts between the United States (ie. already agreed to by all individual States) should be permitted by default.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

9) This Article is a violation of the right of bearing arms for self defense which is inherent in each individual and hence, in his chosen protection association (in this case, the State). The form and nature of defense forces permitted to each State should not be regulated. A major flaw was that each State was not contractually obligated to provide and equip a militia proportional in size to its population and wealth (which is what needed to be protected). But any forces additional to that should certainly not have been prohibited.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

10) This forbidding of any individual State to unilaterally engage in aggressive action may have seemed reasonable because of the likelihood that the policy of open borders and respect for the rulings of the courts of the other would draw others into such a war. However, this did not need to be the case. Furthermore, it is only the initiation of aggression which should be absolutely forbidden. Defensive use of force should never be inhibited in any manner.

Article VII

When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

Article VIII

All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.

11) The positive aspect of this Article is that it made each State pay an amount roughly proportional to its wealth which was in need of protection. However, here as with Articles VI and IX concerning the responsibility of a State to raise and equip a militia proportionate to its population, there is nothing anywhere in the Articles which states what would be the result of any State defaulting on its obligations to abide by these responsibilities. Without clauses stipulating what action is to be taken against those States which are in default of its terms, it was not possible to enforce the Articles as a contract.

Article IX

The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article -- of sending and receiving ambassadors -- entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever -- of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated -- of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace -- appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

12) This Article basically states that all activities external to the 13 member States are reserved to the United States in Congress. It also restricts the power of each State to not violate the rights of foreigners any more than they do to their own citizens. Specifically, no State is allowed to prohibit the export or import of any goods. This is a kind of guarantee of the rights of the individuals of all States to equal access to goods from the rest of the world, a right which was already guaranteed for goods from within the States by Article IV.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.

All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.

13) The lack of any enforcement power of this forerunner to the United States Supreme Court is the major reason why the Articles failed. If this body had been given the power to decide on the penalties to be assessed and the actions to be taken as a result of a determination of the breach of any of the Articles of Confederation by any member State, then many of the problems caused by the ensuing Constitution might have been avoided. Full individual freedom would still not have reigned, but things would almost certainly have been a lot better for a lot longer time.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States -- fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States -- regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated -- establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office -- appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers -- appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States -- making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.

14) It is regrettable that the authors of the Articles of Confederation (as was later true for the authors of the Constitution) did not realize that creation and maintenance of money, fixing standards of weights and measures and establishing postal service and rates are functions which clearly should be left to the free market choice of those who will benefit from such things. None of these are reasonable functions of any State even if one accepts the traditional view that police, courts and border protection must be performed by a monopoly organization.

The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction -- to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses -- to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted -- to build and equip a navy -- to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid-like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. But if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of each State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spread out in the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled.

15) It is rather odd that although the Articles required that States contribute armed men and payment to the joint effort in proportion to their populations and wealth, the States did not cast votes for joint decisions also in such proportions. With the provision of services to clients by a private company, this is how it would be done automatically - by means of the weighted "vote" of the monetary purchases of each customer selecting the services appropriate to his evaluation of his need and their value for him.

The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled.

16) This requirement of a two-thirds majority would have been entirely reasonable if States had the right to secede, but, as it was, it could lead to a tyranny of the majority just as much as if it had been only a simple majority. That 99% agree on something does not make it any more right to force it on those dissenting than if only 51% agreed. As an alliance of sovereign entities, for any measures requiring some value from every member State or having some potential for doing some harm to any member State, unanimous agreement should have been required (secession being the alternative).

The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States.

Article X

The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.

Article XI

Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

17) This Canadian (Paul Wakfer) has always deemed it to be highly regrettable that Canada did not grab this window of opportunity, which was open for almost 10 years, for special and privileged admission as a member State in the confederation. However lately, especially with the rapid loss of freedom in the US occurring under the administration of George W Bush, I have been seriously reconsidering.

Article XII

All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.

18) Here is the beginning of the National Debt. Of course, the principle of an alliance incurring debt rather than collecting direct subscriptions to joint projects before starting them should have been questioned and debt should never have been instituted.

Article XIII

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

19) It is useless to simply state that each party to a contract must abide by its terms if there is no statement of what happens if they do not! Not having any method of enforcement of its contractual terms was a major practical blunder in the framing of the Articles of Confederation. However, this was compounded by also not allowing any State to secede if they no longer wished to be a party to the contract. This was especially a violation of the rights of the citizens of each State to change their minds and particularly of the new adults of those States which had never been a party to the original contract. But even if one accepts States as entities which can have any reasonably defined self-sovereignty, how can any notion of self-sovereignty be reconciled with a committment to eternal bondage to a contract? As opposed to the arguments of the Federalists that requiring the unanimous agreement of each State for any changes to the Articles of Confederation weakened the confederation, that is the only method which avoids a tyranny of the majority over the minority, especially when a dissenting State is not even free to leave the confederation!

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

20) The Framers of the Articles should have had the good sense to know that this had nothing to do with "the hearts of the legislatures" and even less with "the Great Governor of the World" since neither of these exist. Moreover, these delegates had no right to pledge obedience to the Articles of Confederation by all the people in their respective States and even less by their progeny forever.


Not a contract

A state's interests are always those of its leaders

In the end, the reason why the Articles of Confederation did not work was because, although written like a contract, they did not have the breach and termination clauses which any successful contract must contain. These were particularly necessary because the State members were not able to act rationally in their own long range self-interest. This was, of course, because a state is not an entity which even has a definable long range self-interest beyond that of its political leaders, whose only interests (as politicians) are enlarging and maintaining their power and their salaries. Thus, this "anarchy of states" was prone to the same problems as is the "anarchy of nations" of the current world, and the Confederation Congress was just as impotent to solve these problems as is the United Nations of today. However, the correct answer to the problem was not to give more power to the Federal government as the Federalists argued and as their Constitution in fact did, but instead to remove the power from the member States and place it fully back with the individual citizens where it belongs.

Still many articles were sound and reasonable for mutual cooperation

Even though my thesis is that the nature of humans and reality is such that the effort of each individual to gain maximal lifetime happiness can only be optimal when no entity which has the properties of a government exists, there will still need to be mutual cooperation between the self-sovereign individuals which constitute society in order to achieve this optimal state. As was shown in this critique, many of the Articles of Confederation are sound and reasonable statements of the kinds of mutual cooperation which would be needed, and would be entered into by rational men in a society without any governments. If these Articles had been completed into a full contractual structure between self-sovereign States, detailing restitutions which must be made for breaches and methods of termination, the United States of America might not be in nearly the unsatisfactory state in which it is today. Just these kinds of clauses have been included in my version of a Natural Social Contract - an agreement of mutual cooperation between Self-Sovereign Individuals in society who have signed a Declaration of Individual Independence.

Instructive to examine US historical "solution" for state cooperation

However, before proceeding to examine my "solution" documents, it may still be instructive to examine more closely the US historical "solution" to the problem of cooperation between the States. To help this effort, I have written an analysis and critique of the Constitution Preamble and the Bill of Rights (its first 10 amendments).

1. Contrast this issue of cooperation between self-sovereign states with the similar problem for self-sovereign individuals. Although individuals may similarly have very different internal ethical ideas and methods of operation, the effect that this can directly have on other individuals around them is very much more limited than with sovereign states both abutting one another and having their citizens free to move from one to the other. This difference is one of the fundamental reasons why an anarchy of individuals requires fewer "rules" to operate effectively for the benefit of all, whereas an anarchy of states is doomed to eternal conflict unless there is a strong "higher" government which will then necessarily diminish the freedom of all states and their citizens. In addition, each individual has a much clearer interest in promoting his life and happiness into the future than do states composed of vastly differing individuals run by politically oriented narrow short-term interests. In particular, see how the problem of mutual cooperation while retaining full self-sovereignty is solved in the Declaration of Individual Independence and in the Natural Social Contract.

2. Text of The Articles of Confederation taken from