Format of American Declaration of Independence purposefully used

1) If some of the phrasings and word usages in this Declaration of Individual Independence appear a bit odd and out of place or time, that is because the DOII has been written as much as possible in the style of the original American Declaration of Independence (TDOI), even purposefully using some of the phrases from that document where they were appropriate. This was done for several reasons. First, TDOI was organized with a structure which was reasonable for a Declaration of state sovereignty, but that same structure is just as reasonable for an individual Declaration of Self-Sovereignty, ie. for a Declaration of an individual human's independence from rule by governments everywhere. Second, TDOI correctly attempted to state its message in terms of basic principles as should any such Declaration and as does DOII. Third, TDOI was elegantly phrased for its time even though, as I have shown in a critique of TDOI, it contained major omissions and flaws. Finally, I wanted to create a Declaration which would inspire; one which would grab the hearts and minds of as many US residents as possible. Even though the last century has seen enormous reduction in consistent thought and action among USers in general about the purposes and methods of government, I think that they may still be the most fertile group among which to find people to join the cause of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project. Therefore, although this Declaration is not as I would have written it had the historical one not existed, it is not necessarily deficient from what that would have been, and it may, hopefully, be more persuasive.

Details of display and gender usage

2) The original document text is displayed in serif-style text. The annotations are numbered, as n., and are in normal text.

3) All uses of the masculine gender include the feminine gender. Neither in this Declaration nor in the Natural Social Contract is there any need to distinguish the two human genders.

Plurals used very restrictively

4) However, all singulars should be carefully distinguished from all plurals. In particular, I have intentionally refrained from using "we", "us" and "our", except where I explicitly refer to all human beings, to a clearly defined group, or to Kitty and Paul Antonik Wakfer together only. In addition, as opposed to most other writers, I never ascribe human thought, Action or any Attributes which can only be held by individual Persons, to plural nouns or pronouns. For details of why I think this is a fundamental problem, see annotation 6) below and my essay "The Essential Collectivism of Language and Thought".

Historical analysis not necessary for understanding

5) When reading the annotations of the DOII statements given below, the reader should realize that some of the ideas being explained are old and well known in our culture and some are creatively original or given boldly new interpretations, but all are highly complex, whether or not this has been recognized by others. A complete and detailed historical analysis of all the ideas expressed within the DOII and additionally within this brief annotated amplification of it would require hundreds of pages of text to adequately cover the full range of the intricacies involved, as they have been seen by other thinkers throughout history; that much and more can be found on these topics within the literature of civilization. In these annotated remarks I make no attempt at such a complete analysis of historical thought about these ideas, because I do not think that it is necessary. Instead I think that the explanations provided here should be sufficient to allow the thoughtful intelligent reader to understand what I am saying. As always, if anyone has questions or comments he should bring these to my attention at the Yahoo group MoreLife - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife, quoting the specific portion involved.

When in the course of his life any individual achieves a clear understanding that the realization of his human potential for the ultimate promotion of his Lifetime Happiness is being severely Constrained and UnPermittedly Modified by the regulations of those governing his life, and at the same time he appreciates that increasing his Lifetime Happiness is solely his own responsibility,

6) This document is first and foremost a Declaration of independence and Self-Sovereignty by an "individual" human, not by any group of them, political or otherwise. This is because groups of humans do not Exist as thinking, Acting entities with any Characteristics of Decision making or Acting similar to those of individual humans. Ignoring the foundational character of this fact of reality is the fundamental flaw lurking within the writings and conclusions of most thinkers on the subject of human social relationships. The use of plurals, either nouns or pronouns, to refer to Collectives (even where they are Well-Defined) as if they have all the Attributes of their Members by most writers throughout history is not trivial, nor merely a syntactical, stylistic or superficial linguistic convention. As this use of plurals to represent entities which are then depicted within sentences as thinking, Deciding, Acting, etc. - ie. doing all manner of mental and physical activities which only individual humans can do - is fundamental to the very structure of most world languages, so also and to the same extent are family, team, tribe, clan, nation and other Collectivist notions fundamental to the very core thinking of most humans. It is this that I seek to expose, so that it can be eradicated from human thought and so that the Reality of true individualism can finally shine through the veil of Collectivism (so-called "group think") which currently shrouds much human thought. For more details see my essay "The Essential Collectivism of Language and Thought".

7) Such a Declaration as the DOII can only take place at a time when a human has reached sufficient intellectual understanding to know that the full realization of his life's potential for the purpose of optimally increasing his Lifetime Happiness requires no more and no less than a very minimal, but nevertheless special and essential kind of ordering of Society. Whether sufficient numbers of people have reached this stage to allow the achievement of such a Society is not at all certain. However, it is my hope that with the use of the Internet to aid the promotion and implementation of the ideas, a Society of optimal InterPersonal Liberty and vastly increased Freedom can eventually be achieved.

8) I have, above, summarized the hallmarks of this intellectual understanding and maturity, and have in the Natural Social Contract used the terms Self-Sovereign Individual or Freeman to describe a person who has attained this level. From a Social perspective, Freeman Status may be seen as having been reached by and appropriate to a human who understands that portion of his own nature which necessitates a certain kind of behavior towards and from others in order to enable the most optimal mutual increase of his own and their Lifetime Happiness.

9) The phrase, "optimal increase of his Lifetime Happiness", is critical to understanding this Declaration and the world-view upon which it is based (as will be seen below) since, even though Deciding how to best promote one's own Happiness is fraught with great difficulty, one thing is certain - that only the individual himself has any significant chance to correctly Decide it. However, even the individual hirself needs to be very clear about what exactly s/he is trying to increase or augment when s/he aims to promote hir Lifetime Happiness. As detailed in its definition annotation, I distinguish the term Happiness from pleasure, gratification, satisfaction, contentment, fulfillment and the myriad of other feelings or emotions which humans seek to gain or increase, although these are all preliminary to, contributory to and part of Happiness. Instead, I use the term Lifetime Happiness for the summed Evaluations of all these multiple components and more - ie. Happiness is that which a Rational, volitional, self-aware and self-directed lifeform seeks. The major difference between self-aware and non self-aware lifeforms may be that a non self-aware lifeform "seeks" (actually it is merely compelled by its nature) only to maximize its instantaneous pleasure or gratification, while a self-aware lifeform consciously seeks and a consciously Rational lifeform volitionally Chooses to maximize its integrated Lifetime Happiness. It should be noted in passing that humans are not the only lifeforms on earth that show evidence of self-awareness and on some level operate to optimally increase their Lifetime Happiness - eg. most mammals exhibit some such traits.

Even though "realization of his human potential" is not a primary goal, I have included it before "promotion of his Lifetime Happiness" because it is so preliminary to and necessary for the Happiness of any being with human Attributes as to be practically essential (particularly the potential for Rational thought and Action). In addition, there are many, many humans who could, in fact, never be completely Happy without realizing some particular potential. For them, "realization of his human potential" (even if not a potential which is unique to humans - see next paragraph) is, in fact, one of the dimensions of their Happiness.2 In addition, Happiness seems to be an amount or Value of some State which Value is unbounded (certainly in time) and not something which can be achieved, whereas human potential appears not to be an unbounded amount of some State, but instead a level or goal that, although it may be altered by self-knowledge, is capable of attainment at some point in a lifetime (particularly for some specific human potential). It is optimally increasing such Happiness summed up over a lifetime which is the conscious purposeful human goal that each reasonable human seeks, and this statement is one of the self-evident truths (empirically derived axioms of reality) that I formally state as item III of the Declaration. For much more detail about Happiness, see the annotation to the Natural Social Contract for Happiness and the Theory of Social Meta-Needs wherein optimally increasing hir Lifetime Happiness is shown to be the only possible reasonable ultimate purpose for any human.

10) The phrase, "his human potential", is also critical here because the juxtaposition of "human" with "potential" refers to the common Attributes that all humans have as Members of the species homo sapiens sapiens and which differentiate them from other lifeforms - most particularly it refers to the Characteristics of mind - the defining human Characteristics. In the sense of Available Actions, humans have limited Freedom just as does everything else in nature. They can only Act according to what they are in Reality. They are not Free to fly (unaided), time travel, to walk through walls, or to read the minds of other humans. Just as any lifeform in Reality must Act according to its nature (or accept some usually negative consequences), so humans too are only Free to do what is in their nature according to the laws of Reality without incurring Harm. For example, just as a wooden beam under too much of a load will break, so a human's health will suffer if s/he does not eat adequate food in type and amount, and so also will hir potential for Happiness suffer if s/he does not associate at all with other humans or if s/he does not interact with them in a manner appropriate to their common nature as humans. Thus, what a human needs for the full promotion of hir Happiness is the maximum Freedom that this common essentially human nature allows in reality, which is not in conflict with the equal maximum Freedom of every other human being (ie. s/he needs compossible - consistently, mutually sustainable - Liberties). While the entire range of potential human Freedoms can only be gained by increases in available Choices (by advancing scientific and technological progress and creative invention), it is my contention that a clear, relatively concise delineation of a maximally compossible set of natural Liberties (the Social part of Freedoms) is possible, and that is what I have tried to succinctly state in this Declaration and in the Natural Social Contract.

11) A fundamental aspect of the nature of human beings is that one individual cannot directly affect the Happiness State of another except through Events which cause physical Harm or Benefit. All sensory input must be Evaluated by the mind, if only subconsciously and automatically, before it generates either a Happy or UnHappy emotion. This is an important aspect of the phrase "solely his own responsibility". Others can contribute to its generation, but only an individual human can be the Effective Cause of an increase of hir own Happiness in all of its many dimensions. This is not only because much of the manner in which s/he filters, Evaluates, combines and integrates hir sensory input is ultimately under hir volitional Control, but also because only s/he can know the intimate and complex details of what contributes to hir own Happiness. I am not saying that s/he can easily (or even ever completely) Control hir Evaluations or know with certainty what will cause hir to be Happy. I am only saying that others have even less chance to Control and Evaluate it to suit hir best than s/he does. They have no ability at all to Control the disposition and Evaluation of hir sensory input once it is past hir senses, and since they cannot read his mind, they cannot know his intimate Evaluations of data to any significant degree. On the negative side however, since the health and wholeness of an individual's body is essential for hir optimal Happiness, physical Harm must necessarily reduce the level of Happiness of any Rational individual.

then it becomes necessary for him to declare his refusal to sanction the necessity, Effect and the very Existence of such regulations over him, to unilaterally dissolve those Connection Attributes by which he has been Involved with his governors, and to assume his place among other Freemen with the independence of thought and sovereignty of Action which his and their nature entitles and requires of them as shown by the Theory of Social Meta-Needs.

12) In order to attain the best Social arrangement for the purpose of maximizing the achievement of hir potential to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, unless the current situation of hir Liberty is so bad that s/he would be in clear danger by doing so, the first and one of the most important steps that a person must take is to declare hir disagreement with those current social arrangements which decrease hir ability to attain these goals by reducing hir Available Actions and UnPermitedly Modifying hir Choice Estimations (and that of others with whom s/he needs to interface to reach hir goals) below what they could and should naturally be. Now some people may be rightly concerned with such an open act of defiance and may ask: "Why cannot I simply act in disobedience covertly, rather than state it openly, and also do all that I can to escape the regulations of my 'governors'?" My answer is that while I acknowledge that such a silent opting out and covert persuasion of others to do likewise may in time result in the atrophy and eventual disappearance of the state (and this is indeed what I have personally been doing for over two decades), I now think that the entrenchment and rate of growth of statist ideas is such that such atrophy and disappearance is highly unlikely to happen within any time frame which will Benefit anyone alive today, and furthermore, that the chances of it succeeding at all are growing slimmer every day. The reason that this silent, covert method is insufficient to accomplish the purposes of ultimate full and lasting Self-Sovereignty in any reasonable time frame, or even at all, is that for such a state of Self-Sovereignty to be practically Beneficial (ie. to be truly effective), it is necessary that a significant number of other individuals take part in the social structure that such a Free Society (actually a Freeman Society) requires, and that the regulations of the government, which are severely restricting such a free society currently, be greatly reduced and eventually eliminated. I think this can only be done by a courageous, forthright and open declaration of Self-Sovereignty (as was done by those who signed the Declaration of Independence). Only in this way will the declarer be seen to be sufficiently honorable and be able to appeal directly to enough people. Only by such an open declaration will s/he be able to gain sufficient credible publicity that s/he can eventually persuade sufficient numbers of people to join hir to enable the accomplishment of hir (and their) joint goal - instead of it remaining a mere utopian dream.

Thus, I am convinced that such a declaration is absolutely necessary in order to achieve the maximum possible Lifetime Happiness which Reality allows, not merely optimal Lifetime Happiness under one's present conditions (ie a "global"3 rather than a "local3 maximum of Lifetime Happiness). It is certainly true that people can achieve a local maximum of Happiness in different ways (one can be Happy even in a prison if one ignores what one is missing from lack of Liberty), but in order to achieve a global maximum, one must promote one's disagreement with the social status quo and take action to change those current social arrangements in order to gain more Available Actions (Freedom). Because in order to attain a global maximum Happiness State an individual needs the Available Choices and Actions which only the efforts of many others can provide, s/he really has no alternative except to declare hir dissatisfaction with the present state of society and to attempt to convince others to help hir change to a better social arrangement.

13) It is important to note that the declarer is not saying and need not say that s/he definitely intends to break any laws and regulations. All that s/he is saying is that these laws and regulations have no moral validity and that s/he reserves to hirself the Liberty to Decide whether to obey them or not. Though I Decided not to use the term within the Declaration itself, the declarer is, in effect, formally seceding from the state.

14) Finally, the reason why the nature of man in Reality "requires" this "independence of thought and sovereignty of action" and that the Declarer wishes to join with others who have it, is because such "independence of thought and sovereignty of action" is necessary for the achievement of a person's potential and to enable hir to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness.

Since a reasonable person will both respect the opinions of other thoughtful individuals, and also realize that optimally increasing his Lifetime Happiness requires their individual cooperation in specialization and division of labor and in mutual Exchange to the best interests of all, such a Declaration should thoroughly explain and justify the reasons that have caused the Declarer to take this Action to no longer bind himself with them in obedience to the state. Finally, in order to make it abundantly clear that his Declaration of independence is not merely a license to do as he pleases according to his whims, the Declarer's respect for and need of the cooperation of Freemen necessitates that he state his Personal Responsibilities to them in a Contract form to which he unilaterally agrees and which he unilaterally Executes, at the same time imploring those who are not yet Freemen to make the same Declaration and to reciprocally Contract with him by becoming Freemen.

15) This paragraph describes another primary aspect of human nature, and its needs for the optimal promotion of the declarer's Lifetime Happiness and achievement of his potential, which as a mature human he has come to understand. The declarer knows that this goal cannot be attained by hirself alone, but also requires the cooperation of others for its achievement. For this reason the declarer needs to persuade many other humans to each declare hir own Self-Sovereignty and join together with the declarer. This can only be accomplished by patient, clear, forthright and open explanation of the reasons for this Declaration, how it would promote a better Social structure Benefiting all Rational productive individuals, and thus, why other people should also make this or a very similar Declaration in their own best interest. Complete, honest and fully open debate is needed with all who question the declarer's reasons, motives or Intentions. The declarer needs to stress that s/he is not forsaking the other humans in society so long as they do not Violate hir, but that s/he is only abandoning allegiance to the state. Finally, the declarer must make it very clear that, together with hir unilateral Execution of a Social Contract (for example see the Natural Social Contract), this step will, in fact, make hir even more responsible for Restitution to others for any Responsible Harm which s/he does to them than under current government justice systems. Only by conducting hirself in this manner can the declarer expect to attract the necessary number of other humans to join and reciprocally Contract with hir.

I, the Declarer, hold these truths to be self-evident:

16) By "self-evident" I do not mean obvious (nor did the Framers of TDOI mean that). Instead, I use "self-evident" in the sense of axiomatic or fundamental (and I think that is also how the Framers of TDOI meant it). The truths about to be enumerated have been determined to be axioms of Reality by the use of rational empiricism, a sound, scientific and/or logical study of Reality which other reasoning humans should be able to understand and to verify and which is the only valid method of determining truth which is currently known (and of which the scientific method is a extremely important part). Thus, the validity of "these truths" is no more and no less than the validity of the evidence from which the laws of physics or the postulates from which the rules of arithmetic are derived, for example. However, a difference between these two (laws of physics and postulates of arithmetic) should also be noted. The only absolute truths in Reality are those Relationships that hold between pure abstractions - between artificial constructs that only describe (model) clearly delineated subsets of reality, such as logic, mathematics and other theories. Since all knowledge of measurable parameters of Material Existents has a limited accuracy and is held with a probability of validity of less than 100%, when something is said to be true of Reality it should always be understood to mean only that it is thought that it is highly likely to be so every time that it is observed under circumstances as nearly identical as can be produced or observed. Moreover, this nearly identical means that achieving certainty in Reality is not possible by means of the scientific method, since no two Events can ever be completely identical. Such mere probabilistic certainty does not apply to certain logical or simple arithmetic statements about Reality. Such sentences are absolutely true precisely because it is possible to fully define, compare and recreate the logical and mathematical Attributes of an abstract System. The "self-evident truths" of the DOII, are of mixed nature, both scientific and logical.

I. that as a human, I am an individual Person, essentially separate from every other human with a uniquely different mind, and a uniquely different set of physical and mental Attributes.

17) This truth follows from the logical facts that humans are not (normally) joined in body or mind and have a unique developmental environment, and the experimentally verified fact that each human that is not a clone (identical twins are clones) has a unique genome. (Even for identical twins the lack of uniqueness is an experimentally verified fact of reality - their divergence from identicalness begins at the moment when the initial cell body splits in two.) The human genome is best described as a recipe for a human being, rather than a blueprint.4 This uniqueness and separateness (strengthened by the truths specified in IV and V) is what I always mean when I use the term "individual" in reference to a human.

II. that as a human, I have the potential for self-awareness, introspection, abstraction, Rational thought and volitional Action directed toward optimally increasing my Lifetime Happiness.

18) These are mental Characteristics that scientific evidence shows are possible for any human mind that is not physiologically defective. This set of mental Attributes may even be unique to humans among all the Earth's current lifeforms, and thus, may most fundamentally differentiate humans from other animals. It is noteworthy that these Characteristics are all related to the mind. They are sometimes summarized by the term sentient, but that term, meaning conscious or capable of sensation or feeling, is much less than the full set of mental Attributes that characterize humans. Certainly, any human individual who has the ability to read, understand and agree with this Declaration and its corollaries, must have these mental Attributes, at the very least.

Before proceeding, a word is in order about the use of the word "volitional" and the related topic of free will. There is nothing in the DOII or the Natural Social Contract which requires that humans have free will in any fully non-deterministic sense. As will be seen when I discuss the complexity of the human brain/mind and its Evaluative processes, the logic of my argument and the need for a system similar to what I propose relies on the purpose of human life being the optimal increase of Lifetime Happiness in an Environment of Actions by individuals whose Choice Estimations are mostly unknowable to one another.

III. that although my evolutionary purpose, as an animal, is merely the survival of my genome, now that I have matured to adulthood, as a human adult, this evolutionary purpose has been superseded by the desire to optimally increase my Lifetime Happiness in accord with my individual abilities and the Evaluations directed by my Rational thought.

19) The only reasonable meaning of "purpose" for a non-sentient lifeform (if any such idea of purpose is reasonable at all for a non-sentient lifeform) is procreation leading to the survival of its genome. However, a lifeform which is capable of self-awareness, introspection, abstraction and Rational thought can create its own purposes that can then override its evolutionary imperative, or at the least, limit that instinctual drive according to its own wishes. By means of exercising hir Rational introspection, a human can attempt to determine those things that will increase hir current Happiness State. By additional Rational thought and introspection of hir Values and of their Relationship to Reality, s/he can also try to determine those Actions that will optimally increase hir Happiness over hir Lifetime (the "Lifetime Happiness" of III). By this I mean hir instantaneous Happiness summed (integrated in a mathematical sense) over hir whole Lifetime, ie. hir Lifetime Happiness - for a detailed analysis see the Natural Social Contract annotation for Happiness. The goals of the Actions taken by a mature human in order to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness may then be termed hir "individual purposes" of IV.

IV. that one consequence of my human separateness is that the Information contents of my mind cannot, with any significant degree of completeness or accuracy, be transferred to or determined by another human without my cooperation, and even then, with only limited completeness and accuracy except for very simple things, because of the small bandwidth of Outward communication compared with Inward. In particular, my individual purposes are both uniquely different from, and cannot be significantly determined ahead of my Actions by any other human.

20) I have used the phrase "Information contents" (ie Information and meaning content of the brain) because modern neuroscience has reached the stage where some of the biochemical and neurological contents of one human brain can be determined by another. However, true mind reading is nowhere in sight and many scientists doubt with good reason that this will ever be possible for human brains as they are now constructed and organized. I think that it is fair to say that the complexity and delicacy of the brain is such that for many centuries to come the statement that I have made will remain valid. The second sentence above follows logically from the first sentence and those truths stated prior to it. By "cannot be significantly determined" I mean here that the amount of possible prior determination of a person's Choices and Actions is small, unreliable and not useful for any practical purpose (again unless adequate communication has taken place - but even that is fraught with problems at least partly because of its inherent low bandwidth). The prime reason for the statement of this truth is to show that such simple rules of behavior as, for example, the golden rule cannot be sufficient to optimize Happiness, nor will any kind of general altruism be always Beneficial, even for the receiver of the Value.

V. that another consequence of my human separateness is that all of my mental and physical abilities for thought, Evaluation, Choice and Action are not to any significant degree under the Control of anyone but myself - that I am Master of MySelf.

21) It is even more the case with respect to use and "Control" than with respect to "Information contents" that one human has no direct connection with the body and mind of another to any significant degree (under normal physiological circumstances). Each human individual is essentially a Self-Master. Of course, the Available Actions for an individual can be reduced or altered by someone Violating hir in some manner which Constrains hir Liberty or UnPermitedly Modifies hir Choice Estimations, but although highly important, that is generally a rather gross and small portion of hir entire range of physical and biological Actions. Unless and until a person is actually killed, s/he retains a large part of hir innate power of Self-Mastery.

VI. that even though all humans have separate and uniquely different individual purposes, there exists a set of Social Meta-Needs, Responsibilities and Entitlements which, each of us agreeing to, mutually, consistently and concurrently (ie. compossibly from "com" - together and "possible") optimizes the potential of each of us to achieve his individual purposes; and that to enable that optimization of potential, this compossible set needs to be recorded as a manifest mutual understanding, a Social Contract, specifying the Relationships/a> between Self-Sovereign Individuals, and Executed by each.

22) Even though humans are unique individuals with a large part of their being only minimally understandable to all but possibly a few very intimate others, they do have many important Attributes in common which relate to both their self-behavior and their Interactions with other humans. As with all human Rational Actions, the purpose of the Actions guided by these Social Characteristics is the optimal increasing of the Lifetime Happiness of each individual. Although it might be an interesting investigation, there is no need here, in order to enumerate and use them, to attempt to discern how the evolutionary development of homo sapiens sapiens has created these self-behaviors and Social Meta-Needs which are required for the optimization of human Happiness acquisition. Neither is it my purpose here to investigate the existence of or to analyze any common Non-Social aspects of human behavior (by Non-Social, I mean behavior that does not Affect other humans) concerning whether such behaviors will or will not help an individual to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness. However, in order to for humans to optimize their lives within a Social context, they must ascertain the Social Meta-Needs (ie. the requirements of human behavior which directly Affect all humans) of humans from a study of the common aspects of each human's "individual purposes". Not only must these Social Meta-Needs (also Social requirements) be determined, but to be implemented and achieved without ambiguity and misunderstanding they need to be formulated into a clear written Contract detailing the Responsibilities and Entitlements with respect to all other Contractees to which the Executor of the Contract intends to adhere in hir InterActions with them. I have called these requirements Social Meta-Needs because they are the set of human needs in a Social Environment (ie. in a Society of which they are Members) which are necessary to provide a framework of InterPersonal Relationships in which more immediate and direct human needs can then be optimally satisfied. For example, it is the Social Meta-Need of having one's life, Liberty and Property reasonably safe from Violation (and Restituted if Violated) which must be in place before humans can safely and satisfactorily invest in wealth accumulation and Trade for the many material goods and services which directly benefit their lives and happiness.

Although the original social contracts of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were very different from each other, they are also very different from mine. For one thing they all thought that some form of government (even if minimal as with Locke) was necessary.5 However, after more than 200 years of additional analysis and study in economic and political thought, it can be seen (at least by some) that human Choices and Actions in the marketplace of services can provide the necessary defensive, protective, investigative, trial and judgment services.6 All (but nevertheless a big all!) that is needed is a Contract specifying the basic structural Relationships that will allow these market services to coexist with individual humans in a manner that will simultaneously promote the individual purposes of each human by supplying the common Social Meta-Needs of all at one and the same time. In spite of the use of the term social contract by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Rawls and many others to describe something quite different (from mine as well as each other), I have still chosen to use that name because it is the most correct phrase to describe the purpose of what is required by a Self-Sovereign Individual in Contractually declaring hir Social Meta-Needs, Responsibilities and Entitlements with respect to hir fellow human beings. I have prefixed the word Natural onto the name of my Social Contract because my document is more true to human nature than any of those preceding it and because, by doing so, it is my desire and my hope to see it eventually replace those distortions of the phrase social contract.

VII. that such a Social Contract requires, at the least, that each Executor:

a) accepts the Entitlement of each Freeman to be Sovereign over himself;

b) declares his desire that the Person or Property of no Freeman should be Harmed, and his Intent not to be the Effective Cause of any such Harm, with the Harm being judged solely by the Harmed Freeman; and

c) will hold himself fully Responsible for restoration of the Lifetime Happiness of each Freeman for whom he is the Effective Cause of Harm, to the best of his ability and with such Restitution being determined solely by the Harmed Freeman.

23) Note that it is only now after all the groundwork concerning the common essential Characteristics of humans and their InterActions (which from now on I will simply call "the nature of man") has been laid down, that the enumeration of any human Social Meta-Needs (historically called rights) can logically be set forth. This makes it very clear that Social Meta-Needs are logically secondary concepts derived from the nature of man, Reality, and human Social InterActions.7 Thus, the fundamental rights of TDOI are here seen as entirely derivative from the nature of man. Rights are simply the requirements of each mature human with respect to hir Relationship to each other mature human, which s/he needs in order to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness and which are mutually consistent with the same requirements of those other mature humans with whom s/he InterActs.

It should be noted that I have not even used the term right within the DOII (except where I refer to government violations, since current legal systems often use that term). This is because I think that there is an additional and more fundamental problem with the whole notion of rights which makes it an obfuscating, unfruitful and ultimately invalid idea. The concept of rights essentially reverses cause and effect - the Actions of the individual toward others and the Actions of others toward hir. If I wish to optimize my potential for Lifetime Happiness in a social context, it is that behavior towards others by me which will best ensure that they will aid me to achieve my own individual purposes, that I need to ascertain and to act in accord with, not their behavior towards me, over which I have no direct control at all! It does me little good to declare "I have rights!", because that act of demanding some concessions from others does little to convince them that it is in their best interest to not Violate me. (This is seen quite clearly if one imagines someone being attacked by a tiger, shouting out "I have a right to life!" in an attempt to stop the tiger's attack! Instead what the person has is a need to figure out how to prevent tigers from attacking hir, how to get them to aid hir life purposes, or to physically defend hirself from such attack if prevention has failed.) Since humans can understand communication and logical argument, the first step in prevention of Harm from them is to set an example by unilaterally declaring that it is one's most sincere desire that others not be Harmed and one's sincerest Intent to not be the Effective Cause of any Harm to them, and furthermore, that if I should ever be the Effective Cause of Harm to any of them then I will be fully Responsible for complete Restitution to those who I have Harmed, to the best of my ability as determined by them. It would be even better if one could state: "I will never Harm you", but this would quickly be seen as a blatant lie, because not only is there always the possibility that such Harm will occur accidentally, but there are even situations (generally termed "lifeboat" situations) where that statement would be directly and clearly contrary to the sustaining of one's life, without which no promotion of one's Happiness is even possible. In such lifeboat situations, I probably will Violate another person if I am convinced that is necessary to save my own life and such Violation is even a correct Action for me so long as I am also prepared to accept the potential Restitutional result. Thus, one does all that one can honestly do, by declaring one's earnest desire and Intention not to Harm, and to Restitute to the best of one's ability as determined by the Harmed person, if one ever should Harm someone. Therefore, I have not phrased the DOII in terms of "rights", nor is this idea found in the Natural Social Contract.

Although it should be clear from the preceding itemized "truths", particularly that described in V, the definition of "Harm" essentially means physical Harm (Harm which is unavoidable by the recipient) and the definition of "Effective Cause" precludes the emotional Harm of which a person is hirself the Effective Cause. In the Natural Social Contract, these two notions are combined to become the definition of Responsible Harm, the only kind of Harm to another for which one is Responsible for Restitution.

Although it will be hard to convince most pro-liberty advocates, grounded in Natural Rights Theory as they are, instead of rights, what humans really have are Social Meta-Needs! But these are not any kind of claim on anyone else, so long as they are kept to those which are fully compossible (can be consistently, mutually sustained). The Social Meta-Needs of people are exactly and only those which enable them to best Perform to provide Benefits for themselves. Because they are compossible, each Freeman Acting in accord with these Social needs, within a Social Environment where they are concurrently satisfied for everyone, cannot act contrary to the best interests of any other person in the Freeman Society, and thus, Trades of Value within such a Society will always be to Intended mutual Benefit (even though, for various possible reasons, one or both parties may later Decide that the Trade was not actually Beneficial). Moreover, this system will also ensure that each Freeman generates the best possible Benefits for others, of which s/he is capable, without decreasing hir own Benefits. Notice also that as opposed to rights, which being a claim on other humans have no meaning outside of human Relationships, a human always has Meta-Needs even when completely isolated from other humans. Thus, Meta-Needs are first needs - those conditions of existence which are general, primary and prior to all other specific material needs and creature comforts because they are necessary before any of these specific needs can be obtained in any optimal manner.

VIII. that whenever any human or group of humans, whether calling themselves a government or not, becomes destructive of my Self-Sovereignty, then my individual purposes allow, nay even require me to resist and to terminate this destruction by whatever means I Decide, and, together with other humans of like mind, to mutually bind ourselves to a Contractual Relationship which shall seem to each of us most likely to Effect our individual safety and our individual potential to optimally increase our Lifetime Happiness.

24) This statement makes it very clear that there is no validity whatsoever to the claim of any person or group of persons that they have the right (or even a valid Social Meta-Need) to Violate any person. It matters not whether the authority for that supposed right is a diety, democracy (even including the agreement of every other person in the world), the dictatorship of the proletariat, the orders of a petty tyrant, the customs of the Mafia, or merely the threat of a mugger. All such claims require Intended Compulsion in order to be Effective and Harm as their result; all are inconsistent with the Happiness of the Violated person, as perceived by hir, and thus, all are equally groundless. Whenever any person or group Violates another person, that person's desire to optimally increase hir own Lifetime Happiness makes it also hir Rational Action to Defend hirself to the best of hir ability, to the extent that such Defense does not Effect even more Harm. In fact, it is no less hir Rational Action to Defend hirself from Violation by other people as it is to Defend hirself from wild animals, bacteria, lightning bolts, or anything else which might reduce hir Lifetime Happiness or hir potential to gain more Happiness. It matters not what is the character or source of legitimacy of the others who are making the Violation.

Given that the overall effect of such actions will not decrease a person's Lifetime Happiness, one of hir individual purposes should logically be "to resist and to terminate" such Violations. I highly appreciate that this conclusion (ie. whether the overall result is actually Harmful or Beneficial) will vary greatly between different individuals and their different circumstances. However, I nevertheless implore each reader to think hard and deeply of the long-term consequences of continuing to do little or nothing to gain more Liberty (which, as I stated just above, is really no different than Estimating the long-term consequences of any other Action in Reality for its Effectiveness to enhance one's potential for Happiness). As each day of InAction goes by, it becomes harder and harder to Act, partly because there are more and more Constraints and partly because one gets more entrenched in and attached to the status quo. For example, this is why big business should no longer be expected to help the cause of true Liberty - their entire structure, form and methods of successful operation are entrenched in the forms and regulations required of them by governments and their fundamental design to work with governments.8 Finally, as I have stated before, one or a few Declarers cannot make this effort Effective in increasing Liberty and decreasing government Violations, but even a few who begin can, by leading the way and persuading others, start the exponential growth which will ultimately Liberate those who join this Declaration.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that social forms and arrangements long established should not be abolished for light and transient causes; and accordingly many people may consider it better to suffer an abusive government while reduction of their ability to achieve their individual purposes is sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing a government to which they are accustomed and potentially also terminating the social order concurrent with that government, however imperfect and incomplete that social order may be. But when a long train of laws, regulations and abuses pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce me under absolute state control, my individual purposes make it my personal responsibility and duty to myself to refuse to obey such laws and regulations as are not in accord with any of my individual purposes, and to Contract with others of like mind for our joint security and InterAction. Having suffered (often impatiently) such government abuses of my Self-Sovereignty all my life, I now realize that the optimal increase of my Lifetime Happiness necessitates that I must reject all government rule to the best of my ability.

25) It should be clear to any thinking person that the decades long trend of increasing regulatory invasion of every aspect of human life by governments everywhere is neither a "light" nor a "transient" cause. The above paragraph is an attempt to explain, in the style of TDOI, the reasons that the Declarer has for making this Declaration of Self-Sovereignty and refusal to accept government rule any longer. Still, many people who fully agree that their Liberty is disgracefully lower than it could be and ought to be, and that something really does need to be done, are nevertheless in a quandary about what to do because of their concern that things might be made worse by any substantial change. This is certainly a major reason why any change must not be wrought by violent revolution, since there is little that the initiators can do to control the outcome of such a process once it is unleashed. Instead, the method that I am proposing is a gradual transition with no necessary violence. In fact, the only violence that can occur will be from the governing powers themselves attempting to prevent the method's implementation and its success. The envisaged result will be a growing number of Freemen who are InterActing Permittedly (Trading Values) with each other and simply ignoring the government to the greatest extent that is feasible for each, but which extent will be increasing as their numbers grow. In the end, the government will simply disappear because no one will be using it, no one will be obeying it, and no one will be supporting it.

The history of all governments and their agencies is a history of repeated legislation and actions against people which Violate their Self-Sovereignty, in particular which Violate their life (Person), Liberty and Property, and even their voluntary InterRelationships by replacing them with other, far less optimal arrangements. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

26) As with the original Declaration, the reasons for making it are made much clearer, cogent, forceful and compelling by listing the litany of Violations from which the Declarer wishes to be free. However, there are so many Violations by current governments that no exhaustive listing is feasible in this small document. I have therefore attempted to list them in some logical groupings, giving examples within each group for illustrative purposes. Even so, government distortions have become so convoluted that many people will think that some of the items that I list are pro-Liberty when, as I will explain below, in the context of a Freeman Society they are actually anti-Liberty. An example of this is Miranda Rights (see item 4.l. below). Finally note that I have made no attempt to say anything about why government may be doing these things. For many excellent analyses of the reasons why governments operate as they do, the reader should go elsewhere. The purpose of my annotations here is merely to help the reader understand that these actions of governments are Violations of human Liberty, and that such actions must therefore be strenuously opposed, never sanctioned and eventually terminated.

1. Government actions Constrain each person or UnPermittedly Modify the Choice Estimations of each person from making use of whatever lifeforms, substances, natural or manufactured objects that he Estimates will most increase his Lifetime Happiness by acquiring and to using them and which do not by themselves Harm any other person. Governments do this not only by forbidding or highly regulating the importation, production, sale, distribution, Possession and Control of such items,

27) It is important here to emphasize that the acquisition of anything about which one knows that its mere presence will Violate others will always be something which must be negotiated ahead of time with those others, since not to do so would Breach one's Declaration of Intent and desire not to Harm. Because Harm is always in the eye and mind of the receiver, this implies that no one has the absolute right (or even a fundamental Social Meta-Need) to export anything from hir own Property to that of another person. Examples causing such possible export would be sources of unshielded radiation, loud noise or noxious gas. In addition, the presence of something that might be perceived as a Defendable Threat, such as an unsafely stored or hair-trigger bomb, may also be subject to preemptive removal by anyone who perceives it to be such to hir Person or Property, which preemptive Action may be Determined to be either not a Violation at all or an Excusable Breach. The critical point here for both parties is to be responsible for their Actions, which in this case will entail each individual justifying any Action as necessary to prevent Harm to hirself or, if such justification is not upheld by a Trial, the payment of Restitution for the Harm done to the other by hir Actions. Generally, only when Harm to another person occurs or is Defend ably Threatened, has a Violation then occurred, and only then, respectively, need Restitution be made or is one Entitled to take a Defensive Action. The perception of a threat and how to handle it is one of the most difficult questions which is dealt with by the Natural Social Contract

but also by their monopoly granting of patents, forbidding certain kinds of non-Violational research and obstructing the free flow of Information.

28) The point being made here is not that there should not be some form of legitimate intellectual property rights (fundamental Social Meta-Needs), but only that these should be based on the Characteristics of humans and Information, and the Contracts between humans Exchanging Information, rather than being a somewhat arbitrary and highly unrealistic monopoly mandate from governments.

2. With respect to various services, government actions Constrain each person or UnPermittedly Modify the Choice Estimations of each person from providing or using whichever of these he Estimates will most increase his Lifetime Happiness and which do not by themselves Harm any other person such as:

1. prostitution,
2. pornography,
3. abortion,
4. cloning,
5. sale of human organs, and
6. any services which require certification and licensing.

29) One should be Entitled to enter into any Valid Contractual service and servitude.

3. With respect to Property, government agencies either confiscate, or strongly control its usage by each adult human by means of all forms of:

30) These are mostly pretty obvious. The major premise here is that there is not and does not need to be any such concept as the public good which overrides the fundamental need of each individual not to be Violated in hir Person or Property. How and why no such contradiction to this fundamental need is required in order to enable the Rational Actions of Freemen to naturally order Society in an optimal manner for everyone can be seen within the details of the Natural Social Contract. The last item above is a major principle based upon what the nature of a human requires from hir Social InterActions with others in order to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness (ie. what are hir Social Meta-Needs): "That the end result of any Violation should be a restoration of the Lifetime Happiness to date, of the Violated party to what it would have been at that time, had the Violation not occurred". This principle might be termed, "The Fundamental Principle of Justice in Human Relationships", however for reasons that are more fully explained in the Natural Social Contract, I will avoid using the term justice because I think that it is not definable in a manner to which any large segment of humans will agree and is therefore, an unfruitful and possibly even a destructive concept. With respect to the item above, the person who has been Charged and has been exonerated is the one who has been Violated (by being Required to defend hirself) and must have hir Lifetime Happiness fully restored. A method by which this principle can be implemented in a Society undistorted by governments is proposed in the Natural Social Contract.

4. With respect to Liberty, government laws UnPermittedly Modified the non-Harmful Actions of human individuals by threatening Constraints through such laws as:

1. compulsory jury duty,
2. conscription,
3. subpoena power,
4. contempt of court penalties,
5. detention or arrest without charge or trial, and without full Restitution to the detainee upon release without charge or trial, or after a verdict of not guilty,
6. denying Victims full Restitution by the Violator for all their Harm due to losses of time, Liberty and Property caused by his Violation,
7. denying victims full restitution by the violator for their losses of time, liberty and property caused by his violation,
8. heavily restricting the immigration or visits of persons living outside its jurisdiction,
9. impeding the movement of all people across its borders,
10. forbidding many InterPersonal activities fully Permitted by the participants,
11. prohibition of many solitary, non-aggressive actions in public, and
12. allowing criminals to escape prosecution through:
    • denying the validity of evidence "wrongfully" obtained,
    • violation of their "rights" during the investigation, arrest or trial, and
    • plea bargaining (including the reduction/dismissal of charges against those who provide information leading to the conviction of other criminals).

31) Once again, all these items are clear Violations of the Liberty of a person and/or of hir Social Meta-Need for full Restitution of any reduction of hir Lifetime Happiness incurred by a Violation, and, as is shown in the Natural Social Contract, are also completely unnecessary for the operation of a fully adequate, mutually Beneficial, non-Constraining Social order among Self-Sovereign Individuals. If the Requirement for full Restitution was a Stipulation to which all persons had Contractually agreed, then it would be patently clear that the manner by which the truth is determined has no bearing whatsoever on the Determination of the validity of the Event of Violation under investigation and nor on the amount of Restitution owed to the Victim. Instead, it bears only on a completely separate possible Violation - that of the suspected Violator by the investigators. If the suspected Violator becomes an Alleged Violator and is exonerated, then any Violations s/he has suffered during the investigation must be fully Restituted. If such full liability for Restitution were the situation now, the police would be much more cautious about the way they treated a suspect.

5. With respect to the Availability of Actions, government created monopolies so distort the free market that the creation of new Choices of uniquely different goods and services, each competing for the purchaser's money according to his individual purposes, is effectively prevented. Examples of this are:

1. enforcement agencies of all kinds,
2. civil and criminal courts,
3. the promulgation of law,
4. coast guard, army, navy and air forces,
5. the creation of money,
6. the granting of charters,
7. mandated standards of weights and measures,
8. postal mail,
9. public utilities,
10. public health care,
11. public education,
12. public roads and other transportation systems,
13. the allocation and use of the electromagnetic spectrum,
14. exploration and development of space,
15. patent granting, and
16. copyright and trademark granting.

32) As with some of the previous grievances and the one to follow, these are probably most important because of what they have prevented from coming into being. Far too few people, even those who appreciate the evil of the state, realize that its most damaging effect is probably not its direct Violations of individuals, but its enormous distortion of social production and efficacy thereby preventing the growth of knowledge, the production of desired products and services and the development of unknown Benefits (unknown because they are prevented from coming into Existence - being Realized - and therefore they remain totally hidden from view). This is an extreme case of the problem of the seen and the unseen.9 All that one can be sure about is the seen (the direct Violations of the Person, Liberty and Property of people). About the unseen Events and Effects that might have occurred, no one can say anything with certainty. However, I am convinced that the government distortion of the totality of possible exchanges of goods and services is so large that many research objectives that have been in place for decades would have been achieved by now if that distortion had not been occurring. Almost certainly, people would be living much longer healthy lives and some would be living in space.

33) As stated before, with respect to patents, copyrights and trademarks, I am not saying that these should not be some form of Property, but only that the methods by which this occurs should not be monopolized and mandated by any government.

6. Government wastage of scarce resources by maintaining many people in tasks which produce nothing that a reasonable person would Choose to purchase, prevents the application of those man hours and monetary resources to create and produce products and services that people do want. Such distortion of scientific, technological and industrial productivity by governments has been growing exponentially in recent years as per capita income increases enable it to do so.

34) It is quite reasonably very difficult to make an estimate of both the type and number of goods and services which would have been created and produced in the last century if government had been eliminated and had not been wasting so many scarce resources on non-production of real Value. More unfortunately, it appears that no one has even tried to make such an estimation attempt, or if they have done so have never published it. However, a little thought and imagination makes it clear that the world would be an enormously different place with almost certainly far longer human lifespans, most medical diseases likely eradicated, and quite possibly some humans living in space. Some idea of the merely economic effects of such current wastage can be gained from reading Sense and Sensibility and its references, particularly to the 1998 Joint Economic Committee Study on Economic Growth and Government Size.

7. Government actions outside of its territory have not only wasted the resources of its citizens but have caused its citizens to be the targets of aggressive retaliation by those who have been Harmed by these extraterritorial actions. Thus, rather than enhancing the security of its citizens, government has, through its actions, directly decreased this security and the Freedom of its citizens to travel outside the country without being Violated.

35) This grievance is not true of many governments, but it is certainly true for imperial powers such as the United States.

8. Governments have made a mockery of the principle that all adult humans are to be treated equally under the law by granting to many of its agents and employees privileges (in effect, additional entitlements), including immunity from prosecution or from required Restitution to their Victims. A blatant example of this is allowing police agents to break the law during "sting operations" and to not be prosecuted for precisely the same actions for which other citizens are being prosecuted.

36) This is true of governments everywhere, but it is especially inconsistent and egregious in the United States and many other places (including the former Soviet Union countries) which began by rebellion against the existence of special classes with entitlement and privilege.10

9. Governments have forbidden or heavily restricted travel, trade and information flow with certain areas of the world.

In every stage of these oppressions many people have petitioned for redress in the most sincere and honest manner, but their repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries of worsening nature. A Government, whose only reasonable purpose should be as a mutual benefit organization, the character of which is thus marked instead by every act which may define a tyranny, is unfit to be voluntarily supported by adults.

37) After repeated failed attempts to reform them and because of the fundamental flaws in the philosophical foundations of all governments, it is time to abandon such reform efforts and to drastically alter the structure of society, ultimately eliminating governments everywhere by not sanctioning and supporting them.

I, therefore, an adult human with nothing but the best of intentions toward all those who refrain from initiating or threatening violence against or defrauding me, my property and my loved ones, do, by my life and reality and my love of both, solemnly publish and declare:

38) In order to make the risk to the Declarer from attack by the government as low as possible, it is extremely important that s/he make it abundantly clear that hir motive, desires and Intentions for all people everywhere are nothing but the highest - that s/he is not making this Declaration for purely narrow material selfish motives. In fact, as can be seen in the Natural Social Contract, the Declarer and all those who Execute it Intend to be even more responsible in many respects for the Restitution of those who they Violate than they are required to be under any current legal system.

A. that my essential human Characteristics make me a Self-Sovereign Individual with the use and Control of my own body and mind and the need to use and Control the product of my body and mind according to my individual purposes;

39) As the Declarer, it is my human nature in Reality which causes me to be a Self-Sovereign Individual, not any so-called set of rights. I have no claim nor right to Self-Ownership. I simply have it, by nature, whatever anyone else thinks or does! All that I am asking is that others understand and accept this fact of Reality. I am also asking that others understand and accept that I will best produce for our mutual Benefit if they also acknowledge my Ownership, use, and Control of the products of my body and my mind.

B. that as a Self-Sovereign Individual, I no longer sanction, nor have any duty to obey the laws, regulations or agents of any governments, and that all authority of government agencies over me, is and ought to be totally dissolved;

C. that in order to promote my Lifetime Happiness, it is my desire, my Intention and my responsibility to not Violate the Person or Property of any human, to Defend my Person, my Property and the Persons and Property of other humans whom I Value, to Contract with other Self-Sovereign Individuals for services and for Trade according to mutually agreed Terms, to be fully responsible to Restitute any other human for any actual Harm done to them by my physical Actions, and to Perform all other Acts which I alone Decide are most likely to optimally increase my Lifetime Happiness according to the laws of Reality; and

40) These two Declarations are very close in form to those of the US Declaration of Independence, the major difference being that the state has been replaced by the individual adult human. Again note that I, the Declarer, am not saying that I intend to break any laws, only that I have the Social Meta-Need to do so according to the consistent, mutual best interests of myself and others in society.

D. that in order to promote the conditions under which my Actions and the Actions of others will optimally contribute to the Lifetime Happiness of each of us, I acknowledge the Self-Ownership of every other human and his entitlement to act in the same manner as I Stipulate that I will do within this document;

E. that in order to implement these Declarations as a clear consistent mutual manifest understanding of the compossible set of Responsibilities and Entitlements which optimize the potential of each Self-Sovereign Individual to achieve his individual purposes, I have Executed and Published a Social Contract which binds me to all others who do likewise.

41) This last Declaration clause fills a major gap which was omitted from TDOI and which was later partially filled by the Articles of Confederation. Any Declaration of independence will be only a halfway and ineffective measure unless it is linked with a set of Contractual obligations (Responsibilities)of conduct towards other Declarers. Otherwise, it leaves unsaid, and possibly misconstrued, what will be the Social Relationships between such independent entities.

F. that in order to make my declared Self-Sovereign Status evident to other humans and to promote the ideas within this Declaration and my Social Contract, I will henceforth place the word Freeman after my name, unless I clearly Estimate that doing so might be significantly detrimental to my Lifetime Happiness.

42) I have always disliked the practice of listing degrees or titles next to a person's name, viewing it as an attempt to argue from authority, and have never done so myself even though I am entitled to do so by the current standards of society (ie. I could honestly sign Prof. Paul Wakfer, B.A.Sc. (Hon.), M.A. - even if that would appear to be a bit pretentious). However, the use of the title "Freeman" implies no authority, but only a Declaration of Intent and purpose to treat other humans peacefully and responsibly according to the published terms of this Declaration and a Social Contract. Moreover, at least at its beginning, this movement needs something special to clearly set its members apart from other humans. While it is true that signing as "Tom Paine, Freeman" does not guarantee that Tom Paine actually has made such a Declaration and signed such a Social Contract (and before you would do business with him you would need to verify that his Social Contract was one Acceptable to you), this is something which could be easily verified via the Universal Communications Network, and fraudulent behavior soon discovered and Published.

And for the support of this Declaration, I beseech others of like mind to sign this Declaration, to also Execute the same Social Contract, and with me, as Self-Sovereign Individuals, together to this joint cause, pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

43) In the style of the original Declaration, an impassioned plea is made for others to join with the Declarer to jointly and ultimately ensure the Liberation of all of them from continuing government tyranny.