Your browser has JavaScript turned off.
You will only be able to make use of major viewing features of this page of The Self-Sovereign Individual Project website if you turn JavaScript on.

A Self-Sovereignty Document

Interim Social Contract (Draft)

An Agreement Concerning Interpersonal Conduct for Mutual Benefit Derived from the Nature of Human Reality

Annotated Version

Update 9/11/05: This document was created prior to the actual writing of the foundational essay "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction" and consequently does not completely and consistently implement the basis for a Freeman Society. It is, however, a possible interim social contract appropriate for a society of people that is on the way to a complete and consistent implementation of their Social Meta-Needs - one composed of people who are not yet fully able to understand and accept the value and operational practicality of the complete and consistent Natural Social Contract (yet to come), but still wish to interact with others in a far less restrictive society that ignores and avoids all governments as much as possible. The complete and consistent contract implementing the theory of Social Meta-Needs, which I have been spiraling in on for some months now, will, upon its draft completion, be "The Natural Social Contract". Therefore, this earlier version has been renamed "Interim Social Contract" and all references within the following document to "Natural Social Contract" should be understood by the reader to apply only to this "Interim Social Contract".

For this reason also, comments and questions regarding this Interim Social Contract are now out of place until sometime in the future when the process of transitioning from the current government dominated society to the Freeman Society is appropriate for discussion. First the final end goal of the Freeman Society must be described as closely as possible; that is the current task. --Paul Wakfer

Update 11/12/06: Finally, the new Natural Social Contract and its set of 37 separate annotation files is now in online with most references linked to it and them. However, the old Natural Social Contract (renamed to Interim Social Contract) remains as both a historical document and because some older dialogues, that are still valuable to leave online, refer to it. Even though the Interim Social Contract is not a complete and consistent implementaion of the Social Meta-Needs as derived in the foundational essay "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction", it is still a possible interim social contract appropriate for a society of people that is on the way to a complete and consistent implementation of their Social Meta-Needs - one composed of people who are not yet fully able to understand and accept the value and operational practicality of the complete and consistent Natural Social Contract, but still wish to interact with others in a far less restrictive society that ignores and avoids all governments as much as possible. For this reason, I will be working on a revision to it (the Interim Social Contract) so that is will use the same exact definitions as are used for the Natural Social Contract and all other current writing that occurs on this website. This is the only way that a common language and understanding can be possible. This revision will then become one of perhaps many "interim" Social Contracts that are in essense stepping stones from the current society to the Freeman Society. --Paul Wakfer

Note: This version of the Natural Social Contract (NSC) has explanatory material annotated to each definition and clause. There is also a purely executable version that does not contain any of the annotations and is, therefore, much smaller, more compact and easier for directly studying the contract itself.
However, all questions, comments and/or criticisms should be made to this annotated version since it includes all of the other and the explanatory material may either relate to such comments or need to be amended in light of them.
There is also an essay, "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction", which contains a rigorous presentation of the philosophical and theoretical foundations of the NSC.

Preface to the Annotated Version

Declaration insufficient
for liberty - while
escape limits freedom

The nature of man implies that his ultimate goal can only consistently be the maximization of his Lifetime Happiness0. The execution of the Declaration of Individual Independence or other document declaring his Self-Sovereignty is an individual's first important step to free himself psychologically and to begin to emancipate himself from governments everywhere, which are both necessary preconditions for that ultimate goal. However, by itself that act is not sufficient to bring about the ordered society of Self-Sovereign Individuals which will produce the widest possible Freedom that will allow an individual to achieve his ultimate goal.

While it is true that a Self-Sovereign Individual could simply "shrug"1 and escape (ie. run away) to a secret self-sustaining farm or independent island community to live out his life alone or with a few others of like mind, devoid of the moral conflicts of current society, and thus, in perfect ethical tranquillity, we, the initiators of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project (Kitty and Paul Antonik Wakfer), think that this is little different from the defeatist attitude and the abdication of one's self-responsibility to strive to maximize one's lifetime happiness, to which so many liberty loving idealists eventually fall prey.2 Not only do we know that all such acts and attitudes will reduce our daily happiness to an intolerable level because of the reduction of real choices they produce and the pessimism and despair inherent in them, but we are convinced that it is possible to greatly increase our scope of Possible Actions and our consequent potential for Lifetime Happiness, and we are determined to do so. In short, we think that nothing less than a radically altered society of adults ethically cooperating to vastly increase the number and type of their Possible Actions, in ways that would be impossible by any one or even a few of them, can not only be achieved, but will lead to the development of technology that will vastly increase human lifespan. Such a development will not only directly gain us the potential for greatly increased Lifetime Happiness, but because such an increase of human lifespan will finally allow the full meaning and import of truly long-range, wide-seeing, self-interest to be realized, we are convinced that its effect will be synergistic with the attainment of a far, far freer society.

social meta-needs form
a minimal framework
for an ordered society

The goal we seek, then, is a naturally ordered and stabilized, maximally free and minimally restrictive society of maximally happy Self-Sovereign Individuals. The fact of the enormous values to be gained only from specialization and division of labor shows that humans can only maximize their Lifetime Happiness by cooperating in a social existence (which has been the mode of existence of their evolutionary ancestors for many millions of years2a). However, because of the vast changes in the numbers and density of humans, in the frequency of contact between disimilar cultures and languages and in the enormous technological capabilities of human to mold their environment and to harm one another, it is clear that cooperative methods that worked in the past small isolated tribal eras no longer function effectively. Thus, in order to accomplish an optimally cooperative society, a new social framework which promotes its development and stabilizes its existence must be discovered and clearly defined. I have chosen the phrase "social meta-needs" to describe this framework of human relationships because it is only necessary for humans who are relating to one another (ie. social) and it is outside, above and prior to (ie. meta) any possibility of using such social relationships to enhance the satisfaction of any direct material or spiritual human needs. In the sense that it relies on the nature of man, the basis of this framework is not new at all but has always been the implicit purpose of the human individual. Only because of the exigencies of the modern world is it necessary to bring this understanding of the purpose of the individual's life and his relationship to others fully to the forefront of focused consideration, and to seriously examine its best implemention with respect to modern social and technological conditions.

Although our proposal would provide a social environment in which the marketplace would be entirely free to provide goods and services of all kinds (including those currently monopolized by governments), we are convinced that it is insufficient to simply eliminate governments everywhere (even if that could be done) and then let the free market take over as some anarchist libertarians appear to think. Without some framework as a basic guide for the marketplace of people's evaluations, we are convinced that the result would be prolonged chaos (and likely a reversion to an even worse form of statism), as most critics of anarchist ideas contend (but often for the wrong reasons). The major reason for this contention is that the size and complexity to which civilization has grown without adequate free market ordering and stabilizing institutions in all areas, or even any such institutions in some areas ("public" services, protection, police, courts, law standards, defense, etc), is far too great for such institutions to emerge naturally in the timescale needed to prevent chaos upon the immediate withdrawal of government-imposed ordering services. That is why social chaos and the welcomed restoration of order in critical areas by a strongman, even at the cost of much loss of liberty in other areas, would almost inevitably happen. We are convinced that such a reversion can only be prevented if a social order free of government tyranny is gradually achieved, since only such gradualism without violence will be conducive to the development of market institutions to provide the full stabilizing order required. For more details regarding the derivation of social meta-needs and the basis of their implementation by the methods of this Natural Social Contract see the essay "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction".

Minimally restrictive
compossible framework
- a voluntary contract

It is also our earnest hope that by providing such a minimally-restrictive compossible (consistently, mutually sustainable) framework it will be possible to unite all those individuals desiring maximal freedom behind one strategic practical approach, and to confound all the critics at the same time. The market anarchist cannot logically object because he is completely free to have his competing "public" services, protection, police, defense, court and law standards agencies within the framework we propose. The minimal governmentalist cannot object because there is a single overriding set of rules and procedures to which all Self-Sovereign Individuals must adhere - a kind of minimal government, if you will, but one which in fact has none of the characteristics of a government (institutionalized monopoly and coercive power), because it is simply a Voluntary Contract that every individual is free to execute and to unexecute. Finally, the Ayn Rand Objectivist should be happy because the purpose and the basis of social meta-needs and its implementation is rational self-interest carried to its widest-viewed, longest-range logical conclusions. Thus, it is our sincere hope that all individuals in the various branches of the liberty movement will seriously examine these documents and our plan for achieving a society that adheres to them. We furthermore appeal to all such individuals to give us their questions, comments, criticisms and suggestions for improvement so that we may together build something with which we are all satisfied and which will eventually achieve our common personal goals for greatly enlarged Freedom. We are convinced that if this can be done, there will be a time in the not so distant future when people will look back and realize that most of those working for more freedom prior to this new collaboration were actually far too limited in their ideas about the extent of the advances in human social interaction and the enlargement of each individual's possible choices which could actually be attained.

General Annotations to the Natural Social Contract

All of existence
separates into
"I" and "non-I"

1) The guiding principle to an understanding of human reality, in particular to understanding this work, is the fact of the complete and fundamental individuality of each human being. For an individual, all of existence separates itself into two classes of Existents: I and non-I. The essential3 difference between these two classes is the significant difference between them of the level of intimacy of both input (sensation) and output (control) - ie. I have significantly more contact with the informational content of I - my body and my mind - than with respect to any part of non-I, as well as significantly more control over my body and my mind than with respect to anything external to them. This difference is so basic and so important that any science of human conduct will be flawed unless it takes this empirical observation into account. While this idea is generally called "methodological individualism", I have provided a more modern, stronger and more scientfic basis for the concept than can be found historically, or even in most modern writings, because I am convinced that this concept and its implications are so fundamental to any valid theory of human conduct. For more explanation of and scientific support for this idea see my essays "Collectivism in Language: Its Effects on Valid Reasoning" and "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction".

This separation of the I and the non-I does not deny the degree of empathy which one human can have for another3a nor the importance of this quality in intimate human relationships. On a personal note, over the 4.5 years that Kitty and I have been together virtually 24 hours a day every day, we have become extremely close and empathetic. We have tried every way that we can think of to communicate with each other and fully understand one another's thoughts and feelings. We both dearly wish that we could get inside each other's mind to think and feel with the other. Yet in spite of all our sincerest best efforts, we realize that at the present time, and with the present level of understanding of and access to the human mind, an essential aspect of our relationship is that we lack any direct connection with each other's thoughts and feelings. At best, we can simply empathically visualize and imagine what the other is feeling and thinking, but even this best possible effort still falls far short of what we both earnestly desire and what would be necessary to be effectively "one". Since most relationships are far less intimate and sincere than ours, and are often quite shallow in the vital knowledge each has of the other party in the relationship, the gap between the amount of information that can be conveyed by means of their sensory interfaces and that which is within their minds is even more enormous and separates them in a fundamentally irresolvable manner.

There are two logical classes of ways in which the lack of realization of the fundamental nature of human separation from one another can lead to flawed thinking and thus be harmful to human relationships. The first is prejudice - the automatic mistrust of the character and intentions of another person merely because he appears to be different in some manner. The second is unearned trust - the automatic trust of the character and intentions of another person merely because some minor characteristic makes him appear to be "just like me". Instead, when starting a new relationship it is most profitable to assume the best of intentions, but never commit oneself very far until one gets to know the person well enough to be sure of his essential integrity. If the new person shows any lack of integrity or desperate need for your friendship, then it is likely that a relationship with him will not be worth the cost and you should seek others instead. Above all before you begin to seek others, increase your own abilities to look after your needs without any requirement for others. Only when you have increased your self-esteem to the point where you can truthfully say: "I am enough"4 in a purely personal sense, are you then ready to seek out others for mutual benefit without desperate need on your side, and thus, to gain the enormous value-for-value exchange to mutual benefit4a that can accrue from a social existence.

Mind and Body
are not separate

2)The separation implied by the terms "body" and "mind" used above is purely illusory. The "mind" is nothing more nor less than a portion of the structure and information of the body. All scientific evidence suggests that all the attributes and information that are called the "mind" reside within the brain, but, of course, not all attributes and information of the brain are part of the mind. However, the validity and detail of these facts of reality do not have any effect on the theory of Social Meta-Needs or the Natural Social Contract. All that is needed for the purposes of analyzing the requirements of an optimal social order is to understand why it is axiomatic that the whole human individual is the integrated source of all human action. Therefore, from this point on within this text of annotation to the Natural Social Contract the word "Person" will be used in place of "body and mind".

Each human responsible
for results
of own actions

3) After the fact of the inherent and essential unknowability of one human by another, the next most important implication of the fundamental separation of each human from the rest of reality is the essential responsibility of each human for the effects of his actions. On the one hand (positive) this means that all benefits accruing to a human are his entitlement to gain, to enjoy and to reward himself with. However, it also means that with respect to all harm that is done to others in which he is essentially involved, he is also essentially responsible for the loss to others and self, both with respect to the anguish, regret, abasement of himself and the loss of productivity of the harmed person towards the whole of society (including himself), and for the Restitution that he owes directly to those harmed. It is only in the case where a human is involved solely as an inanimate object (eg the wind blowing him or another human pushing him causes him to do the harm), that such a person bears no responsibility whatsoever for any harm that is done. Thus, for example, as opposed to most current legal systems which define the occurrence of tort5 only in the case of intent or negligence, this Natural Social Contract requires full Restitution to Victims by those who have been the Effective Cause of Culpable Harm even in the case of pure accident. The major reason for this requirement is that otherwise the Victims would have no recourse to Restitution for a loss that was neither effectively caused by non-humans nor in which their own actions played no part whatsoever! A secondary reason for this requirement is the inherent lack of clarity in any definition or judgement of "accident" and the clear fact that most events which are called accidents are preventable in one manner or another. Humans are effective agents who are not mere pawns at the whim of reality. And a method of major importance for helping them learn to be even more effective at controlling themselves and their environment (ie learn to become Adults) is to hold them fully responsible for all that they do. For a more detailed presentation of Adult responsibility see my essay "The Rational Adult - Agent of his Actions, Creator of his Happiness"

Annotations to the Document Itself

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

Purpose, Terminology and Internal Conventions

This Agreement is a formal and binding Valid Contract which is intended to be executed by the Attested signature of an Individual who has also executed an Acceptable Declaration of Self-Sovereignty and proceeds to make proof of those executions (and links to the text of documents actually executed) available on a Universal Communications Network for widely accessible verification.

4) A previously or concurrently executed Acceptable Declaration of Self-Sovereignty is important in order to demonstrate to other Adults that one is ready to be independent of governments and all those who would initiate coercive acts. Such a declaration also shows that one is sufficiently mature, knowledgeable and responsible to join with other Adults in a mutually beneficial social arrangement. Thus, such a declaration is a necessary prerequisite to any meaningful execution of a Natural Social Contract binding oneself to acceptance of the compossible set of interrelationship responsibilities that such a contract entails.

5) The Natural Social Contract is novel for any Agreement or Contract in that it is only executed by one person. However, the nature of compossible social relationships and their place in the reality of human lives is such that each Adult can only do such a thing for himself. An additional novelty is that, while this Agreement certainly does stipulate responsibilities, it does not, by the very act of executing it, place the executor in a position of indebtedness to anyone, nor does it restrict his Liberty any more than what is naturally implied by the reality of optimal human relationships as understood and accepted by every other executor of the Agreement. It is this particular attribute of being "minimally restrictive compossible" that enables the terms of this Agreement to be both unilaterally executable and unilaterally upholdable without harm to the executor, and therefore that allow this Agreement to serve as an Acceptable Social Contract.

The definitions within this Agreement are "technical terms" whose purpose is to make its Stipulations clear and self-consistent. All technical terms begin with a capital in each of their occurrences. Some of the technical terms are defined in the Stipulations section of the Agreement rather than in the Definitions section at the beginning of the document. All words not capitalized are used with one of their standard dictionary meanings. If which particular standard meaning meant is not clear from the context, then it is indicated within parentheses following the word. In this Agreement any word referring to the masculine gender should be taken to also include the feminine gender since the level of description of human relationships and the social meta-needs of optimal human society is so general in this Natural Social Contract that there is never any need to distinguish between men and women.

6) The "technical terms" defined in this Agreement are not intended to duplicate the generally accepted vernacular meanings of the defined words, nor are they intended to be inclusive of all the situations that arise within the complex interactions of humans. I have tried to make each definition as close as possible to one of the major vernacular meanings of the defined term, and it is hoped that the definitions that I have made are sufficiently broad to include most of what is encountered in normal adult human intercourse. However, because some of the concepts introduced here are novel, it has been necessary to sometimes define a familiar word with a new meaning (even though close to a current vernacular one). In this annotated (explained) version, I also define and use many additional terms that I think are necessary for full elucidation, but that I decided would unnecessarily burden the Natural Social Contract itself. In the end, all choice of technical terms within this Agreement and its annotations in this document were a "judgement call" and are fully open to change.

I have also tried as much as possible to place the more fundamental definitions first and to define the terms in an order such that all terms used within a definition are defined prior to that definition. However, as is true for any axiomatic system, this is never fully possible. In the end, all definition sets have a circular structure wherein they end up consistently (hopefully) defining each other (all dictionaries are examples of just such necessary circularity). In cases where certain Stipulations needed to first be in place before the definition was understandable, I have even left the definition of a technical term until after those Stipulations. The first time reader is advised to simply think of the standard vernacular meaning of a term, if he encounters it before it is defined, until he comes upon its definition. However, if desired, the definition can be immediately examined, since all usages of technical terms are hyperlinked to their definitions. I think this method should generally suffice for understanding, but if it does not, and most certainly if any inconsistencies or ambiguities ultimately arise in the definition set, please advise me immediately.

7) This Natural Social Contract is intended to apply to Freemen (those who execute it) in their relationships with both other Freemen and to non-Freemen. As written, it says very little about the relationships between children or other Dependent humans and those to whom they are in a dependency relationship - their Guardians (and nothing whatever about relationships of humans to any other lifeforms). The specification of objective rules of order for such arrangements is certainly something that needs to be done and can be done in my opinion, but I think that it is not crucial to the initial effort to achieve more Liberty from government by Self-Sovereign Individuals. However, if other Self-Sovereign Individuals disagree and wish to develop such rules, I will be happy to guide and critique their efforts in that direction. For the purposes of this Natural Social Contract in its current form, all that is needed is that each Dependent is the full responsibility of his Guardian.


i. An Existent is something which exists in reality. The only Existents are matter, energy, information (structure and form), space and combinations of these including all attributes and emergent properties of these combinations. Existents are transformed by "causes" during the passage of time into other Existents, their continuers. Such a transformation is called an Event. Objects are assemblages of matter, together with the energy and information contained therein, except Humans.

8) This is a simple statement of the metaphysical basis of reality that is necessary to formulate the Natural Social Contract. Though the statement is simple, I think that it captures the essential elements of the meanings of the defined words which are sufficient for this purpose. However, it is important to point out that "thoughts" are also Events that change the brain into a continuer of itself. Later in another place and time, I hope to get more heavily involved in creating my own Metaphysics, but not just now. The concept of "Objects", which includes solids, liquids, gases and even lifeforms, but not live human beings, helps simplify the definitions and statements of the Natural Social Contract. For more detail about Existents see my essay: "Collectivism in Language: Its Effects on Valid Reasoning".

ii. A Human is a member of the species and genus Homo Sapiens Sapiens including his Person (mind and body) and all information within, attributes and emergent properties at any given time in any life state between birth and death. An Individual is a Human who is not dependent on any other particular Individual or Individuals for any essentials of life (ie he gains such life essentials solely by Trading - by mutually Voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange of value with other Individuals). A Dependent is a Human for whom some particular Individual or Individuals (his Guardian(s)) provide certain essentials of life, not as an immediate Trade, nor under the terms of a Valid Contract, but in the mere "hope" of some future benefit. For the purposes of this Agreement, it will from here on be assumed that a Dependent interfaces with Individuals through his Guardian who, as the Dependent's Culpable Agent, has Published the extent of his responsibility for the actions of the Dependent.

9) It is important to note in passing that "homo sapiens" translates literally as "man the wise" and is defined as "sentient, conscious, thinking man". Since all rational thought necessarily implies action to achieve the thinker's goals, that man is "sapient" also implies that he is "homo faber" - man the molder, maker and creator, both of himself (the "I") and of his environment (the "non-I"), to the extent to which he is capable.

All issues involving fetuses, age of viability definition, abortion, surrogate motherhood, paternal rights, children's rights, the rights of the mentally retarded, parent responsibilities, etc. are specifically and purposefully omitted from consideration in this Natural Social Contract. Note that since a Dependent is not an independent responsible Individual, a Freeman may wish to bar him from the Freeman's Property (even including egress Real Estate). Therefore, in order for a Dependent to have some ability to travell beyond the boundaries of his Guardian's Real Estate, his Guardian (or some other Adult) will generally need to agree to be his Culpable Agent under some contractual arrangment that may include a restriction of the Liberty of the Dependent. Such a contractual arrangement will then need to be published so that other Freemen are aware of the extent of responsibility.

iii. The Freedom (also Possible Actions) of an Individual is the set of choices that are available to him at the present moment among all the choices that are not forbidden by the laws of reality. Those choices that currently exist, but of which he is unaware, are part of those that are unavailable to him. An Individual's Liberty is that part of his freedom which remains when there exist any Violations of him by other Individuals, when he is a Party to a Valid Contract, or when he is subject to Privileges or Entitlements under an Acceptable Social Contract.

10) The idea of "Freedom" for a lifeform is the natural extension of the concept of "degrees of freedom" within physical theories of matter and energy. Just as the number of degrees of freedom (independent alterations of its physical parameters) of a physical object is proportional to its size and complexity, so also for a lifeform is its set of existentially possible actions (independent alterations of itself and its environment) proportional to its complexity. Extended to a human being, therefore, the definition of "Freedom" given is entirely reasonable. The restriction of a human's Freedom to those actions which are "available" to him arises from this reasoning in the following manner. If a human lacks the information which would otherwise make him aware of some choice and its consequent action, to that extent the "complexity" of his brain is reduced and, therefore, it follows that his degrees of freedom (ie. set of possible actions) is also reduced. Note in this regard that "thoughts" are among the Possible Actions of any Individual. Moreover, this reasoning also shows why and how thinking creates more Freedom! - thinking increases the information content of a human's brain and, thus, increases his complexity.

It is important to note that while most writers appear to make little distinction between "Freedom" and "Liberty", I have defined them quite separately. In effect, "Liberty" is the political aspect of "Freedom", in a similar manner to which "self-sovereign" is the political aspect of "self-owner" (although the latter is a term that I think is counterproductive and have generally eschewed it in favor of "self-master"). That this is so can be seen if one imagines a human alone on a desert island. In such a state it is clear that the notion of the freedom to perform certain acts, the mastery of himself (in the sense of intimacy of control and perception of his person), and the control of whatever things external to himself he finds useful are all essential to his survival and his continued happiness. However, the notions of "Liberty" (applying only to those Freedoms that are capable of being restricted through relationships with other Individuals), "self-sovereignty" (that he is the only one who should be allowed to govern himself), and "ownership" (that he should have entitlement to possession and control over certain objects external to his body) have no practical use.

11) Before deciding that this simpler definition of Freedom would be sufficient for the Natural Social Contract, I had dissected the concept into the following distinct ideas:

  • The "Potential Freedom" of an Individual is the set of all actions which are not forbidden by the laws of reality.
  • His "Current Potential Freedom" is the subset of his Potential Freedom which is available at the present moment to any human whether or not they are aware of them.
  • His "Current Freedom" is the subset of his Current Potential Freedom of which he is aware.
  • His "Rational Freedom" is the subset of his Current Freedom which he thinks will increase his Lifetime Happiness.

"Potential Freedom" would thus be independent of time; "Current Potential Freedom" would be independent of his knowledge of what was currently available on Earth; "Current Freedom" would be equal to the term "Freedom" defined in definition iii; and "Rational Freedom" would be what I termed "Rational Choice" defined separately in definition vi. However, I decided that there was no practical requirement for this additional breakdown and that it might confuse the essential meaning of "available" since even though currently "available" in an existential sense, those choices of which someone is not aware are not available to him in any realistic or practical sense. Hopefully, this will show the reader that I did not simply put all those definitions into the Natural Social Contract to make it difficult to understand :-) I tried my best to make it as simple as I possibly could and yet still be clear, consistent and well defined!

The definition of Freedom or Possible Actions which is used in the Natural Social Contract does not ignore the fact that each Individual has a unique set of attributes and capabilities. This means that certain Possible Actions which are available to other humans are often extremely difficult for him to achieve and sometimes completely forbidden to him (because of some physiological characteristic, eg. a disability). Thus in general, it is a fact of reality that there are some actions that are possible for some humans, but that are not even potentially possible for others. However, the essential uniqueness of humans implies that it is neither truly possible nor would it be socially compossible (ie. mutually beneficial for all at once) to attempt to make possible for everyone, all actions that are potentially possible for some particular human. Instead, all that can be done by any consistent, reality-based social ordering system is to provide an optimal environment for each Individual:

  • to maximize his Current Potential Freedom by means of increasing the number of choices that exist (the Potential Freedom),
  • to increase the ease with which he can become aware of them (ie. increase his Current Freedom), and
  • to not have his Liberty to choose what he knows about Involuntarily restricted (ie. allow his Liberty to be as close to his Freedom as he wishes),

as long as no such environmental attributes and Voluntary choices constitute a Violation of another human (since that would reduce his Liberty).

iv. Lifetime Happiness means the accumulating total of the instantaneous states of happiness of an Individual over his lifetime as evaluated by that Individual.

12) The definition and the understanding of the meaning of "happiness" is the second most important factor (after the essential separation of each human from the rest of reality described in 1) above) for the success of any science of human conduct. Thus, it is also absolutely critical for any successful understanding and implementation of both the Declaration of Individual Independence and the Natural Social Contract. I have chosen to use the word "happiness" as the general term by which I mean to include all possible desirable (by him) states of the Person. For an Adult, desirable will necessarily be equivalent to beneficial, again in the widest-viewed, longest-range sense. However, understanding the validity of this equivalence need not be a requirement at the outset for analyzing the meaning of "happiness". The reason that happiness is so critical is that it is the basis of all value estimation within each Individual's mental activities - conscious or subconscious, and ultimately, of each Individual's chosen actions to increase his Lifetime Happiness. "Happiness", as a concept within the science of human conduct, thus assumes the same role as does subjective monetary value in the science of economics. However, a major difference is that while economics only deals with exchanges between Individuals of values measured by money or some other tangible, a complete science of human conduct must also deal with exchanges both between Individuals and within a single Individual of values that society has heretofore been reluctant to measure by money or other tangibles. In order to help understand happiness and with an aim towards the potential mensuration (act, process, or art, of measuring) of all forms of estimated worth (value) that are exchanged with others, I have dissected the concept of happiness in the following summary, with necessary elaboration below the summary:

  • "Happiness State" is the value vector in the multidimensional state (space) of all contributing independent components (such as pleasure, gratification, joy, exhilaration, fun, satisfaction, contentment, fulfillment, etc. and the different types of displeasure - with negative component values) that a human is currently experiencing. (Actually it could contain all possible types of pleasure and pain that he has or could ever experience.)
  • The "Importance Weighting" of a human's Happiness State is the multidimensional vector of current relative valuations of each of the independent components to his Happiness State (sometimes referred to as a human's "hierarchy of values"). If the definition of Happiness State were enlarged as suggested above to contain all possible value types, then the Importance Weighting for those types of values that he was not currently experiencing would simply be zero.
  • "Current Happiness" would then be the scalar product of his Happiness State with his Importance Weighting. ie. the sum of the products of each component of the Happiness State vector with its Importance Weighting.
  • "Lifetime Happiness" is then the integration (in the mathematical sense) of the instantaneous values of the Current Happiness of a human over his lifetime.

With the concept of "Happiness State", I am trying to gather all the multifold contributions to a human's present moment pleasure/pain "feelings" into one complex potentially measurable item. For example, one of the multi-faceted aspects of happiness of a human is the scope of his Possible Choices. Since many of the contributions to happiness appear to be independent of others (eg. Is there any amount of time spent listening to your favorite music which is equivalent to eating a 100 gram bowl of fresh strawberries? If there is such an equivalence, how does it change with time and circumstances? And how much of the pain of a cut on your body would you be willing to endure to obtain each of these? Is such "cost" you are willing to pay even the same for each two equivalent values - ie. are such values associative?), I have selected a vector quantity as the natural mathematical measuring tool for this purpose. Even though neuroscience is not yet able to measure (or even fully itemize) the individual component values of such a happiness vector, it is clear that such must exist because the brain makes some kind of "calculation" with them every time that it makes a decision. Whatever units of measurement are ultimately used for the various independent happiness components (eg. minutes for music, grams for strawberries, brain pain sensor readings for the cut, etc), there must also be a weighting factor that will vary with type, time, satiety, etc (eg. the type of music - although these may even be independent - can one truly equate the joy of a certain amount of Mozart to that of a certain amount of Madonna or the variety and degree of flavor of the strawberries? - also noting the difference in pleasure between the first 10 grams of strawberry and the last 10 grams, the same cut on your leg versus abdomen versus face, and how fast a healer you are, etc). So there must also be an "Importance Weighting" vector with a weighting value for each independent component of happiness which you are currently experiencing, the component values of which "weighting" also vary with time and circumstance.

In order to arrive at some kind of summation of your Current Happiness, which is needed to allow relative weighting of different components of happiness and the eventual making of decisions between alternate choices, what is mathematically called the scalar product of these two vectors can be computed - ie. the sum of all the independent happiness components times the weighting factor for each. Although it is unlikely that any human consciously does any such computation (the conscious appears to be actually incapable of dealing with such detailed complexity without additional memory and calculation aids), something like this must be actually being done by the subconscious. Such a computation both allows the components to be compared and enables a choice decision among alternates. If one tries to picture what is going on inside the brain of any thinking person, he must, in fact, have a pretty fine measuring grid for these preference ratings, which although most thinkers have regarded as purely "ordinal", in the end becomes not different in kind from a cardinal scale (since in reality cardinal scales are never infinitely fine!). Any difference (between cardinal and ordinal here) only arises because no metric (certainly no absolute one) has ever been devised. Thus, while no one could consciously do this kind of complex evaluation every time that he makes a decision (because of time restraints alone), something very like this must actually be done subconsciously within some part of the brain. These conclusions are also fully consistent with what many highly self analytical individuals have observed about their own behavior; namely that the closer one trains one's feelings and emotions to be consistent with one's well considered conclusions, the closer any such subconscious evaluation (and emotional result) will be to one's long deliberated conscious evaluation of the same data.

In the end, as in the case with "Freedom", I decided that the degree of complexity concerning happiness detailed in these annotations was both unnecessary and would unduly burden the average executor of the Natural Social Contract. I expect that most readers, whose eyes may be glazed over by this point (if they have even got this far), will heartily concur! :-)

13) The definition of "Lifetime Happiness", on which I settled, has another problem not related to the complexity issues just discussed. Many people may not be prepared to accept that the goal of their life is to maximize the accumulation of their individual happiness (even as evaluated solely by each of them for himself) over their lifetime even though they do understand and agree that their goal is always to effect the highest happiness that they can in the immediate future. However, since few of those same people will be willing to be solely hedonistic in the sense of not being at all concerned with the happiness of "next week", I think that with contemplation, most will agree that, suitably discounted to the present because of the risk that in may never happen (because his life might end, he may change his mind or something else may prevent its occurence), working toward and then experiencing future happiness is just as important as is experiencing present happiness. Therefore, the accumulation of Lifetime Happiness must actually be what each Adult seeks to maximize.

v. An Adult is an Individual who has achieved his human potential for self-awareness, introspection, abstraction, thought, evaluation and action all of which enables him to determine both the current state of his happiness and those choices among his Possible Actions which he evaluates are likely to increase his happiness most or decrease it least, thereby maximizing his Lifetime Happiness. Also Adulthood.

14) As in the Declaration of Individual Independence (DOII), this Natural Social Contract is designed to be executed by Adults - those humans who are sufficiently advanced in their essential human attributes of "self-awareness, introspection, abstraction, thought, evaluation and action" that they are fully using these to promote their lives. The use of the adjective "essential" to describe these human attributes relates to the fact that they are distinguishing characteristics between homo sapiens and other species. While many other species have these characteristics to some degree, some few probably even have them to a moderate degree (eg. porpoises and apes), and, if one considers the evolutionary record, the ancestors of humans must have had these characteristics at all levels up to those in current humans, humans exhibit these characteristics to a far greater extent than any other species among those extant on Earth.

As in the DOII, the term "Adult" makes no specification of age. All that it requires is that a person possesses the characteristics of "self-awareness, introspection, abstraction, thought, evaluation and action". Furthermore, it is assumed that a decision to execute the DOII and this Natural Social Contract is evidence of such Adulthood. There will be some humans who are ready, willing and able to do this at a very early age and there will be others who are never ready, willing or able. As time progresses and the concepts necessary for these actions and the advantages incurred by them get better understood and disseminated among people, it is expected that the number of those who do not execute such documents will drop practically to zero. As is made clear by stipulations within the Natural Social Contract, this empirical fact of Adulthood is not practically open to fraud because it requires certain responsibilities that, if not met, in effect result in the loss of such de facto status (of being a Freeman). This potential problem will also be minimized by the practice of Freeman to inspect the personal Identifying Information that each Freeman is required to make accurately and verifiably available, before interacting with him. Thus, the ease of any Individual prematurely or inappropriately declaring himself an Adult and, after executing the DOII and the Natural Social Contract, becoming a Freeman, is a naturally self-limiting and self-correcting problem.

15) It should be noted that all of the terms "self-awareness", "introspection", "abstraction", "thought", "evaluation" and even "action" are the source of disputes within philosophical circles concerning their meaning, their importance and even their existence as aspects of human behavior. Still most people, and even significant numbers of those philosophers who examine the world from a practical point of view, agree that the concepts named by these terms do meaningfully signify such important aspects. I have chosen to not elaborate more on these concepts here, but instead to accept the meanings of the terms as they are currently defined in generally accepted dictionaries, which meanings I think are reasonable and useful.

vi. Rational Choice means the goal and intent of a Possible Action which goal and intent an Adult decides will increase most or decrease least his Lifetime Happiness.

16) There is much dispute in philosophical circles over the term "rational"; both with respect to its meaning and whether it is even possible for any human choice to be either rational or irrational. Some philosophers argue that "rational" has no valid meaning, some argue that it has, but that humans always act rationally, and still others argue that it has a meaning but such behavior is not possible for any human. I will therefore state clearly at the outset that I think "rational" is a meaningful description of behavior that occurs for all humans some of the time, for some humans most of the time, but not all of the time for any human. This last follows from the fact that no human is omniscient. By "rational", as with the standard dictionary definition, I mean applying reason and logical processing in a sane and lucid manner to knowledge and abstractions within the mind in order to arrive at a conclusion, a choice and an action that has the best possible chance to maximize his lifetime happiness. That some people do act rationally some of the time follows from the fact that they remain alive and, since for a human maintenance of life cannot be achieved by instinct alone, staying alive requires that a person use his mind for productive decision making (ie. to efficiently gain ends - something that can only be done by using reason and logic). However, since a few people most of the time and many people some of the time do not either logically process information or act in a mentally sane and lucid manner, but instead act on unfocused whim in a manner little different from that of any "lower" lifeform, I do not agree that all human conduct is necessarily "rational"5a. Furthermore, almost all people some of the time practice evasion of certain information either consciously or subconsciously (often by "trained" habit) and, thus, do not act rationally because they do not use all the information that is actually available to them. And yes, it could be argued that this information is not actually "available" to them and that they are making a Rational Choice within the context of their Possible Actions. However, I think this argument is specious and simply serves to excuse as acceptable, habits, attitudes and behaviors that are inherently irrational because they are not conducive to the generation of maximum Lifetime Happiness - certainly not in the sense of being beneficial over the long run, in any reasonable sense, to the Person of the human who uses them.

In order to fully validate the concept of "Rational Choice", it is necessary to specify a method for deciding whether or not a given person's choice, and consequent action in accord with that choice, is "rational" or not. Thus, I must specify how, when and by whom this is to be decided! I will state right off that even though I argue that the term "rational" as a description of a particular human action can be given a valid meaning that differentiates such action from many other available actions (that are irrational), I do not agree that this distinction can be decided with any finality at any time during the life of the acting individual either within the mind of the actor himself or externally by others. Such a judgement can ultimately only be determined - by the objective results of the action in question upon the acting individual, all of which results continue to unfold in time, only bounded by his death5b. Others may think, judge and even discriminate against a human because of an action that currently appears irrational. However, in the end, only the Individual who acts can be the final arbiter, because only he has to live with the consequences (unless such action Violates another human causing Unrestitutable harm). If an Individual is trying to be rational (ie. trying to maximize his Lifetime Happiness), however, he will perceive that his action appears to not actually have had the desired (beneficial to him) effect, and he will then do the necessary self-analysis to see why the action turned out to be irrational (if that was indeed the reason why the action was not successful in its goal) or why it otherwise failed, and how that might be corrected in the future. Nevertheless, in spite of the subjectivity of any instantaneous or even less than lifespan (his) attempt to describe a given human's actions as rational or irrational, any successful science of human conduct must distinguish between such actions. To not be able to state a priori of its final determination by reality whether or not a human action is rational is little different than to not be able to state a priori of its final determination by the free market what is the value of any good or service. One must make a decision and choose simply because one must act within a limited amount of time in order to maximize one's lifetime happiness. The rationality of an action can only be determined by its effects on reality (including other humans), just as market values can only be determined by human actions relating to the good or service in question. Thus, Rational Choices may be seen as "internal services", which when translated into action produce value, some of which only becomes apparent as it benefits the person over time. In that sense, rationality may also be seen as a part of the measure of the value of an action, so that instead of merely rational or irrational, all human actions are more correctly seen as, ultimately, more or less rational.

vii. A Self-Sovereign Individual is an Adult who has signed and published an Acceptable Declaration of Self-Sovereignty (of which Appendix B is an example) and an Acceptable Social Contract of which he is not in Breach, both of which are Searchably Linked with his Identifying Information on a Universal Communications Network. An Acceptable Declaration of Self-Sovereignty includes, at the least, text similar to that of Appendix A (or a faithful translation of that text to another language). For the meaning of Acceptable Social Contract see Section D of this Agreement. For brevity hereafter in this Agreement the term Freeman will be used in place of Self-Sovereign Individual. A Social Imperative is a required action of this Agreement, the non-fulfillment of which within a time stipulated herein is grounds for a Charge of Breach of this Agreement and for the potential Revocation (forced termination of the Agreement by a Trial) of the status of Freeman with respect to this Agreement. A non-Freeman is any Human who is not a Freeman. Also Unacceptable Social Contract, Freemen, non-Freemen, Revoked.

17) It is of paramount importance to ensure the optimality and stability of social order created by the Natural Social Contract that all Freemen be completely open with respect to all information relating to their conduct under this Natural Social Contract and the conduct of their lives in general. Only such personal openness and lack of what is currently called "personal privacy" will sufficiently enable that the necessary level of discrimination and judgement by each Freeman is brought to bear on each other Freeman both before and after initiating contact with him. This kind of evaluation concerning how well a given Freeman is adhering to the social meta-needs is just the kind of discriminatory judgement that is required to allow any social order to be fully self-sustaining - ie. to make it work in a practical manner! Such discriminatory judgement by all of all enables and promotes the kinds of social incentives, rewards, disincentives, ratings and preferencings (weak and individualized forms of ostracism) that are generally lacking in our present society (because of the penchant for total tolerance and privacy), and that could so easily and ideally be accomplished by means of the Internet (UCN).

Another way to view what is needed here and to understand why it is so very important, is in terms of the fluidity of market evaluative mechanisms. It is well known that free market exchanges work best when each participant has the most possible information available on which to base his individual subjective evaluations of goods and services before making his buying choices and actions. For the same reasons and to the same extent, the marketplace of interpersonal relationship "exchanges" will work best when each participant has the maximum possible information available with which to make his own subjective evaluations of the worth of the various attributes of other participants in that relationship marketplace - when the relationship "trader" has the most possible information with which to make his judging and choosing decisions concerning with whom he wishes to establish a relationship and to trade personal attribute values (ie. to interact with).

18) Although I have attempted to make the definitions within the Natural Social Contract general enough that they will apply to many cultural notions of what are correct principles of "justice" in human interrelationships (so that other social contracts could use the same definitions), I am well aware that such cultural differences may require major changes from the social arrangements that are detailed in this Natural Social Contract. From this consideration arose the need to decide how to deal with such humans who have a very different view of their own social meta-needs and wish to adhere to highly different principles of social order. I have "resolved" this conflict (in a weak sense of "resolve") by defining and using the concept of the "interacceptability" of different social contracts. Ultimately what my "solution" means is that people operating under unacceptably different social contracts will generally not deal with each other. However, this does not prevent any Freeman under this Natural Social Contract from individually becoming an executioner of any other unacceptable (to this one) social contract by means of which he can deal with members of this other group. In this manner such people can be "go-betweens" for the different cultures. Since in my system all useful property will be privately Owned (after all, there is no government to own it and if Unowned and useful it will soon be claimed and Registered), this method provides a full solution to the idea of "competing" (in this case mutually unacceptable) social contracts. In an attempt to allow as many other social contract and declaration of self-sovereignty forms as possible to be "acceptable", I have held the Stipulations that they must contain to an absolute minimum - those that express the essential social order generating elements of the Declaration of Individual Independence and the Natural Social Contract documents that I have written for the Self-Sovereign Individual Project.

19) Just as with any other Valid Contract, the Natural Social Contract can be Breached and upon validation of such Breach by a Trial, the Breaching Individual will lose his status as a Freeman. For how Freemen are to deal with non-Freemen, particularly when some are still part of a government ruled system of social order, see Section C and the annotations related to it.

viii. An Individual is Connected with any Existent that is within the boundaries of his Possessions or of which he is aware either through direct sensory contact or via some communications medium. An Involved Individual is the Individual or the Guardian of a Dependent, who is Connected with a Freeman with respect to some Event (the Involvement).

20) A major characteristic of the social ordering system presented here is that all social meta-needs occur within the context of Individuals who are "locally" relating to various elements of reality including other Individuals. Just as is true for choices, so also matter, energy and information with which an Individual is not Connected are, in reality, unavailable to him. Except that an Individual's Connection to his Possessions is part of his Property Entitlement to them which connection would be made specific by actually Registering them, there are no "global" Connections with reality. In the same way, there are also no global Violations (Violations of every human), except that a Breach of the Natural Social Contract itself is effectively a Violation against every other Freeman, since each is a Party to that Contract. I have incorporated this idea of "locality" into the Natural Social Contract in many ways, but the idea of the Individual's need to be Connected with something before it can affect him is basic to them all. Note that the concept and statement of the locality of Connections does not deny the possibility that the actions of an Individual can have effects on many other humans and even, potentially and eventually, on every other human who will ever exist. These would all be "ripple effects" of local Connections continuing to be made into the future. What is imperative, however, is that each of these effects be analyzed in the context of its separate effect on each human - who is the Effective Cause, whether the Event is a Violation, and thus, whether and how much Restitution is owed to the Victim by the Violator. And that is why the concept and application of the local Connectivity of the Individual is so critical. Finally, while a Connection may persist into the future through memories, such a Connection cannot be Violated if an actual (not either memory or imagined) Connection (necessary for possibile for benefit) is no longer possible, and no Connection can be extended from its inception into the past. For a discussion of some aspects of Connectedness, see the Yahoo Morelife discussion thread: Msg 727.

ix. An action of an Individual is the Effective Cause of some Event-A, if the action was the last Individual action that was a cause of Event-A and some pure chance Event-B could have caused that action to cause the Event-A. Also Effectively Caused.

21) Many prior Events contribute to any given Event and are causes of it to some extent either sequentially or coincidentally, at least in the sense that if they had not occurred, then that Event would also not have happened exactly as it did. While it often appears that some prior Events are more important or essential contributing causes than others, there seems to be no general logical method of specifying the primacy of one such causal Event over another. Nevertheless, when one or more prior Individual actions are causes of some Event that results in harm to another Individual, it is of paramount importance to have a method by which to determine which of the prior human actions (if any) are responsible for the harm. The definition of Effective Cause given here attempts to specify such a method of assigning Individual responsibility for an Event, a component of which is harm to one or more Individuals. The reason why such an assignment of responsibility is possible may be found in the ability of a human to use his reason and conscious awareness to ascertain and estimate the likelihood of the possible results of all his actions. This ability to so ascertain and estimate implies the responsibility to do so in order to maximize one's Lifetime Happiness and the theory of Social Meta-Needs shows that such personal maximization of lifetime happiness necessarily implies the concommitant social responsibility. In effect, such social responsibility is a natural restriction and limitation on the Freedom of any Individual seeking to maximize his lifetime happiness. Maximizing one's Lifetime Happiness is a constant task of benefit/cost evaluation for every action that one takes. The method of specification of Effective Cause that works in general is to assign the Effective Cause of some Event to the Individual who is the last actor in one of the Events causal chains for which the action itself had the potential to cause the harm that was caused. The reason this works is because he is the last person such that if he had not chosen as he did the harm would not have occurred. Therefore, I have defined Effective Cause in such a manner that it captures that responsibility. For more detail and another look at this issue see the definition of Adequate Control. For a discussion of some aspects of Effective Cause, see the Yahoo Morelife discussion threads: Msg 741, Msg 748 and Msg 781.

x. A Culpable Harm to an Individual-A by another Individual-B is an Event Effectively Caused by Individual-B which Individual-A judges to have resulted in: a) a reduction of the value to him of an Existent to which he is Connected, b) a reduction of the number or scope of his Possible Actions; except when Individual-A is in the act of Violating Individual-B, or Individual-B has Entitlement, Privilege or Permission by Individual-A, to act as he did. A Defensible Threat to an Individual-A is any action by another Individual-B which Individual-A judges is likely to be the Effective Cause of Culpable Harm to him.

22) The definition of Culpable Harm has three major novel differences from any current notions of "culpability" and "harm" which are of critical importance to its understanding and application. The first important aspect of this definition is that Culpable Harm is an Event, something that is objectively verifiable. This is of critical importance in separating the harmful action from the judgement of resulting harm. This separation of Culpable Harm from the harmed Individual is critical for allowing any objective judgement of the occurence of Culpable Harm as opposed to its magnitude, which can only be subjectively judged by the harmed Individual. The second important aspect of this definition is that Culpable Harm can only exist within an Equity Relationship - it is not something that can occur outside of an interpersonal relationship nor that relates to society as a whole. This placing of Culpable Harm clearly in the context of an interpersonal relationship is critical to any clear and objective determination of the requirements of justice (ie. the restoration of earned value), because it shows that only the Involved Individuals have any direct "interest in" (the state of having one's well-being affected by) the Culpable Harm Event. The third critical aspect of the definition of Culpable Harm is that the amount of harm, but not the occurrence of the Culpable Harm Event, can only be judged by the person who is harmed. This follows from the existential fact that only he experiences that harm and only he can access his value structure (weighting of his happiness vector components) to correctly estimate the subjective value of the harm done.

I originally had defined also a more general term "Harm" as: any event which temporarily or permanently reduces the value of one or more aspects of an Individual's happiness, thereby also reducing his Lifetime Happiness. The general term "Threat" would have then meant anything which an Individual perceives to have a risk of harm to him. While these definitions may be useful in general, and are close to the vernacular meanings of these words, I decided that with respect to an Individual's purely social meta-needs the general concepts of harm and threat were outside of the pervue of the Natural Social Contract and that only Culpable Harm and Defensible Threat as relating to human Effective Cause were relevant and needed.

23) The definition of Culpable Harm specifies only two fundamental ways in which a Culpable Harm Event can be evaluated as harm by an Individual. The first is by some "reduction of the value to him of an Existent to which he is Connected". In the definition of "Existent", I assumed that reality is composed of "matter, energy, information (structure and form), space and combinations of these including all attributes and emergent properties of these combinations". I have not included any possibility of a reduction of value of Real Estate per se (apart from Existents within its boundaries) because I cannot imagine how a given volume of space itself can have its "value" reduced, since its value is dependent entirely on the locations and conditions of its boundaries. On the other hand, as opposed to space, time is quite another story, since time passes away irreplacably and all event transformations (including happiness) require time for their occurence. A human would certainly have "time" reduced in value (in effect stolen from him) if he could be involuntarily directly transported into the future, since the time between now and then would forever be denied to him as time during which he could experience happiness. In more practical terms, however, one might say that an Individual's time is reduced in value if his choice of Possible Actions during some period of time is involuntarily reduced, or has his evalutions of such choices are negatively altered by a Defensible Threat.

This reasoning leads to the second fundamental way in which a Culpable Harm Event can be evaluated as harm by an Individual, and without any direct reference to time - he may judge it to be "a reduction of the number or scope of his Possible Actions". This analysis shows that it is not the actual time that is stolen, but that the harm follows from a reduction or negativity of alteration of the Individual's Possible Actions, which is why the Culpable Harm Event is described in that way. This analysis also shows that the amount of harm reasonably judged by an Individual is the potential value of those missing or negatively altered Possible Actions that were Possible Choices for him. It is important to note as before, that the Individual's thoughts are included within the totality of his Possible Actions.

24) It is with respect to both Existents and Possible Actions that the notion of "Connected" defined previously is so important. This is because both any reasonable notion of harm to Existents and negative alteration of all one's Possible Actions can only involve those Existents to which one is Connected. I am making an assumption that the only manner in which an Individual's happiness can be reduced is by means of the reduction of the value to him of some matter, energy, information or scope of choices to which he is Connected, because I cannot imagine any other way in which any reasonable human would think that he had been harmed. Note that I am not precluding the situation where the knowledge of Culpable Harm does not occur until long after the Effective Cause of the harm as long as the Person of the Individual or an Existent to which he currently has a Property Entitlement was harmed. I am not even requiring that the Individual who is harmed ever actually knows what exactly is the Effective Cause of the harm - a Connection may come into existence only after the harm is detected. For this reason, there is no specified time nor Ownership change limit on responsibility for Restitution for Culpable Harm! Note once again that my only exception to the detectability criterion is that an Individual is Connected with all aspects of his Possessions by Entitlement, whether he is aware of them (the Connection) or not. However, also note that Connection is not retroactive merely for the purposes of assessing that Culpable Harm was done. Therefore, if an Individual-A was not aware of the existence of some other Individual-B or Existent-B until after the Culpable Harm Event against Individual-B or Existent-B occurred (perhaps as a result of publicity surrounding it), he cannot make any case for Culpable Harm to himself.

25) Note that "invasion" of privacy per se is not an instance of Culpable Harm (what Existent does it devalue or Possible Actions does it alter?) although, depending on circumstances, it may be a Defensible Threat. Privacy is in the category of ways in which one Individual can be isolated from others. Every Individual can attempt to be isolated if he wishes, but any other Individual can also take action to ascertain information about the isolated Individual - ie. to end that isolation - as long as this action does not Violate the other. Any action to continue such isolation other than a purely Protective measure, will necessarily be a Violation of the Individual who is non-Violatingly trying to end the isolation. In fact, the moment that one Individual-A interacts with another Individual-B, "A" automatically ends his isolation because that interaction necessarily allows "B" to find out additional information about "A", and thus "A" reliquishes some of his privacy. If an action by Individual-B that happens to reduce the privacy of Individual-A is also the Effective Cause of Culpable Harm to Individual-A, that is quite separate from the reduction of privacy itself. Moreover, the Property Entitlement to Real Estate includes the Entitlement to Evict Trespassers, which is certainly one method of Protecting your privacy. This Entitlement to Eviction is why the definition of Culpable Harm has to exclude the initiation of whatever action is required to effect the Eviction. (Part of the first exception in the definition since Trespass is one of the defined Violations.) This exception is necessary in order for Property Entitlement to Real Estate to have any effective meaning.

26) Within the definition of Culpable Harm are listed two types of situations for which an Event that an Individual judges to be harm is excepted from being considered to be Culpable Harm. The first is the necessary action of Defense by one Individual against Culpable Harm from another. The second and third exceptions (when the harming Individual is repelling a Trespasser or recovering his Stolen Property) are an extension of the Property Entitlement to Real Estate and Ownership/Possession. The fourth is because Individual-B has an Entitlement to be the Effective Cause of the Event in question because of his Self-Sovereignty, his Ownership, Possession or Control of some Existent or as a consequence of the Terms of a Permission or the Stipulations of Valid Contract until such are Withdrawn or terminated, respectively. All such exceptions are the result of Entitlements of one form or another and I can conceive of no others. If someone thinks of others, then please let me know and if I agree then I will include them.

27) There is a major variation here from what generally exists under current state or common law systems, which should be noted. Under this Natural Social Contract, an Individual may seek Restitution for harm that results from an Event caused to another human or an Existent in which he has no financial interest or Property Entitlement. However, this only applies when the harming Event was Effectively Caused by someone who did not in turn have the Entitlement to act as he did. This leads to a situation where if some highly valued Individual is Violated or some highly valued Existent is harmed, many others beside the Violated Individual or the Owner of the Existent may also seek Restitution from the Alleged Violator for their loss. On the other hand, if that Individual or the Owner/Possessor of that Existent did the exact same thing to himself or the Existent, since that action is their Entitlement, no Restitution may be sought by other Individuals even though they were Connected and did in fact suffer harm - ie it would not be a Culpable Harm.

xi. An Agent is an Individual-A who acts in the place of another Individual-B according to Individual-B's intentions and purposes either as instructed by Individual-B or as best that Individual-A can determine those purposes. A Culpable Agent is an Individual (whether an Agent or not) who bears ultimate responsibility for all of his Possible Actions which are taken - especially all Violations. A Perpetual Agent is an arrangement by which a Culpable Agent with respect to certain obligations will exist as long as those obligations exist.

28) There should be no limitation on assigning any of your entitlements and responsibilities to Agents who are also Freemen. However, such Agents do not gain any special privileges under this Agreement by such assignment, except those Privileges relating to a Peonage Enjoinder. The responsibility of an Agent for his actions as a Freeman under the Natural Social Contract is not changed in any manner by acting as an Agent - he is still a fully Culpable Agent. For this reason, any reasonable Agent will likely require some form of Valid Contract with his client stating that the client will in turn be responsible to pay any Restitution which is incurred by the Agent in performance of actions on the client's behalf (usually termed an indemnification Contract). In turn, any client needs to be very careful about giving such a "blank check" of entitlement or responsibility to an Agent. This problem of mutual trust will likely be resolved by the Agent having demonstrated in the past great wisdom and sensitivity about handling various situations, and possibly by Agents having themselves insured against liability for Restitution. All such details are clearly matters which the free market of services will work out to the benefit of everyone involved once a structure of social meta-needs is in place to guide it.

Generally, an Individual must convey a clear Voluntary direction to someone before that Individual can act as his Agent. However, there are times when an Individual may be in danger and incapable of making such a direction. Therefore, a Freeman may unilaterally decide to be the Agent of any Individual. However in doing so, as always, the Freeman takes all responsibility for his actions - ie. the Freeman is a Culpable Agent. If after the events have reached a point where the Individual is again capable of volitional decision, he agrees that the actions of the Freemen were what he would have asked for if he had been able, then the Freeman was retroactively the Agent of the Individual all the time. However if at that time, the Individual states that the Freeman acted against his wishes and if the Freeman actually did him harm, then the Freeman was not his Agent and has done Culpable Harm to the Individual who he thought he was helping. In summary, although he may gain value, a Freeman gains no privileges under this Natural Social Contract by acting as an Agent and always bears full responsibility for his actions and those of his Dependents whether those actions are beneficial, harmful or even Violations.

29) Since there are no such things as collective or otherwise fictitious entities which act volitionally, all Equity Relationships must be between Individuals. Therefore, in order for the obligations of an Individual under a Valid Contract or Covenant to be able to continue for the natural duration of the purposes for which they were made, a method of such continuation is required. This is the purpose of the idea of Perpetual Agent. A simple example of a Perpetual Agent is the Owner of Real Estate with respect to a Covenant on the Real Estate. In this case, each Owner is the Perpetual Agent of the first Owner who made the Covenant. In this manner his purchase of the Real Estate both gains him its benefits and commits him to the obligations of all its Covenant.

xii. Individual-A is said to be under Duress from Individual-B when there is a Defensible Threat to Individual-A, Effectively Caused by Individual-B who is not under Duress from Individual-A or his Agents. Voluntary means not under Duress. A Voluntary Relationship is any relationship among Individuals where none is under Duress from any of the others within the relationship or from their Agents. Also Voluntarily, Involuntary.

30) Given the previous definitions of Threat and Effective Cause, this definition of Duress follows quite reasonably. It is important to note that Duress only relates to actions within a particular relationship. Even though Individual-A in a relationship with Individual-B, may be under Duress from some Individual-C outside of the particular relationship, that Duress has no bearing on the Voluntary status of Individual-A's actions within the relationship with Individual-B.

xiii. A Valid Contract (also just Contract) is a recorded manifest mutual understanding among Individuals who are in a Voluntary Relationship or is a Restitution Requirement or Peonage Enjoinder: a) wherein each receives Consideration, b) which does not require any Party to Breach this Agreement, c) which contains Arbitration Clauses, and d) which contains clauses specifying some method by which each Party may terminate his Involvement in the Contract. The mutual understanding is said to be Stipulated in the Contract, however recorded, and the Individuals who execute the Contract are said to be Parties to it. An Individual is in Breach of a Valid Contract to which he is a Party when he is not acting in accord with its Stipulations, unless only certain Stipulations are specified as being mandatory. Consideration is some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by each Party to a Valid Contract.6 Arbitration Clauses are one or more Stipulations in a Valid Contract which create a method by which, for the duration of the Valid Contract, there will exist an Individual or group of Individuals (the Arbitrator(s)) who may Attest the initial Valid Contract execution and will Mediate disputes between the Parties to the Valid Contract according to methods also Stipulated in the Valid Contract. An Attestor is an Individual, who is not a Party to a Valid Contract (accept possibly as Arbitrator), who verifies the authenticity of the Identifying Information and execution date of a Party who executes the Valid Contract. Also Breached and Unbreached, Stipulations, Attest.

31) Although in the history of civilization verbal unrecorded contracts have generally been accepted as reasonable and binding, this has very often led to unresolved disputes and conflicts because of the lack of any objective means to verify just what the understanding was. Because of this, particularly with the complexity of current life and with the relative ease of access to recorded media, it is past time that this acceptance of the validity of unrecorded contracts should be altered. Therefore, this Natural Social Contract requires that all Valid Contracts be recorded in one form or another so that an objective record of what was actually agreed is available.

32) It is a principle in common law that some Consideration must be forthcoming from each Party to a Contract before it is binding and valid. It is a principle which promotes mutual responsibility to adhere to agreements and thus, appears necessary for an optimal set of social meta-needs. That is why Consideration has been made a mandatory part of any Valid Contract under this Agreement.

33) The potential problem of agreements for Violatory purposes is neatly resolved by simply declaring that these are not Valid Contracts and are, thus, not enforceable under this Agreement. In point of fact, their prohibition is even stronger than that since if any Freeman were to sign one (as the purchased Violator) then he would ipso facto be stating his intention to Violate and would be subject to Revocation of his Freeman status.

34) While, within current legal systems, contracts are not required to contain termination clauses, once more, the social meta-needs adequate for an optimally functioning society should require that some method of termination be clearly declared in any Valid Contract or else a de facto kind of "enslavement" is the result. The exact nature of the appropriate termination clauses will depend greatly on the nature of the Valid Contract and must be left for the Parties to decide.

35) Another extremely important part of every Valid Contract should be an Arbitrator. When the Contract is being setup is the time when the Parties are always "agreeable". The time of Contract initiation is therefore the best time for the Parties to decide on the contents of Arbitration Clauses. Not only will the Arbitration arrangement need to be for the duration of the Contract, but the method by which Arbitration decisions are made should be specified in the Contract. In addition, any reasonable Arbitrator will also seek to ensure that each of the Parties and he have the exact same understanding of the meaning of the Contract terms including the entitlements and responsibilities of each Party before the Contract is executed. If such reasonable practices are adhered to, then there will be far fewer wrangling disputes between Freemen and far greater benefit for all Freemen. In this manner, most Contract disputes will be resolved without the necessity of a Trial. In fact if the Arbitration clauses are well done, the ruling of the Arbitrator could in most cases be effectively binding, since a non-obeying Party could otherwise be Charged with Breach of this Agreement because any such Party would be intending to Breach a Valid Contract. Only in the case where the Arbitrator himself is Charged with a Violation of the Arbitration Clauses might a Trial be necessary. The Arbitrator would also generally serve as Attestor to execution of the Contract.

xiv. An Entitlement of a Party-A to a Valid Contract is a set of Stipulations of that Contract that specify certain Events of which Party-A is the Effective Cause, and that Permit such Events to not be Violations of the Permitting Party-B. A Global Entitlement is an Entitlement which is Permitted by all executors of Acceptable Social Contracts. A Local Entitlement is an Entitlement which is Permitted by fewer than all executors of Acceptable Social Contracts. An Entitled Individual is an Individual who holds an Entitlement. A Property Entitlement (also just Title) is a special kind of Entitlement related to Property, which contains a set of Stipulations in one or more Valid Contracts concerning the Possible Actions of the Owner(s) with respect to Owned Property and/or of the Possessor(s) with respect to Possessed Property. A Deed of Entitlement is a specialized Valid Contract which contains a description of the Property, includes the obligations and Permissions of the Owners and/or Possessors and may contain Covenants all with respect to the Property involved. The Ownership and/or Possession of Property may be Registered by publishing its Deed of Entitlement on a Universal Communications Network. Also Registering, Registration.

36) Since Existents can be used to harm others, the Property Entitlement to an Existent cannot be completely unconditional, but must conform to the social meta-needs. But this is not any reduction of the Liberty of any Freeman because all Rational Choics are still available to him. As with other documents which it is beneficial to be made known to other Freemen, the Ownership of something may be Registered as a Property Entitlement Searchably Linked to the Owner. In addition, it is also possible and may sometimes be useful to Register an Unowned Possession, especially if that Possession is the object of a long-term rental or lease Contract. Freemen may also want to Register descriptions of Owned items which are precious to them or which are simply a major part of their total assets. Publishing a Deed of Entitlement may be particularly important when something is co-Owned and thus the terms of co-Ownership need to be clearly understood by many. Although simply having these co-Ownership arrangements written in a Valid Contract may well be sufficient. For example, Registration may be desired for a co-Owned vehicle which is often far away from one of the Owners.

xv. Possession is the state of Existents of being juxtaposed to, enclosed by or held within the boundaries of the Person of an Individual or other of his Possessions; or the state of Real Estate of being Owned or for which Possession has been Permitted. A Possessor of an Existent is an Individual who has it in his Possession. Exclusive Possession means that a Possessor is the only Human who has Possession. Entitled Possession means that a Possessor is an Owner or has acquired Possession by means of a Valid Contract. Also Possessed.

37) The idea of "Possession" was a difficult concept for me to nail down. Yet I needed to do so because it is critical to any delineation of gain and loss of Ownership. As I see it "Possession" is a kind of "intimate" or "strong" Connection between an Individual and an Existent which enables him to have some Control of that Existent that others do not have. The ultimate Property Entitlement to Possession of any Object or pure information is coincident with establishment of its Ownership. Of course, the strongest Connection of all is the identity of an Individual with his Person of which he can never relinquish Possession without ceasing to exist either partially or fully. However, for all Existents external to the Person, Possession may either permanently or temporarily be completely relinquished by the Owner to another Individual by Stipulating his Property Entitlement with respect to it under a Valid Contract. Even for one's Person some of the Entitlements of Possession can be relinquished to another by means of a Valid Contract. In fact, this should be done whenever one needs or wishes to Permit another Individual to have direct access to one's Person. Note that Possession does not necessarily imply a knowledge of something sufficient to actually Control any of its major functions (think of a savage "Possessing" a notebook computer). In addition, an Individual in Possession of something need not be its Owner (think of renting things) even though he may be the Owner of things which are within something of which he is only the Possessor. Thus, the critical aspects of Possession are the proximity of the Possession to the Possessor, Entitlement to its Possession, or for Real Estate, its Ownership with Property Entitlement to Possession not having been assigned to another Individual. An Individual is still in Possession of either rented or Owned Real Estate and its contents when he is remote from it. While technically not Possessing Owned or previously Possessed Objects, when he is remote from them, an Individual still has Property Entitlement to Possession so long as he has not Abandoned them or Voluntarily Transferred them, just as he has Property Entitlement to Possession of anything which is Stolen from him. Originally, I had also included within the meaning of Possession, the ability to still exercise "effective control" over it, but I removed that for the reasons stated in the next comment.

xvi. Control means that an Individual is able to take Possible Actions which direct the operation and effects of some Existent. A Controller of an Existent is an Individual who has it fully or partly under his Control. Exclusive Control means that a Controller is the only Human who has any Control. Entitled Control means that a Controller is an Owner or Possessor or has acquired Control by means of a Valid Contract. Adequate Control means that the Possible Actions of an Individual who is in Possession or Control of the Existent are sufficient to prevent any effect of the Existent from being the Effective Cause of a Violation with respect to any Individual.

38) With respect to the social meta-needs of Freemen, there are two essential aspects of "Control". The first relates to the Entitlement of Control and the harm done to the Possessor/Controller by the loss of the Control. The second relates to the potential for harm to a human who is an "innocent bystander" (ie. not the Possessor/Controller) by something which is not sufficiently Controled. The latter is the reason for the subcategory of Control that I have named "Adequate Control". Other forms of Control may affect the Possessor, and loss of them may affect the personal welfare or the social meta-needs of the Possessor/Controller, but only lack of Adequate Control can be an Effective Cause of Culpable Harm or Duress, and therefore, affect the social meta-needs of other Freemen.

Possession or Control even without Possession is the necessary precondition for causing Culpable Harm or Duress through lack of Adequate Control. Since the act of Possession and Control is volitional, the lack of knowledge of how to Control an Existent does not absolve an Individual for responsibility for Adequate Control - ie. the Possessor/Controller is still the Culpable Agent. However, to the extent the Possession or Control is not due to the Individual's action, but instead due to the action of another Individual, the former is not the Culpable Agent. A very clear example of this would be if some very strong Individual took hold of my arm and used it to beat against someone else. I would still be the Possessor of the arm (although at the time, so would he also!), but would not have Control over it. He would in fact be the one with Control, and thus, he should be culpable for the damage my arm did, not I. Another way of looking at this, is that with respect to the Event that occurred, my choice of Possible Actions played no part. Note that this is very different than if I was ordered at gunpoint to damage someone else. In that case I could have chosen not to cause the Culpable Harm. It was still in my scope of Possible Actions. In the latter situation, I would still be responsible for full Restitution for the Culpable Harm done, but then in turn I would Charge the Individual who threatened me sufficiently to make me do the Culpable Harm and would attempt to recover more than enough from him to pay my Restitution to the Individual harmed.

xvii. Ownership is the Global Entitlement to hold a Property Entitlement of Possession and Control for a clearly specified type and amount of an Existent, except a Human, granted to a particular Individual who has acquired such Ownership in accord with Acceptable Methods until such time as the Property Entitlement is reassigned by Voluntary Transfer or the Existent is Abandoned (see section A.2. below). Such an Entitled Individual is called an Owner and is said to Own the Existent. Unowned means not Owned. co-Ownership arises when two or more Individuals have Ownership of the same Existent. Also co-Owned, co-Owner.

39) This definition establishes Ownership not a "right" as so most natural rights philosophers have insisted it should be, but instead as an Entitlement. However, a correctly structured Property Entitlement to the Ownership of something (as accomplished by this Natural Social Contract) acquired by Acceptable Methods, does not detract from the Liberty nor any other social meta-needs of anyone else. For details of how and why this is so, the reader is directed to the clauses of Section A.

The Person (body and mind) of an Individual could well be classified as something which he Owns - certainly no one else can Own them. However, because of the special nature of the Person as being synonymous with the Individual himself and without which the Individual cannot exist, there is an essential distinction between the Person and those Existents to which the Individual has a Property Entitlement. An Individual's Entitlement to his Person is both stronger and different in kind to Ownership, since it is a true Existent and the only one which would cause his immediate non-existence if it were removed from him. For this reason, the concept of Ownership is without valid meaning and is counterproductive when applied to an Individual. Instead, where the term "self-owner" might have been used, I have chosen to use "self-master".

xviii. Trespass is the state of an Individual-A who has effectively caused the removal or addition of any Possession, or the alteration of the Control of any Existent by an Individual-B without the Permission of Individual-B. Eviction is the Entitlement of the Owner or the Entitled Possessor or Entitled Controller of Property to initiate sufficient force required to terminate the Trespass. Also Trespassing, Trespasser, Trespassed, Evict, Evictor.

40) "Trespass" was another difficult idea to nail down, particularly with respect to the ways in which it causes harm. Even though it is sometimes applied to other lifeforms, the notion of Trespass used in this Natural Social Contract applies only to acts of humans. Although at first thought the manner in which Trespass per se (ie. merely the location within) can be the cause of any harm (since it alone does not reduce the value of any Existent to anyone nor does it reduce anyone's Liberty unless the Owner/Possessor is aware of the Trespass) is not clear, the Property Entitlement to Possession is so important to his Lifetime Happiness that a Possessor ought to be able to exclude any other human (or any of that human's Possessions) from being within the boundaries of his Possessions unless that human has been given prior Permission. On the other hand, I personally see no reason for excluding a Trespasser and I would never seek Restitution for any Trespass per se, ie. given that the trespasser causes no real harm. In addition, it is possible to include certain clauses within the Registered Deed of Entitlement which would give conditional Permission for Individuals to enter one's Real Estate by certain paths for certain purposes. It is important to note that being within the boundaries with Permission becomes a Violation if the Trespassing Item is not removed when the Possessor of those boundaries so requests of the Individual in Control of the Trespassing Item according to previously established terms of withdrawal of such permission. (With respect to such "terms", see clause A(3)(c).) This is a case where the Entitlement of one Freeman takes precedence over the Liberty of another - the Trespasser is simply not entitled to that particular kind of Possible Action (ie. the Unpermitted location of any portion of his Possessions within the Possessions of another). The most important reason for this is that it is entirely at the discretion of the Possessor to decide whether or not Culpable Harm or Threat is being caused by the Trespasser and how much the Restitution for Culpable Harm should be. Another way to state this might be to think of Trespass as not a Rational Choice action because of the risk that harm might be done. However, the problem with this is that the evaluation of "rational" here depends on the Trespasser (since it is his action) and not on the Possessor being Trespassed. In the end, Trespass is still is a very "thorny" issue of which any solution is not likely to satisfy everyone. However, I think that my solution appears to be flexible enough to allow sufficient alterations (by means of Permissions) to satisfy most people.

41) As if the problems with defining Trespass weren't enough, when I came to "Eviction", I found another major problem. This is because the Trespassing Item or Individual may not have come from an adjoining Possession to which it can be directly Evicted! For example, it may have just been Evicted by someone else from their Real Estate onto my Real Estate, or it may have even fallen from the sky. The solution to the problem was found when I realized that every Real Estate will have to abut some specialized Real Estate into which entry including Evictions are generally Permitted. One could call this an "Egress Real Estate". It is what will need to replace what are currently public rights of way connecting parcels of private Real Estate. For additional details about these issues see the annotations to Stipulation A.3.c. Finally, there is the question of the Withdrawal of Permission to act in a manner which would have been Trespass without the Permission. It would not be correct to immediately turn this into a Trespass. This was solved by the definition of "Withdraw", that I have supplied with the definition of "Permission" and by the Stipulation A.3.d.

xix. Real Estate is a volume of space of which the boundaries, Owner Identifying Information, Possessor Identifying Information and Covenants are specified by the Stipulations within one or more Registered Deeds of Entitlement Searchably Linked with the Identifying Information of each Owner or Possessor. A Covenant is a Stipulation within a Deed of Entitlement specifying certain Permissions and responsibilities (with respect to the Real Estate which remain part of the Deed of Entitlement as a Valid Contract) of each of the Real Estate Owner(s) and/or Possessor(s), as a Perpetual Agent continued through transfer of the Ownership and/or Possession of the Real Estate, and a specified other Party as a Perpetual Agent. If the specified other Party is the Owner and/or Possessor, as a Perpetual Agent, of an abutting piece of Real Estate, then such Covenants will: a) state the responsibilities of each Owner and/or Possessor with respect to the common boundary, b) state the Permissions of each Owner and/or Possessor with respect to the other's Real Estate, or c) place certain limits on the use, sale and transfer Possession of their Real Estate by one or both Owners. If the Covenant relates to a boundary with Unowned Real Estate, then it simply describes the current boundary conditions which the Freeman Registering the Real Estate requires to not be altered by the action of any Individual. If the actions of some non-abutting Real Estate Owner and/or Possessor can affect those boundary conditions, then additional covenants must be concluded with the Owner and/or Possessor, as a Perpetual Agent, of such Real Estate concerning those boundary conditions if more than Trespass is the subject of concern.

42) I have defined "Real Estate" as a mere volume of space to keep it distinct from other Existents which are within the boundaries of that space. This separation has roots in common usage, since land has often been Owned without the Ownership of water, oil, lumber, mineral, trapping and other aspects of the land. In fact, Ownership of land rarely includes complete Ownership of all water which is within its boundaries at any given time. If the Ownership of the space is shared, or if Existents within the boundaries of the Real Estate are not fully Owned then the names of the co-Owners and the conditions of the Possession, Control, use, and disposition of the co-Owned aspects by all co-Owners must be also specified as Stipulations within the Registered Deed of Entitlement. The Deed of Entitlement must also clearly delineate which Stipulations are Covenants and which, if any, are not. Likely all Deeds of Entitlement will contain some form of Permission Covenant for entry from abutting Egress Real Estate or a Covenanted "right of way". To prevent disputes between neighbors, every piece of Real Estate should have Covenants relating to every other piece of Real Estate which it abuts, and this is, in fact, a requirement of Stipulation A.1.a

43) The biggest existential problems with respect to Real Estate (although perhaps not the commonest practical problems) are:
a) the vertical limits of the boundaries of Real Estate, and
b) the requirements (if any) in addition to pure boundary Registration which are necessary for Property Entitlement to Ownership.
Part of the reason for these considerations is that it is clear that the social meta-needs of Freemen require that there is some natural limit to the extent of Real Estate for which an Individual can "acceptably" acquire Property Entitlement. It makes no sense to agree that an Individual has Property Entitlement to the Moon, for example, (or even a star newly found by him) merely because he is the first one to Register it on a UCN. Just as with every other Existent which an Individual Owns, he or an Agent must have first have become a Possessor in some manner of the Real Estate that he wishes to Register. The necessary conditions to establish Property Entitlement which solve these problems are stated in Stipulation A.1.a Another illuminating way to understand the situation with Real Estate is to think of it not as merely a volume of space, but as a "relationship" between a volume of space and a particular Individual (its Owner or Possessor) who is "permitted" by other Individuals (ie. has "entitlement") to do certain things with that volume of space that other Individuals do not have such "entitlement" to do. The definition of Property Entitlement was designed to capture just such a notion.

xx. The Property of an Individual includes all Existents of which he has Ownership. However, Property may also be merely Possessed by an Individual under a partial Property Entitlement from its Owner.

44) As with Real Estate, Property may also be considered to be a state of an Existent of being in a certain relationship with a specific Individual who has full or partial Property Entitlement of Possession to the Existent. Once again, it should be noted that Individuals are not included in the definition of Property because they cannot be Owned - not even by themselves.

xxi. Permission is a Valid Contract or a recorded or unrecorded mutual understanding between two Individuals which effects the temporary Voluntary Transfer to one of them of partial or full, use or Control with respect to some portion of a Possession of the other (including the bodies of himself and those of whom he is Guardian), but for which there is no formal mechanism available for recovery of loss from any harm done by either party related to that Possession unless such Permission is by means of a Valid Contract. Withdrawal is the act of terminating Permission. The Terms of Permission are the details of the description of the form and extent of the Voluntary Transfer including the Terms under which Permission is Withdrawn. Also Permit, Permitting, Permitted, Withdraw, Withdrawn.

45) Even though it is strongly urged that most understandings between Freemen which involve exchanges of values should be recorded as Valid Contracts, because of the effort involved there will always be simple things which will be done in an unrecorded fashion by the use of verbal Permission or even recorded, but without all the requirements of a Valid Contract. Clearly, this practice is fraught with the potential for dispute unless the participants have good will, diligently attempt to achieve a common understanding and are prepared to take the chance that the value involved will be lost in order to avoid the "bother" entailed by use of a Valid Contract (although given the Liberty and the purpose to create them, the ingenuity of humans will likely make Valid Contracts much easier to use than appears to be unavoidable from their complex form). The practice of exchanging value without a Valid Contract has a risk of loss precisely because there is no formal process available under this Agreement for adjudication of any resulting disputes, and furthermore, because of the lack of an objective record of the understanding, it is not clear how any rational adjudication could be made.

46) After initially defining Permission strictly for the purposes of exchanges of value which are not made under the terms of a Valid Contract (such as a simple invitation to enter one's Real Estate), it was realized that the ideas involved have merit and usefulness also as special kinds of Valid Contract Stipulations. Therefore, the definition was enlarged to include that meaning. Where a Permission is actually part of a Valid Contract, then, Terms and Withdrawal are also special kinds of Stipulations and termination conditions within such a Contract.

xxii. Voluntary Transfer is the Voluntary reassignment of full or partial Property Entitlement of Ownership and/or Possession and/or Control of the Property of one Individual to another by either a Valid Contract or Permission.

47) The phrase Voluntary Transfer was necessary to distinguish it from Involuntary transfers which take place under Duress (eg. robbery and extortion), transfers which are Unpermitted by the recipient (eg. pollution and dumping), and transfers which are Unpermitted by the Possessor/Controller (eg. fraud and theft). For Real Estate, the process of Voluntary Transfer is often effected by a "conveyance"7 document, since in olden times a Deed of Entitlement was a physical parchment describing the Real Estate and its Covenants which needed to be physically "conveyed" to the new Owner. However, the Voluntary Transfer of other valuable or complex Properties may also require a Valid Contract which transfers Property Entitlement from one Individual to another.

xxiii. Theft is any Possible Action by an Individual-A which is the Effective Cause of any Existent which is Owned by, in the Possession of or under the Control of Individual-B being transferred into the Possession and/or Control of an Individual-C without the Permission of Individual-B. An Existent which is transferred without the Permission of its Possessor/Controller is called Stolen. A Thief is the Individual-A which is the Effective Cause of the Theft.

48) Note that Theft merely requires that the Thief is the Effective Cause of the transfer, not that he had intent to transfer. While there may be many different kinds of Violations involved in the various actual Events which result in the Unpermitted Possession of one Individual's Property by another, its different terms (robbery, theft, extortion, burglary, embezzlement, larceny, stealing) are all included under the definition of "Theft" in this Natural Social Contract. Any actual Violatory differences between them are related to other Culpable Harm which may occur in conjunction with the Unpermitted Possession of the Property and it is best to separate those aspects with respect to Charges and Restitution. The only kind of Involuntary transfer of Possession which is not a Violation is one which has no human Effective Cause, except that of the Possessor or Controller himself. In that case, no Theft is involved and the action is equivalent to Trespass since it is also Unpermitted by the Individual to whom Possession is transferred. Finally, there is the situation where Individual-A is the Effective Cause of an Unpermitted transfer from Individual-B to an Involuntary recipient Individual-C. In this case, a combination of Theft and Trespass has taken place. This last kind of Theft (tantamount to destruction of the Stolen Property) is far more problematic because it is not immediately Restitutable since the receiver of the Possession, Individual-C, has not Violated Individual-B or the Thief and need not give up the Possession. For more details about how this complex situation is solved under the Natural Social Contract see Stipulation A.3.d.

xxiv. Abandon is the Voluntary loss (ie. without Voluntary Transfer) of the Possession and of the ability to Control a particular item of Property, which item is then deemed to be Abandoned.

49) Because they are both Voluntary actions, I have chosen to include under the definition of "Abandon" the standard meaning - that the previous Possessor either does not want to keep Possession of the Existent and has intentionally "unpossessed" it, and the situation where the previous Possessor simply has no knowledge of its current location and it is not within the boundaries of any of his Possessions. What this means is that if an Existent is lost within one's Possessions it is not treated as Abandoned, but if lost outside of one's Possessions it is treated as Abandoned. If the Object lost outside one's Possessions is distinguishable or has Owner identification on it and the finder is a "friendly" Individual, then the finder may return it, but since he has not Violated the loser of the Object, there is no requirement on him to do so, particularly when he finds it inside his own Possessions (see the similarity of this situation with that described under annotation 47) concerning an involuntary recipient of Theft). This last case, in which there is also a degree of Trespass is treated differently than where the Existent is a Trespassing Item because with a Trespassing Item its Possessor knows where it is and thus still retains a degree of Possession. Note that the Property Entitlement to Possession is strong enough that the loss of knowledge of the location of an Existent is not Abandonment so long as the Existent is still within one's Possessions. The main reason why this must be so is because for anyone else to Possess and claim it as his own he would need to Trespass.

xxv. An Individual-A is said to be Violated when another Individual-B is the Effective Cause of: Culpable Harm to Individual-A, Trespass of the property of Individual-A, Breach of a Valid Contract to which Individual-A is a Party, or a Charge against Individual-A which is invalidated by a Trial. Any Violation is regarded as Alleged from the time of its occurrence until it is Settled when either the Involved Individuals execute a Restitution Agreement, with or without an acknowledgement of Violation, or a Trial makes a Determination regarding the Violation. Also Violation, Violatory, Settlement.

50) Note that "intent" to Violate is not necessary for a Violation to occur, just as it was not a precondition for the occurrence of Culpable Harm, Threat or Breach of a Valid Contract. From the point of view of actual harm to the Victim, the result of any action is all that counts. The intent may have some effect on the amount of Restitution which the Victim seeks and whether the Victim wishes to deal with the Violator again after the Restitution is paid, but that is up to the Victim. However, intent to Violate is a worse offense than mere accidental or negligent (by incompetence) Violation in a way which is quite separate from any harm done to the particular Victim of the Violation - it is an indication of the moral unfitness of the Violator to have the status and the entitlements of a Freeman (although perhaps gross incompetence should also be so viewed)! That is why intent to Violate is grounds for Breach of the Natural Social Contract and Revocation of Freeman status. See the Stipulations of Section E of this Agreement for details of the method by which this is accomplished.

xxvi. Protection is any action by an Individual, which is not a Violation, the intent of which is to prevent a reduction of his Lifetime Happiness. Also Protect, Protective. Defense is any action by an Individual against a Defensible Threat, the intent of which is to prevent Culpable harm to him. Also Defend, Defensive.

51) The Natural Social Contract does not distinguish between "Protection" and "defense". The biggest problem in this regard is to distinguish when some action is a Threat and may be acted against with force in a purely defensive, and thus, non-culpable manner. This is fraught with problems which are so particular to each individual case that it must be left for the Trial process to decide. However, the Natural Social Contract by this definition of "Protection" clearly rules out preemptive Violations.

xxvii. An Equity Relationship is a Voluntary Relationship among Involved Individuals. An Equity Relationship among Disputants, or parties in a Peonage relationship, is said to be Broken. An Equity Relationship among Freemen who are not Disputants or in a Peonage relationship is said to be Intact.

52) The notion of "Equity Relationship" makes it very clear that Violations are generally only of Individuals by Individuals. In fact, the only Violations which are "global" are Breaches of the Natural Social Contract itself (see Section E for details). Except for Breach of this Agreement, only those who are harmed have any "interest" (in the sense of direct personal value reduction) in the Violation and only the Victims should have any say concerning the Restitution and physical disposition of the Violator. His Violation of those the Violator has harmed does not entitle other Freemen who he has not Violated to Violate him in any manner (except as they are appointed Agents of those who were Violated). By using the term "Equity Relationship" I have thus arranged Freemen into Connected pairs who are aware of and have interactions with each other. Note that the condition of two Freemen only becoming Connected by the Violatory act itself (say, on some common Egress Real Estate) is satisfied within this definition by simply realizing that the Equity Relationship can be initiated in a Broken state. An Equity Relationship is also Broken when one Freeman in an Equity Relationship becomes a Plaintiff by Charging another Freeman in that Equity Relationship, and it remains Broken until a Finding invalidates the Charges or until a Restitution Agreement is reached. When the Freemen in the Equity Relationship are not in Violation of one another, they are in a Voluntary relationship and the Equity Relationship is said to be Intact.

xxviii. A Plaintiff is a Freeman-A who formally accuses another Freeman-B of Violating him and initiates actions as Stipulated in an Acceptable Social Contract to gain Restitution for the Violation(s), which actions include at the least, informing Freeman-B of the accusations against him (hereinafter called the Charges) and of the Restitution Request from him at that point in the proceedings.
A Defendant is a Freeman-B who is accused by another Freeman-A of Violating him (the Plaintiff), has been informed of the Charges and of the Restitution Request of the Plaintiff, and has in turn informed the Plaintiff of any Charges that the Defendant is making against the Plaintiff (hereinafter called the Counter Charges) and the Restitution Request from the Plaintiff at that point in the proceedings.
Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) are said to be Disputants.
A Restitution Request is a detailed description by Plaintiff(s) or Defendant(s) of their requirements of Restitution from the other Involved Individual(s) (Defendant(s) or Plaintiff(s), respectively) which at the current time will fully Restitute them or, in the case of an Unrestitutable Violation, is their demand.

53) By the defined process of becoming a Plaintiff, a Freeman makes an Equity Relationship Broken. The Equity Relationship remains Broken during the period of time from the filing of Charges until a Restitution Agreement is concluded or the Restitution Requirement of a Trial is completed and the Peonage Enjoinder, if any, is terminated. The Restitution Requests of each of the Disputants must be kept updated as time progresses in order to keep the other informed and to help the Mediation process to reach agreement prior to a Trial Determination. While the status of the Plaintiff and Defendant appear quite symmetrical here, there are strategic differences when it comes to the procedures taken after these states are initialized. For details see Section B.

54) Of course, it cannot be stressed enough that the most correct manner of all by which to Settle a situation where one person accidentally harms another is by totally Voluntary Restitution of the harm by the one responsible as quickly as possible. When this is done, there is complete achievement of justice, the Individual who has caused the harm learns an important practical lesson from his "mistake" and complete privacy is maintained because no one else need be informed that it even happened.

xxix. After Charges (or Counter Charges) are published they are Open until such time as they are Dropped by the Plaintiff (or Defendant), Satisfied by the execution of a Restitution Agreement, or until the Determination of a Trial. Dropped means that the Charges or Counter Charges are no longer grounds for a Restitution Request. If they are Dropped or Satisfied before a Determination, then only that simple designation need be attached to their publication. If they are Determined by a Trial then the entire Determination, including Finding, Restitution Requirement and Peonage Enjoinder, if any, is published as an attachment to the Charges (or Counter Charges). Also Satisfaction, Drop.

55) Charges must be made clear and public so that all who have or may wish to have an Equity Relationship with either Plaintiff or Defendant will know of the dispute. The publication of Charges and Counter Charges also informs witnesses of the dispute and facilitates their appearance. The requirements for publication of Charges and their dispositions and their increasing detail with respect to the different stages of the adversarial process are also intended to provide appropriate incentives and disincentives to Disputants to Settle their dispute earlier rather than later - if possible even before any Charges are laid.

xxx. A Surrogate is a state of Freeman who is a) acting as an Agent for one of the Disputants in a Mediation or Trial either at the request of a Freeman who is a Disputant or, even without request, for an Individual who is not a Freeman; or b) overseeing the terms of Peonage as the Agent of the Peon. The Surrogate status terminates with the end of the Mediation or Trial, or in the case of Peonage upon its termination.

56) On the one hand a Surrogate may simply be an Agent of an Individual; on the other a Surrogate may also act for an Individual without the request or permission of the Individual particularly if the Individual is not a Freeman. Thus, a Surrogate may become a Plaintiff or Defendant as the Agent of a non-Freeman Alleged Victim or Alleged Violator. For details of Surrogate relationships with non-Freemen see Section C. Note that Surrogate status is only with respect to some particular Broken Equity Relationship. In addition, a Surrogate gains no special privileges under the Natural Social Contract, but remains a Culpable Agent at all times.

xxxi. Mediation is any Voluntary process which achieves a Restitution Agreement among Disputants, and which Settles Charges, Counter Charges and all Restitutions to the Satisfaction of all Disputants with or without any acknowledgement of the occurrence of a Violation.

57) The advantage of Mediation is that there is no costly Trial and that there is no Restitution Requirement which must be published. Only the indication that the Charges and Counter Charges are Satisfied need be made public. Better still, of course, would be Voluntary agreement on Restitution even before formal Charges are made, since then there is no official Plaintiff and Defendant status and nothing about the dispute need be published. Such a process taking place before Plaintiff and Defendant status, could still involve a mediator but would not be formally known as "Mediation" as defined in this Agreement. It is also important to note that a Mediation solution remains a possibility at any point in time before a Trial reaches a Determination.

xxxii. A Trial is a process which results in a Determination. If the Charges are validated, then the Defendant becomes a Violator and the Plaintiff becomes a Victim, both retroactive to the time the Violation is Determined to have occurred. If the Counter Charges are validated, then the Plaintiff becomes a Violator and the Defendant becomes a Victim, again both retroactive to the time the Violation is Determined to have occurred. A Determination is the decision of a Trial with respect to all Charges, Counter Charges, Restitution Requests and costs which results in a Finding (the validation - truth or falsity - of Charges and Counter Charges), a Restitution Requirement, which may result in a Peonage Enjoinder and/or a Revocation of the Violator's status of Freeman, if one of the Charges is Breach of an Acceptable Social Contract, all of which are then published on a Universal Communications Network Searchably Linked to the Identifying Information of the Disputants. A Freeman is called a Judge while acting as director and adjudicator of a Trial. Any Trial may also include one or more Freemen, a Jury, who then make the Determination, but a Charge of Breach of an Acceptable Social Contract must be Determined by a Jury of which all Freemen may be members. A Victim is a Freeman in an Equity Relationship who is Determined to have been Violated by another Freeman in that Equity Relationship. A Violator is a Freeman in a Equity Relationship who is Determined to have Violated another Freeman in that Equity Relationship. Also Determined.

58) Under the Natural Social Contract, a Trial is the ultimate form of adjudication of disputes between Freemen, a Peonage Enjoinder is the ultimate form of reduction of Freedom and a Finding of Breach of Social Contract with Revocation of Freeman status is the ultimate form of punishment. The status of Victim or Violator exists only as relationships between Connected Individuals which come into existence at the point of the Trial when a Finding occurs. These terms are then applied retroactively to the time of the Event which is Determined to have been the Violation. Once a Determination is made, the entire Determination of a Trial must be published on a UCN Searchably Linked to the Identifying Information of the Disputants.

Revocation of Freeman status means that the Individual is effectively "persona non grata" with respect to all Freemen. As Freemen become a large group of humans globally with an even larger amount of intellectual and material assets, such a loss of status by an Individual will ipso facto lead to a major loss of both de facto Freedom for that Individual and, thus, his ability to maximize his Lifetime Happiness.

xxxiii. Restitution is a set of actions which effect at least a partial Settlement of an Alleged Violation. When taken by a Violator, Restitution attempts to restore the Lifetime Happiness of his Victim at the time of completion of such actions to that which it would have been if no Violation had occurred (ie. Restitute the Victim), as much as that is possible in reality. A Restitution Agreement is a Valid Contract detailing the amounts, types and methods of Restitution which is concluded Voluntarily. A Restitution Requirement is a Valid Contract fully detailing the amounts, types and methods of Restitution which is Determined by a Trial. A Restitutable Violation is one for which there exist Possible Actions of the Violator(s) which will Restitute the Victim(s). An (essentially) Unrestitutable Violation is one for which no Possible Actions of the Violator(s) or anyone else can Restitute the Victim(s).

59) It is important to note that if Restitution is agreed rather than being forced by a Trial Determination, the result is merely a Valid Contract between Parties who are then once again in an Intact Equity Relationship. Thus, Restitution effectively "undoes" the harm by fully restoring the Lifetime Happiness of the harmed Individual to that which it would have been if the Violation had not occurred.

60) Unfortunately, there are Violations which cause permanent damage, including death, for which it is essentially impossible to restore the Lifetime Happiness of the harmed Individual to that which it would have been if the Violation had not occurred. Violations which could be fully Restituted if the Violator had the resources to do so are still considered to be Restitutable Violations and are not included within the category of Unrestitutable Violations because it is always possible that the Violator could still obtain the necessary resources at some time in the future. Thus, the essence of Unrestitutable Violations is that the "justice of full restoration of the innocently harmed" can never be fulfilled.

xxxiv. Peonage is a relationship between two or three Individuals, one of whom is called the Peon and the other is called the Major and the optional third is a Surrogate for the Peon. A Peon is an Individual whose Liberty is reduced by a Peonage Enjoinder relating either to his actions under a Restitution Requirement or to other aspects of the Restitution Requests of Victim(s) who he has Unrestitutably Violated. The Major is one of the Victims of the particular Violation Finding related to this Peonage who has been granted specific limited Privileges to restrict the Liberty of the Peon for the purpose of seeing that the requirements of the Peonage Enjoinder are fulfilled. A Peonage Enjoinder is a Valid Contract which contains a specification of Privileges to limit the possible actions of a Violator (the Peon) which is granted to one of the Victims of a Violation (the Major) in which a Surrogate may be named as an Agent for the Peon as directed and obtained by the Peon for the purpose of ascertaining that the specified Privileges are not exceeded. A Privilege is a clause in a Peonage Enjoinder which allows the Major or his Agent to be the Effective Cause of certain clearly specified and limited restrictions to the Liberty of a Peon without being a Culpable Agent for those restricting actions.

61) Unless his Freeman status is also Revoked, a Peon is still a Freeman in an Intact Equity Relationship with respect to every Freeman except his Major or the Major's Agent. If the harm done is Restitutable, the Peonage terminates as soon as the Restitution Requirement is completed. However, the duration of Peonage may be unbounded even in the absence of an Unrestitutable Violation if the Peon is not able to reduce the value owed according to the Restitution Requirement at a sufficient rate. It is important to note that a Peon is not entitled to become a Plaintiff with respect to those specific restrictions of his Liberty by his Major or the Major's Agent which are described in the Peonage Enjoinder. This is one of the very few situations where the normal social meta-needs of the Individual are reduced in an a priori fashion. In effect, a Peon has lost this standard "entitlement" with respect to his Major or the Major's Agent. This is because the grievous and harmful nature of his actions has caused him to fall below the bounds of Freeman behavior. But note, however, that this implies that the degree of "grievousness" of a Violation is related to the ability of the Violator to pay the value of the Restitution Requirement. While this may seem "cruel" to some people it is merely an example of the nature of reality, and to not be consistent to that reality would be just as "cruel" to the Victim!

xxxv. Universal Communications Network (UCN) is a service by which all Freemen can verify that an Individual is a Freeman; can find out the details of any Charges and Counter Charges against one Freeman by another Freeman and the status of such Charges, can read the Finding, Restitution Requirement, Peonage Enjoinder and Revocation status alteration which result from any Trial in which a Freeman has been a Disputant; can determine the boundaries and Covenants of any Real Estate Owned or Possessed by a Freeman; and may verify a Freeman's Ownership or Possession of such other Property as he wishes to record there. All such information concerning any particular Freeman is Searchably Linked with his Identifying Information.

62) Full public and easily findable information about every Freeman is of paramount importance to allow Freemen to ascertain the social characteristics of each other. This ability allows full scrutiny and judgement of the social actions of one another and provides the basis for each Freeman's decisions about who he wishes to interact with. Full publication on the UCN thus forms the primary means by which Freemen have incentive to deal with each other in a manner which optimally maximizes the Lifetime Happiness of all together.

63) The information about the various physical assets of Freemen published on the UCN is also important to prevent unintentional Violations of many kinds including Trespass and even Theft. In this manner making such information available will greatly aid the mutually desired fullest cooperation of all Freemen to respect the Persons and Properties of one another and to work together to mutually optimize the Lifetime Happiness of all.

Whereas, each Party to this Agreement:

a. has executed an Acceptable Declaration of Self-Sovereignty and is thus a Self-Sovereign Individual (Freeman);

b. agrees that no Individual is or can be Property;

64) This is the strong Stipulation that humans cannot be Owned by one another. However, the non-ownership of humans is, in fact, far stronger than a mere Contract Stipulation because the concept of Ownership or Property really has no meaning when applied to a human, even to the Ownership of one's self. This is because an essential aspect of the meaningfulness of any concept is that it is capable of not being true. For self Ownership this means that it must be possible for an Individual to not be the Owner, Possessor and Controller of himself. However for an Individual, this cannot be so because the vast majority of his Person must continue to be under his Possession and Control so long as he exists in living form.

c. is the Culpable Agent of all his actions;

65) A Freeman knows that he is the Agent of all his own actions. This is one of those self-evident statements which has enormous implications when carried to its logical conclusions. The result is that a Freeman wants to be totally self-responsible. He wants to be both the recipient of the major benefits of his valuable actions and at the same time be fully responsible for the negative effects on himself and others of his harmful actions, whether they are due to incompetence or merely accidental. Furthermore, he knows that there are no true accidents. Just as incompetence implies that he has not learned sufficiently how to conduct himself and control his possessions, so an accident or even an act of nature merely implies that he has not yet learned to sufficiently control his total environment - to prevent reality from harming himself and others. For a more detailed analysis see my essay Self-Responsibility and Social Order.

In spite of the primary self-responsibility and mainly self-knowledge of each human, it is the thesis of the Natural Social Contract that sufficient commonality exists among humans that there is a set of actions which a human can take or refrain from taking which are virtually certain to cause harm or benefit to other humans. By taking such actions as will clearly benefit others, refraining from taking such actions as will clearly harm others, and by inducing others to do the same toward him, a human can effectively relieve himself from much of the burden for the constant evaluation of the risks and benefits of every individual action that he takes. In addition, if he can rely upon other humans to act in such a mutually beneficial manner, then he will have reason to more strongly cultivate his potential to receive benefit from the actions of others because he can be more certain that the reciprocal potential for harm will not be realized. Thus, with such a social order in place, each human can open himself up to the beneficial actions of others, reduce time spent Protecting himself from or seeking Restitution for their harmful actions and generally spend more of his limited resources on benefiting himself and others. This then is the purpose of the Natural Social Contract - to provide the framework under which the actions of humans will be able to cause the least harm and the most benefit for one another, and thus, to allow each human to put most of his resources directly toward the production of goods, services and other actions which benefit both himself and others.

d. wishes to maximize the scope of his Possible Actions which are Rational Choices;

66) The social order which the Natural Social Contract seeks to create can be described as enabling a human to maximize the scope of his Rational Self Interest Actions. However, a human's Freedom (Possible Actions) is not increased only by a social order in which others do not restrict his Liberty. It is increased far more by a social order in which the actions of others create more choices for him. These "unseen" choices - ones that could have been available - are one of the major phenomena that many people do not take into account when they criticize poor social order systems. However, when one fully examines the lost potential for choices which have been prevented from coming into existence, the non-optimal social order can be seen to be far more harmful to one's Lifetime Happiness than it may have appeared.

e. wishes to not be Violated;

67) In addition to maximizing his Liberty by being free from restrictions by others, a human needs and wants to be as free as possible from all other Violations so that he can direct his full attention towards applying his personal resources to activities that benefit himself and others who will return benefit in kind. To effectively work towards optimizing his Lifetime Happiness, a human needs to have as much certainty as possible that his Person and those of his loved ones will not be harmed, that his Possessions will remain safe and available to him, and that the Stipulations of Contracts which he makes with others will be fulfilled.

f. requires Restitution from his Violators where that is among their Possible Actions;

g. requires the possibility of Peonage for his Violators with himself or a co-Victim as Major where the Violation is Unrestitutable, where the Violator does not currently have sufficient resources for Restitution, and/or where there is risk that the Violator will Breach the Restitution Requirement;

68) In the event that harm, which is Effectively Caused by the actions of another human, does come to a human, the harm causing human, by virtue of being the Culpable Agent of his own actions, is completely responsible for restoration of the Lifetime Happiness of the harmed human to the state it would have been if the harming actions had never occurred. If such restoration is among the Possible Actions of the harming human, then he must take the necessary actions to complete the Restitution - ie. to reverse the harm done. If such restoration is not among his Possible Actions, then the harm is essentially Unrestitutable and the harming person may need to enter some sort of subservience arrangement with the harmed human, or the harmed human may simply accept that full restoration is impossible in this case.8 If the human who caused the harm resists all these Restitution Requests, then after a Trial makes a Determination, the Violator may be required to fulfill a Restitution Requirement and/or become a Peon of the harmed person or his Agent according to the desires of the Unrestituted Victim.

h. requires that the Freeman status of any Individual making a Breach of this Agreement which is not Excusable be Revoked;

69) In the case of an Unexcused Breach of this Agreement, the Breaching Individual has, in effect, harmed every Freeman at once and the harm is Restituted in the only way that it can be - by Revocation of Freeman status which removes the offender from the ranks and possibly the society of the offended Freemen. Of course, any Freeman is still completely at Liberty to deal with an Individual whose Freeman status has been Revoked so long as he does so without Breaching this Agreement.

i. recognizes that his ability to enhance his Lifetime Happiness will be greatly increased by fostering the enlargement of his Possible Actions through joint projects with other Individuals under a social order which contains mutually agreed compossible procedures by which:

1. Ownership, Possession, Abandonment and Property Entitlement of Objects, information and Real Estate is established and

70) It is necessary that each human be able to have exclusive and/or clearly defined Possession, use and Control of many Existents in order for him to be able to optimally act to maximize his Lifetime Happiness. One of the purposes of the Natural Social Contract is to define "natural", mutually agreeable and consistent procedures by which such Possession, use and Control of Existents, external to the Person of any human, will be obtained and exchanged. Such clear mutually agreed common understandings are necessary to establish orderly arrangements among Freemen for the Possession, use and Control of Existents, rather than the sometimes chaotic, often disputatious, and sometimes harmful arrangements which are prevalent in current societies. Rather than by any process which states that these belong to a human "by right", it is a major thesis of this Natural Social Contract that the only procedure which is in accord with reality and therefore is practical (ie. it "works") is that all Freemen agree to the Property Entitlement of a human to the Possession, use and Control of certain Existents under the conditions defined in general within this Social Contract and in detail particularly to the Existent in question within a Voluntary Transfer Contract or Deed of Entitlement. Although some of such general arrangements of this Agreement are not significantly different in many respects than those of some of the more civilized western societies, they are based on different principles. On the other hand, some of the Stipulations of this Agreement are significantly different in important respects. The arrangements detailed here are, in general, more logical, more self-consistent, more consistent with the other principles of social order, and more contributory to everyone's Lifetime Happiness than are those of any social order currently in existence.

2. Charges, Counter Charges, Mediations, Trials, Restitutions and Peonage relationships are processed in an orderly manner;

71) Every society has a legal system which details the procedures under which crimes and other interpersonal disputes are adjudicated. The problem with all existing systems, however, is that the procedures themselves end up causing as much or more Violation as they are trying to remedy. One of the major reasons why this is so is because the system of most current societies is based on punishment as the major deterrence to Violations. This is done in most current societies because the philosophy on which they are based does not contain any ethical basis by which to judge the correctness of human action which is consistent with the social meta-needs of optimal human Freedom. In complete opposition, the dispute resolution system contained in this Natural Social Contract is based on the natural ethical imperative which is the fundamental requirement of each Individual's life - his desire to maximize his Lifetime Happiness. It is that ethical imperative which implies that Restitution rather than punishment should be the aim of any dispute resolving system. This Natural Social Contract details a minimally invasive scheme containing elements of common law and western judicial procedures by which Restitution can be achieved wherever possible. This makes the arrangement given here more logical, more self-consistent, more consistent with the other principles of social order, and more contributory to everyone's Lifetime Happiness than that of any social order currently in existence.


j. wishes to communicate his intellectual and psychological emancipation to other Freemen in order to facilitate the establishment of Equity Relationships and to other Individuals in order to promote their Liberty and increase the numbers of Freemen.

72) A primary reason for becoming a Freeman and publishing one's status will be to enable connections and the establishment of personal and business relationships with other Freemen. Freemen will preferentially choose to deal with other Freemen because such relationships will be based on mutually understood ordering principles and methods which will allow a general increase in the productive output of such relationships (more benefit and less harm to all parties). Thus, all other things being equal a Freeman will benefit more from a relationship with another Freeman than from a relationship with a non-Freeman. This having been said, however, the number of human specialties is so large that unless there are large numbers of Freemen in a wide variety of occupations, most of the relationships of Freemen with other humans will necessarily be with non-Freemen unless and until the number of Freemen is highly augmented. Therefore, another major reason for a Freeman to make his status widely known, certainly to all those who have specialties which he requires, is to inform and persuade them to become Freemen themselves to both his and their long-range benefit.

For any society to be highly effective at producing goods and services which benefit others as well as their producers, it needs to be of a certain minimum size. In addition, the value of this minimum is highly dependent on the technological stage of advancement of the society, since the more technologically advanced a society is, the more people it requires with unique knowledge specialties for production of the larger numbers of unique goods and services. While it is possible that robot machines of the future may take over much of the production, all this means is that humans will then have more time to learn and perform other tasks which only they can do. By similar reasoning, for any society to be well ordered, it is necessary that a large percentage of its members accept the same basis for the social order. Thus, for this Natural Social Contract to be effective at meeting the objectives of its creators and those signing it, it is necessary that large numbers of people understand or at least accept its principles, execute it and abide by it. Only by increasing the numbers of Freemen in this manner will anyone who becomes a Freeman attain his goal of more benefits and less harm for himself and everyone else.

Therefore does each Freeman signing this Agreement, or any copy of it, agree to the following:

73) This statement begins the Stipulations part of this Agreement. The Stipulations of this Agreement are a little different than those of other Contracts in that only certain specified ones (the Social Imperatives) are cause for its Breach. The Stipulations which are not Social Imperatives are merely expressions of desire and intent to make all best efforts to act in the manner specified.

A. Ownership, Abandonment, and Property Entitlement of Ownership and Possession

74) This section details the manner in which Property (except for an human's Person, which can never be Owned) and Possessions are acquired, lost and transferred in a mutually agreed orderly fashion.

1. Ownership of Property must be acquired as follows: (which are termed "Acceptable Methods"):

75) All of the Stipulations in this section are requirements (grounds for Breach) of the Natural Social Contract because if they are not done in this manner, then the result will be later disputes which have no clear method of resolution, and to which the resolution procedures of this Natural Social Contract will not be applicable. In order to prevent the possibility of such later difficult disputes, it is clearly best to make the decisions regarding them ahead of time, at the outset of Property acquisition. Yes, there will still likely be things that happen later which were not thought of, but the methods detailed here will at least help to instill in those acquiring Property, the idea of thinking ahead and planning for all eventualities as much as possible.

a. In the case of Real Estate, finding it Unowned and Registering a Deed of Entitlement for it which must include Covenants for all abutting Real Estate whether Owned or not. The boundaries of Real Estate must be either clearly marked or described in some objective coordinate system so that it is possible for any Individual to determine whether or not any point in space is within or without the Real Estate. Before Unowned Real Estate can be Registered its boundaries must be physically directly and locally traversed.

76) This clause establishes the method by which Real Estate is "homesteaded" under this Natural Social Contract. It is a much more fully defined method of establishing Ownership and Registering a Deed of Entitlement than has been used in the past and should lead to far fewer disputes concerning boundary problems related to Real Estate than has been the case with previous, more vague procedures. Unfortunately, since most land is already owned and registered by the previous methods, any implementation of such new methods with respect to currently owned real estate can only be done if owners seek and conclude new Covenant arrangements with the owners of abutting real estate and others which may affect their real estate.

b. In the case of an Object, either finding it Unowned and moving it inside a Possession, creating it from one's Property, or having it within one's Real Estate at the time of Registration of the Real Estate.

c. In the case of uncontained energy within Unowned Real Estate, containing it and moving it inside a Possession.

77) Since all Objects and energy within the boundaries of a Freeman's Possessions are automatically Owned by that Freeman, unless they are Owned by another Freemen who the first has Permitted to be within the boundaries of his Possession, the only Unowned Objects or energy will be those located within the boundaries of Unowned Real Estate, or that have been Abandoned.

d. In the case of pure information, creating it.

78) Since information is created first in the mind of an Individual, it is Possessed only by that Individual at the moment of creation unless and until he communicates it to someone else. Even if two people see the same Event which causes the information to be created in each one's mind, the information which is created is nevertheless unique to each in its complete detail. It is that unique detail which each then Owns, simply because he alone Possesses it. If the same objective Event is sensed by many people then the information may not be of much value. On the other hand, since each person's intake, evaluation and mental stimulation by information is unique, the same external Event can stimulate one person's mind to create something of great value, even though no one else gained much from it. In that case, it is the added value of the modified information that is uniquely created which is Owned by the one Individual only and which may be exchanged by him for other value. Even though the others witnessed the same Event, they have no right to the creation within his mind which it stimulated.

e. Transfer from a previous Owner under the terms of a Valid Contract including, for Real Estate, the Registration of the new Deed of Entitlement.

79) The Ownership of any Existent (except the Person of an Individual, which is never Owned) can always be fully transferred to another Individual under a Valid Contract. Since a Covenant, by definition, always requires any executor to require that any purchaser of the Real Estate also replace him as the Covenant executor, all Covenants on Real Estate are always transferred with it. Under the Natural Social Contract, the transfer of Real Estate is not recognized and complete until the Deed of Entitlement is Registered Searchably Linked to the Identifying Information of the new Owner.

2. Property must be considered as Abandoned when any of the following occur:

a. In the case of Real Estate and all Property within its boundaries, when its Registered Deed of Entitlement has not been Searchably Linked to its Owner for a period of 30 days.

80) This maintenance condition on the Registration of Real Estate is necessary so that all Freemen can find out whether or not it is already Owned, and what are its boundaries and Covenants. This is the only sound way in which disputes over Real Estate can be prevented from occuring. Public specification of the boundaries, where they cannot easily be marked or if the Owner does not wish to mark them, together with the use of GPS position determining equipment now generally available, will also greatly help prevent unintentional Trespass. Since every Freeman will already need to maintain his Identifying Information constantly available on a UCN, it is only a very small additional requirement that he also maintain Deeds of Entitlement of all his Real Estate at the same place.

b. In the case of an Object, when it is not within the boundaries of its Owner's Possessions, he has not transferred its Possession to another Individual by means of a Valid Contract, and it is not Stolen.

81) This means that the only way some Object can be Abandoned is by leaving it on Real Estate which is either Unowned or belongs to someone else. If left on someone else's Real Estate, an Object would not be considered Abandoned only if there were Permission from the Owner of the Real Estate (best done under the terms of a Valid Contract making him responsible for it) to allow the Owner of the Object to retain Ownership of it for a certain length of time. Thus, if one finds something on one's own Real Estate while one may return it to its Owner, there is no requirement on one to do so. This is reasonable because in effect the object was Trespassing, and so the Real Estate Owner would be able to seek Restitution for the Violation of Trespass, and the Owner has no Property Entitlement to take back the Object because in order to do so he would need to cause even more Trespass. On the other hand, if you find something on someone else's Real Estate (say, some Egress Real Estate used by many people), then you have no Property Entitlement to it because it is either Abandoned and thus the Property of the Owner of the Real Estate within the boundaries of which it sits, or it is the Property of some other user of the Egress Real Estate, which is temporarily under the care of the Egress Real Estate Owner. Finally, if you find something on Unowned Real Estate, then you can only claim Ownership of it by either establishing that it is Abandoned (its location is not known by any Individual) or by Registering a Deed of Entitlement for the Real Estate on which it sits.

c. In the case of uncontained energy, when its Owner allows it to escape from within the boundaries of his Possessions.

82) Any energy and its information content which is not contained will quickly disperse from within the boundaries of any Real Estate and then belongs to whomever can capture it. One way to understand this consistently with other aspects stated here is to think of the energy as Trespassing on the Real Estate of someone else. It is then his to do with as he likes. If it is harming him, he may bring Charges of Violation against whoever let the energy escape and onto his Real Estate.

d. In the case of pure information, when it is allowed to be known to any human being before a Valid Contract is concluded with that human or his Guardian.

83) As the old maxim goes "you cannot unring a bell". In the same manner, there is no current mechanism by which a human can "return" any information which you "give" him, ie. which you let him take into his mind by any perceptual method. While it is true that he may forget the information or may not fully understand it, once allow to perceive it, it is then his to do with what he can and desires to do, unless he has prior to the percepts entering his body, signed a Valid Contract concerning what he will do with the information he is being allowed to sense. Thus, it is clear that this Natural Social Contract totally rejects the methods of handling "intellectual property" which are extant in the current society to deal with copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc.

Property becomes Unowned when it is Abandoned.

84) No residual Entitlements of any sort reside with any previous Owner of Abandoned Property since by his act of either intentional Abandonment or lack of care which has led to the Property being lost (unintentionally Abandoned), the previous Owner has shown that he does not sufficiently value the Property. If the finder wishes to be generous and return some or all of the Property Entitlement to the Owner or sell it back to him at less than its market value, then he may of course do that. For example, it would be entirely reasonable for next door neighbors to have an understanding or even a Covenant that anything which moves across the common Real Estate boundary will be returned upon request or can be returned even without request.

3. The following are general Stipulations of Property Entitlement regarding Ownership and Possession:

85) These are the general Stipulations concerning the Property Entitlements that a Freeman has over any Property by which he evaluates whether he has been Violated by another Individual and by which another Individual can decide if the Freeman's use of his Property had violated him.

a. The Possessor of an Object must intend to exercise Adequate Control over it.

86) In practical terms, Possession is very close to Ownership. This is particularly important for both parties to realize when some Object is rented, because such a transfer of Possession and Control makes the new Possessor (the renter) fully responsible for all harm which can come to any human by way of that Object. This is because the Possessor of the Object was the last Controller of the Object which caused the harm and thus was the Effective Cause of the harm. If some incompetence of the Owner was actually responsible for the lack of Adequate Control, then it will be up to the Possessor (renter) to in turn seek Restitution from the Owner for Breaching the rental Contract. This latter is the reason why clear rental Contracts specifying who is responsible for what are so very important. This prime responsibility of the Possessor is also a reason why any sensible Individual will not wish to take Possession of something about which he does not have enough knowledge or skill to exercise Adequate Control.

b. When a Freeman or any of his Possessions are within the boundaries of the Possessions of another Individual, unless the other Individual is the Effective Cause of the Possession or Person of the Freeman being there, the Freeman must intend to either comply with the wishes of that Individual with respect to himself and/or the Trespassing Possession, or remove himself and/or it from within those boundaries. Except when the Owner and/or Possessor of the space is the Effective Cause of the Freeman and/or his Possession being there, these requirements to withdraw from within the boundaries of the space of the Owner and/or Possessor apply whether or not Permission was previously given, even if the Permission was in exchange for value from the Trespasser, and even if under a Valid Contract.

87) This clause describes the "strength" of the Property Entitlement of the Owner or Possessor of an Object or Real Estate. This Property Entitlement is as strong as one's Entitlement over one's own body - the absolute Liberty to do whatever is necessary to remove all Trespassing Objects and humans. The only restraining factor is when one has given prior Permission for the Object or human to be there and now is Withdrawing that Permission. Only then is it necessary to give the human involved sufficient time to remove himself or the Object which is no longer Permitted. Except when the Possessor of the space is the Effective Cause of the Object or human being there, Possession is such a strong Entitlement, that an Individual must always accede to another's Property Entitlement of Possession and, if a Valid Contract has been Breached, afterwards act to gain Restitution. The situation where the Owner of the Possession or Real Estate is the Effective Cause of the Object or human being within his Possessions is, in essence, Theft (or kidnapping), and is thus different in nature from Trespass. Under the situation of Theft, the Freeman Owner of the intruding Object may remove it, or not, as he wishes because he has been Violated by the Owner or Possessor within whose boundaries it is located. In the case of kidnapping (a combination of both Culpable Harm and Threat), the kidnapped human always has the entitlement to escape if he can.

c. When a Freeman-A has given Permission to a Freeman-B to act in a manner that otherwise would be Trespass without such Permission having been given, that Permission must not be Withdrawn in a manner such that it is not among the Possible Actions of Freeman-B to prevent himself from perpetrating a Trespass against Freeman-A.

88) While it should always be possible for one Freeman to give another Permission (either with or without a Valid Contract) to act in a manner that would otherwise be a breach of the Natural Social Contract, it makes no logical sense that such Permission can be Withdrawn in a manner such that the Possible Actions of the Permitted Individual do not allow him to not Violate the person first giving and now Withdrawing Permission. One general method of ensuring this, which was going to be expressed in this Stipulation, would be to require that the Permitted person must be allowed to terminate the Permitted activity with no greater effort expended than when he began it under Permission. However, since many variations on the meaning of "not require any greater effort" are imaginable depending on the particular circumstances of any Permitted situation, it was decided to omit any specific method of solution and to only require the logical necessity of ending the Permitted act without necessary violation. Because of this, it is clearly always best to have a detailed arrangement for the termination of any Permitted activity, which termination arrangement is in fact required under a Valid Contract.

d. Any Object which is Owned or Possessed by Freeman-A which is within the boundaries of the Real Estate of Freeman-B who was not the Effective Cause of it being there nor had given Permission to Freeman-A for it to be there is then the Possession of Freeman-B even though Freeman-A remains its Owner or Possessor by Property Entitlement. An exception to this is if the Object in question was Stolen and its loss is Unrestitutable, in which case Freeman-B must return it to Freeman-A if Freeman-A is willing to pay the Restitution for any Trespass and cost of any action required by Freeman-B to effect the return, unless Freeman-B's loss in effecting the return would also be Unrestitutable.

89) To the extent that a Freeman-A has not Violated a Freeman-B, then Freeman-A retains his full Property Entitlements and Liberty unless this retention is preventing full Restitution from being gained by Freeman-B. However, even then Freeman-A's loss, if any, must be first Restituted and if it would be Unrestitutable then he cannot be compelled to act or otherwise be Violated. This even extends to the situation where Freeman-A has purchased a Stolen Object, since he has not committed any Violation against anyone. An Object which is thus within the boundaries of Freeman-A's Real Estate or Person is in a state where it is Possessed by Freeman-A, even though Freeman-B has Property Entitlement to Ownership of it. I see no resolution to this "limbo" status as long as the Object remains within the boundaries over which Freeman-A has full Property Entitlement. The only resolution will come about if Freeman-A attempts to move the Object through adjoining Egress Real Estate the usage Contract of which does not allow the transport of Stolen Property (which it is, even if not Stolen by the Individual transporting it). At that point it can be confiscated by the Egress Real Estate Owner and returned to Freeman-A for the costs of the action.

B. General Stipulations Regarding Responsibilities and Dispute Settlement

90) This section details the general responsibilities of Freemen which are necessary for the social meta-needs of all and particularly describes the methods by which a Broken Equity Relationship are made Intact whenever that is possible.

1. Each Freeman must maintain the following information on a UCN in a form which can be found by the use of any search engine using the search phrases specified below together with the names of any Freeman involved. ie. it is "Searchably Linked" with the Identifying Information of any Freeman involved:

91) In order for a social order to work effectively, information about the inter-relational attributes of all participants must be as easily available as is the judgmental and evaluative information about products and services in the marketplace. In the same manner and for exactly the same reasons for which he needs to judge the purchase related aspects of any product or service, each Freeman needs to judge and evaluate most of the personal characteristics of another Freeman in order to decide whether or not he wishes to enter into a relationship (exchange of personal values) with him. The method outlined here will implement the necessary openness and fluidity of personal information needed to accomplish this. The items which are required to be included are merely the minimum essential elements. It is hoped and expected that once the reason for this openness and fluidity of personal character information becomes clear, Freemen will wish to keep as much information about themselves as possible available to each other since doing so will bolster the credibility and solidity of their personal reputations and make relating to them more attractive to other Freemen.

a. personal "Identifying Information" including at least: his commonly used name, a full head, face and shoulders picture, without hat or dark glasses, no older than one year, and a contact method which is monitored at least weekly;
Search Phrase - "Freeman Identification".

b. copies of all executed Acceptable Declarations of Self-Sovereignty; Search Phrase - "DOSS".

c. copies of all executed Acceptable Social Contracts, including the designation In Breach where that has been a Trial Finding;
Search Phrase - "Social Contract".

d. copies of all Charges and Counter Charges for which he has been or is a Plaintiff or Defendant, including links to the UCN information of the other Disputants and a specification of whether each Charge (Counter Charge) is Open, Dropped, or Satisfied;
Search phrase - "Charges".

e. copies of Findings, Restitution Requirements and Peonage Enjoinders of any Determinations of Trials in which he has been a Plaintiff or Defendant;
Search phrase - "Determinations".

f. the boundary descriptions of any Real Estate of which he is Owner, co-Owner or Possessor including any Covenants attached to the Real Estate;
Search phrase - "Deeds".

g. the unique defining description of any other Property of which he is Owner, co-Owner or Possessor and wishes to Register; Search phrase - "Property Registration".

92) Another use for this publicly available repository of personal information would be the posting of complaints of behavior which was still "uncooperative" although non-culpable. A Freeman could post descriptions of such behavior in his own personal area, but with a link to the Freeman about whom he is complaining. This would be the basis of social "preferencing" or "rating" for behavior which someone considers to be reprehensible, but which is still not a Violation. Naturally such complaints will also reflect on the complainant, as it is only right that they should. This process will have the effect of establishing a free and fluid market in evaluations of people's behavior.

2. Each Freeman may exercise Protection of his Person and Property in whatever manner he wishes, but in doing so he must not Violate any Individual or, by Protecting a Disputant, prevent an Individual from gaining Restitution.

93) This Stipulation states the basic meta-need of each Freeman to Protect and defend himself. It makes clear that preemptive defense is not allowed unless there is a Threat (provable at a Trial). Furthermore, the social meta-needs to defend one's Person and one's Property does not override the need for personal Restitution for Violations and therefore does not extend to allow the prevention of such Restitution from being gained. Thus, a Freeman is not allowed to harbor an Individual who has been Charged, nor one who has been Determined by a Trial to be a Violator, nor one who is a Peon. If he should harbor such an Individual then the other Disputant may Charge him with Breach of this Agreement and then be able to use force against him without it being considered a Violation, if the Breach is validated. In this sense such a harboring action is tantamount to Theft. On the other hand, if a Freeman is a receiver of a Stolen Object, the loss of which is fully Restitutable by the Thief, then that Freeman need not relinquish the Stolen Object. Of course, he can return the Stolen Object and even receive payment for doing so under a Contract with its Owner.

3. Each Freeman who interacts with another Freeman in any manner does so in the context of an Equity Relationship. In particular, this means that each Freeman must desire and intend that no other Freeman be Violated. In order to ensure that Restitution is forthcoming, when an Equity Relationship is Broken, the Disputants need no longer intend not to Violate, but must still fully restitute for any Violations that they commit, except that the reduction of his Liberty necessary to assure that an Alleged Violator becomes a Defendant and attends a Trial will not be considered to be a Violation if the Alleged Violator is Determined to be a Violator by the Finding of a Trial.

94) This Stipulation is the only place where the Natural Social Contract makes a Violation with intent clearly worse than one without intent. In effect, an intended Violation is both a Violation of the direct Victim(s) and at the same time a Violation of every Freeman because it Breaches the Natural Social Contract to which each of them is a Party. However, the former Violation (of a Victim) is not essentially different with regard to Restitution than is any unintentional Violation having the same harmful effect on the Victim. The reason for this is that if the harm is the same, there is no justification for the Restitution to be any different.

95) The use of force to bring a Defendant to Trial is justified by the same logic as the entitlement to Trespass in order to recover Stolen Property (see annotation 87) of Stipulation A.3.b). If Individual-A in an Equity Relationship has actually Violated Individual-B in the relationship, then by his actions and to the extent of them, Individual-A has lost his entitlement to Liberty granted him under this Agreement by Individual-B. Clearly this is because it is no longer a Rational Choice action for Individual-B to continue to grant him this entitlement if there is any reasonable chance that Individual-A will not Restitute Individual-B for the harm which has been done by the Violation.

4. Each Freeman may conclude a Valid Contract with other Individual(s) for any purposes according to whatever Stipulations they see fit, except that those Stipulations must not specify any actions which if done by a Freeman would Breach this Agreement.

96) Since to be a Valid Contract, no Contract Stipulation can require a Breach of the Natural Social Contract, that clause is redundant as applied to Freemen. However, it makes the prohibition of Contract Stipulations which Breach the Natural Social Contract even stronger by also making it apply to the actions of non-Freemen. For example, by this Stipulation a Freeman cannot hire a human to Violate any other human. Note that this Stipulation does not preclude a Freeman from purchasing Stolen Property even if he knows that is was Stolen. It only precludes him from hiring someone to commit Theft.

5. An Alleged Violation may be Settled Voluntarily by execution of a Valid Contract Stipulating the agreed Restitution. Such a Restitution Agreement is no different from any other Valid Contract and requires no publication of any information about the actions involved or the Restitution. Upon execution of the Restitution Agreement, the Equity Relationship between the Disputants is once more Intact.

97) A Voluntarily Settled Alleged Violation does not result in the Alleged Violator becoming a Violator because there is never a Trial which concludes with a Determination (of responsibility). The resolution of such infractions is simply a private Restitution Agreement between the parties involved. As soon as the Freeman doing the harm agrees to full responsibility for reversing the harm caused by his actions (ie. by executing the Restitution Agreement), the Equity Relationship between the parties is once again fully Intact. In fact, if the dispute is Settled before any Charges were made, the Equity Relationship was never formally Broken and the agreement made is not formally called a Restitution Agreement. The only time that there must be public knowledge of the details of such situations would be if the Violation had been intentional and a Charge of Breach of this Agreement was made separate to the Restitution of the harmed Individual.

6. If an Alleged Violation cannot be Voluntarily Settled, the Freemen in the Broken Equity Relationship must proceed as follows:

98) This section details how Freemen proceed when they cannot mutually agree on the responsibility for some dispute between them and on the Restitution which is owed. There is still the possibility of Settling by Mediation or during a Trial before its conclusion. However, this is the point at which the proceedings become formal by the Alleged Victim becoming a Plaintiff.

a. At any time during this procedure, any Disputant may nominate a Surrogate to represent him by informing the other Disputants of such representation. Hereafter in this section, unless stated otherwise any reference to either Defendant or Plaintiff also includes any Surrogate.

99) As defined previously and explained here, a Surrogate is a special kind of Agent who represents an Individual in a Trial proceeding.

b. One or more Freemen in the Equity Relationship become Plaintiff(s) and then act to gain Restitution by causing one or more other Freemen within the same Equity Relationship to become Defendant(s) by publishing Charges and Restitution Requests on a UCN Searchably Linked to the Defendant(s), with or without direct personal presentation to the Defendant(s).

100) This is the point at which the formal laying of Charges begins and one of the parties in the Equity Relationship which is in dispute becomes a Plaintiff. One of the benefits of the UCN approach is that no direct contact between Freemen is necessary for Charges to be laid, Restitution to be requested and a Trial procedure to be initiated.

c. The Defendant(s) must respond to the Plaintiff's Charges and Restitution Request, and must in turn publish Counter Charges and a Restitution Request, if any, within 15 days of being named as Defendant(s) on a UCN Searchably Linked to the Plaintiff(s), with or without direct personal presentation to the Plaintiff(s).

101) This is where the fact of the Freeman status of his Alleged Violator is important to a Plaintiff. It is a requirement of the Natural Social Contract which he has executed, that a Freeman must find and respond to all Charges against him. His response is similar to that of the Plaintiff and such a response continues the formal Trial proceedings.

d. The Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) inform each other at least weekly, by altering their UCN publication, of the current Restitution Request of the other.

102) The Restitution Request could increase for many reasons: additional unforeseen damage, legal bills, lost time, continued pain and suffering, etc. For similar reasons and others the Restitution Request could also decrease, but that is less likely due to the time spent in an Unrestituted state.

e. The Plaintiff(s) attempts to conclude a joint services contract with another Freeman to convene a Trial and possibly together with other Freemen as jurors, as Stipulated in the service contract, act as director of the Trial and Judge of the Charges, Counter Charges and Restitution Requests. If a Trial cannot be arranged within 30 days of the publication of Charges and Counter Charges, if any, and the Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) have still not executed a Restitution Agreement then the Plaintiff(s) must Drop the Charges and cease to be Plaintiff(s). At that point the Defendant(s) can also Drop the Counter Charges, if any, or they can become Plaintiff(s) within the same Broken Equity Relationship, and cause the former Plaintiff(s) to become Defendant(s) who can then bring Counter Charges. There is no limitation to the continuation of this role reversal every 30 days after Charges and Counter Charges are published or whenever the Plaintiff(s) Drop charges if that is prior to 30 days.

103) There is a natural asymmetry to the arrangements described here. The Plaintiff quite naturally should have the leading role in deciding the details of the Trial service Contract, since he is the one who has initiated the Trial process and is going to pay for the services even if no Restitution is received. On the other hand, the Plaintiff must proceed quickly or he loses this leading role and the Defendant can then assume the role of Plaintiff, if he so desires. 30 days is a reasonable but otherwise somewhat arbitrary number for this required action of initiating a Trial.

f. The Trial service contract will detail both the form of the Trial (venue, length, complexity, initial and interim publication, etc) and how all its costs should be paid. All participation in a Trial, except for that of the Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s), is Voluntary and may be paid as necessary. The form of the Trial must be such that it will result in a Determination of Finding, a net Restitution to some of the Disputants from the others including a Peonage Enjoinder if that is part of the Restitution Request and a Peon Surrogate if such has been arranged by the Peon. A Finding of no validity of Charges or Counter Charges, a null Restitution Requirement, and a null Peonage Enjoinder are allowable Determinations. The Restitution Requirement must clearly detail when its conditions will have been completed and any Peonage Enjoinder must clearly specify the conditions under which the Peonage terminates. Within 10 days of the Determination, the Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) must execute the Restitution Requirement, the Finding, the Peonage Enjoinder, if any, and have them published on a UCN Searchably Linked with their Identifying Information.

104) Except that a Trial must result in a Determination, the Natural Social Contract does not specify any particular form of Trial but leaves such details to the free market of personal evaluations. Except for the Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s), all participation in a Trial is necessarily Voluntary otherwise there would be additional Violations of uninvolved innocent parties. Again, the 10 day period within which publication of the Trial results must take place is reasonable if somewhat arbitrary.

g. Notwithstanding the above, a Trial always terminates when the Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) execute a Restitution Agreement. If this happens prior to the Determination of the Trial, then no Finding will be made and nothing need be published except to indicate that the Charges and Counter Charges are now Satisfied.

105) From the beginning of their dispute, there is a very clear advantage to the Voluntary conclusion of a Restitution Agreement by the Disputants and this continues during the Trial up to the point of the Determination. As soon as any such Restitution Agreement is concluded all further Trial proceedings terminate because there are no longer any Disputants - the Broken Equity Relationship is again Intact.

h. Notwithstanding that a Trial has concluded, any Disputant may become a Plaintiff with the same or different Charges within the same Equity Relationship including those about which a previous Trial has made a Determination.

106) There is no rule against "double jeopardy" in this Natural Social Contract, since any such rule would Violate the social meta-needs of any Violated Individual to obtain full Restitution. The natural check on abuses of this Natural Social Contract entitlement is that, in losing, the Plaintiff(s) must pay all costs of their actions and they also become Violators of the Defendant(s) because they caused them Culpable Harm by forcing them to come to Trial.

7. A Restitution Agreement reached before the end of a Trial, has the same force of obligation as any other Valid Contract between Freemen, and upon its execution, the Broken Equity Relationship is once more Intact.

107) Because of the definition of Restitution, there is no need for any remaining inequity between the former Disputants once a Restitution Agreement is concluded. In effect, the Restitutor has "bought" the "value" of the harm he has done from the person(s) getting the Restitution. Of course, the sum of the exchange is negative because of the value which is lost by the Restitutor. Probably a general logical argument could be made that in Voluntary exchanges the sum of the values of all parties always increases whereas in Involuntary exchanges the sum of the values of all parties always decreases.

Note that such a Restitution Agreement may even include Stipulations which are as restrictive of Liberty as that of some Peonage Enjoinders. However, since these Stipulations are completely Voluntary rather than being forced by the Determination of a Trial, they are no different than any other similarly restrictive Stipulations of a Valid Contract. They are, therefore, not equivalent to Peonage.

8. A Restitution Requirement (as a result of a Trial Determination) must be followed as Stipulated in the Restitution Requirement and the Equity Relationship remains Broken until the required Restitution actions are complete. If the Determination of the Trial also includes a Peonage Enjoinder, then the Equity Relationship remains Broken until the Peonage Enjoinder termination conditions are realized, which may be for the remainder of the life of the Peon. The Major may employ any other Freemen as his Agent with respect to his Major Privileges with respect to his Peon.

108) Since a Trial effectively "forces" Restitution (the Disputants did not Voluntarily agree), it is reasonable that the Equity Relationship should remain Broken until the Restitution Requirement is completed. Peonage is even more a situation where an Equity Relationship (between the Peon and the Major) cannot be Intact until the Peonage is terminated.

9. Peonage Enjoinders must not specify corporal punishment, or reduction of Liberty below a level necessary for the Peon to sustain his life. However, at the time of the Trial the Major has first right of determination of such "level necessary for the Peon to sustain his life". A Peon may always become a Plaintiff with his Major as Defendant to seek a new Trial. Even if his Freeman status has been Revoked, a Peon can still become a Plaintiff against his Major by means of a Freeman acting as his Surrogate.

109) There is no rational argument that corporal punishment helps a Victim. Under government run societies it is used as a means of deterrence. However, since under this Natural Social Contract, Restitution, Peonage (possibly for life), and loss of Freeman status (a kind of banishment) are the methods of deterrence, there is no need and no purpose whatever for corporal punishment. In addition, while a Peon is not a fully free Individual with respect to his Major, he must be treated as such by everyone else (accept an agent of the Major) and the Privileges of the Major over him are strictly limited by the Trial Peonage Enjoinder.

10. The Equity Relationships of a Violator with all Freemen remain Intact, except when his Freeman status is Revoked or with respect to his Victim(s) as the result of a Trial Determination.

110) Once again, there are no "global" Violations except those which Breach the Natural Social Contract itself. Except for that situation, all Violations are with respect to Equity Relationships with one or more Freemen.

C. Interaction with non-Freemen and their Agencies

111) This section applies to interactions with any human who is required (either by direct coercion), or who freely chooses (because it is impossible to optimize his Lifetime Happiness without doing so in certain ways) to operate under social arrangements which are not "acceptable" to this Natural Social Contract - ie. which conflict with it in some essential manner. In particular, this section applies to interactions with any human who interacts with any governments. Even though it is not made mandatory, a Freeman is not being consistent with his Declaration of Individual Independence and to this Natural Social Contract if he does not attempt both to preferential deal with other Freemen and to attempt to convince any non-Freemen with whom he interacts to become Freemen. It is true and accepted that in the beginning a Freeman will be able to find few, if any, other Freemen with whom to interact for the vast majority of his daily requirements of life, but that should always be his intention. It is also clear that there are many varied ways to promote the Freeman society. Subtle rather than direct approaches and showing by example are different ways which may work best for some Freemen and for some non-Freemen with whom the interaction is taking place.

1. Each Freeman who interacts with another Individual in any manner does so in the context of an Equity Relationship. In particular, this means that each Freeman must desire and intend that no other Human be Violated. In order to ensure that Restitution is forthcoming, when an Equity Relationship is Broken, the Disputants need no longer intend not to Violate, but must still fully restitute for any Violations that they commit, except that the reduction of his Liberty necessary to assure that an Alleged Violator becomes a Defendant and attends a Trial will not be considered to be a Violation if the Alleged Violator is Determined to be a Violator by the Finding of a Trial.

112) This clause is identical with B.5 which Stipulates similar interaction of Freemen with each other. It will be a mark of his concern and respect for humans, in general, and his need for their cooperation for his own long-range best interest, that a Freeman will desire, intend and attempt to treat all Individuals as socially "equal" - ie. as having equal social meta-needs.

2. Whenever a Freeman Violates a non-Freeman or is Violated by a non-Freeman, he must attempt to convince the Individual Involved to use the Settlement procedures described in an Acceptable Social Contract.

113) Once again, this can be a time to attempt to convince the non-Freeman to become a Freeman. Even when the Violation is intentional on the part of the non-Freeman, this may not be completely out of the question because in such a situation, it is possible for the non-Freeman to escape going to jail by doing so. Full Restitution on the part of the non-Freeman could completely avoid any government agency charges, penalties and punishments.

3. Failing the above, a Freeman may still seek Mediation or act as a Defendant or Plaintiff with respect to a non-Freeman, if he can find a Surrogate for the non-Freeman who will do his best to determine the reality of the situation from the Involved Individual's viewpoint and act in the Involved Individual's best interest to the extent that he can determine it. The Restitution Agreement/Requirement is then executed by the Surrogate, with any Surrogate fees and other costs paid from any net Restitution due before it is paid to the Involved Individual. If the net Restitution is due to the Freeman, he will have to find other jurisdictions in which to press his claim. However, unless the Restitution claim is paid, the Involved Individual is only eligible to become a Freeman after concluding a Restitution Agreement for its payment.

114) If the non-Freemen is not cooperative with respect to acting in accord with the methods of the Natural Social Contract, the Freeman can still use it to make Restitution which under it he is obliged to do, or to gain a Restitution Requirement against the non-Freeman. The former may potentially satisfy the non-Freeman - it may even be more than non-Freeman agencies would have awarded him. It may therefore be sufficient to dissuade him from pressing any charges against the Freeman with any non-Freeman agencies. In the case of Violation by the non-Freeman, the Restitution Requirement may not be collectable, but it will at least prevent the non-Freeman from ever becoming a Freeman until it is paid. In addition, once there are sufficient numbers of Freemen that their arrangements and honesty has come to the attention of the non-Freeman courts, it is possible that such Trial awards will also be upheld in non-Freeman courts.

4. Failing the above, any Freeman may become the Surrogate for a non-Freeman as a Plaintiff in a Trial with a Freeman. The Charge directly from the Surrogate to the Freeman will then be that the Freeman is in Breach of the Stipulations of this Agreement (see Whereas c.), but at the same time the Surrogate can act as Agent for the non-Freeman to gain Restitution for him. The result of this Trial will be two Restitution Requirements and Findings. One between the Surrogate and the Freeman for the fees and costs of the Surrogate, and the second between the Freeman and the Individual Involved as in 3. above. Both Surrogate and Freeman must execute both Restitution Requirements and both Findings (one of them potentially being Breach of this Agreement).

115) If a Freeman is a Violator of a non-Freeman, then he is obligated by this Natural Social Contract to make Restitution. Therefore, if he does not proceed as in Stipulation C.3, he may be in Breach of this Agreement and open to that Charge by any other Freeman. Some Freemen may even chose to make a business of being Surrogates of non-Freeman and look for situations where they can represent non-Freemen and gain awards for them, while also gaining fees for themselves. This should greatly inhibit any possible abuse of non-Freemen by Freemen.

5. Excepting Revocation of Freeman status (see E.4. below), no Peonage Enjoinder may be sought by or awarded to a Surrogate, or the Involved Individual for whom he is acting, as a Determination of a Trial.

116) Since non-Freemen are not fully responsible to act according to this Agreement, it is not reasonable that they should be entitled to a Peonage Enjoinder against a Freeman. By the same reasoning neither is this reasonable for the Surrogate of such a non-Freeman with whom the Freeman has a full Equity Relationship (unless, of course, the Charge by the Surrogate was Breach of this Agreement).

6. A Freeman must not Voluntarily initiate the use of non-Freeman agencies unless he has no other method to obtain Restitution and must intend to never cooperate with such agencies except as he thinks there will be net harm to him by not doing so.

117) Once more a Freeman can only be true to his execution of the Declaration of Individual Independence and this Natural Social Contract by practicing non-cooperation with all non-Freeman social agencies. The only exception to this (which granted will often be the case at the start of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project) is if he truly determines that he has too much to lose by not cooperating with such agencies. This may particularly be the case if a Freeman suffers a Violation from a non-Freeman who will not pay the Restitution awarded by Mediation or Trial. It is fully expected that Freemen will share many tips with each other about how non-cooperation with non-Freeman agencies can be practiced without undue chance of great loss to the non-cooperator.

7. If, nevertheless, a Freeman is forced by a non-Freeman to submit to one or more of the non-Freeman's agencies then he must do everything possible to minimize the effects of his submission on other Freemen.

118) By this clause, a Freeman is stating his loyalty to other Freemen. Specifically, he is stating that if he can possibly prevent it, even at some cost to himself, he will not allow non-Freeman agencies to harm other Freemen. Of course, no Freeman would expect another Freeman to give up a major part of his life to save him (unless as Restitution for a Violation which he caused, and is thus, honor-bound to do).

8. Involuntary non-compliance with the terms of this Agreement from whatever cause does not release a Freeman from responsibility for any aspect of this Agreement, and by implication, from any Stipulations of Valid Contracts, Restitution Agreements/Requirements and Peonage Enjoinders.

119) By "Involuntary non-compliance", I mean the situation where a non-Freeman agency forces a Freeman to Breach this Agreement, another Valid Contract or effect any other Violation. This clause then states that such coerced Breach or Violation does not allow any additional intentional Breach of any Valid Contracts or Trial requirements. This is because such forced Breach is already grounds for dismissal of a Charge of Breach, so any coerced Breach is effectively nullified and the coerced Freeman is still in the exact same position with respect to his entitlements and obligations under the Natural Social Contract as if the coerced Breach had not occurred.

D. Acceptability of Other Social Contracts

120) The section covers the essentials of what another social contract needs to contain to be an Acceptable Social Contract to this one. It also details how Acceptable Social Contracts relate to each other and how a Freeman could still relate to Unacceptable Social Contracts.

1. A social contract shall be an Acceptable Social Contract if:

a. Its executor has signed an Acceptable Declaration of Self-Sovereignty.

121) Actually, such text could also be included with the Acceptable Social Contract so that there was only one document, but something equivalent to the Declaration of Individual Independence (the link of Appendix B of the Natural Social Contract) is necessary in order for the Individual to have any reasonable social equivalency to a Freeman of this Agreement who has executed such a Declaration.

b. It requires that its executor's non-observance of his desire and intent not to Violate any non-Freeman is grounds for Breach of the social contract, unless the only alternative would be grave irreversible harm.

122) It is imperative that any Individual socially equivalent to a Freeman must always desire and intend not to Violate any human, and only will do so Voluntarily and intentionally if absolutely necessary to prevent grave irreversible harm to himself or those things he values.

c. It establishes standards and Property Entitlements concerning the acquisition, Ownership, Possession, Control, transfer and Abandonment of Property which are essentially equivalent to those of this Agreement.

123) If two social contracts had arrangements for dealing with Property which contained major differences, it would be very difficult for Individuals under each to deal peacefully with each other. They would simply not have a compossible set of social meta-needs. There may arise other interfacing free market agencies to deal with such mutually unacceptable social systems, but this Agreement does not choose to deal with them.

d. It establishes required procedures for Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) to achieve a Restitution Agreement or Restitution Requirement and where necessary, a Peonage Enjoinder.

124) Procedures for achieving Restitution with some form of compulsory repayment if and when necessary, is a fundamental requirement of any reasonably equivalent social order system.

e. It requires executors to use a UCN for the same purposes as this Agreement.

125) The requirement for public disclosure of some of one's social relationships and all of one's involuntarily Settled social transgressions is so important to the operation of the social meta-needs established by the Natural Social Contract, that a very similar system must be in place for any other to be considered as an Acceptable Social Contract.

f. It does not contain any Stipulations which reduce the Liberty of its executors more than do those of this Agreement.

126) Any additional reduction of Liberty would make two sets of social meta-needs inequivalent in terms of their benefits for the participants. Actually, although this clause allows the possibility that there could be two social contracts A and B where A would be acceptable to B, but B would not be acceptable to A, I cannot think of any way that this would in practice happen and still retain all the other aspects of required acceptability.

2. A Freeman with respect to one social contract is ipso facto a Freeman with respect to all mutually Acceptable Social Contracts.

127) This is so even though a different name than "Freeman" might be used in the other Acceptable Social Contracts. It means that anyone who is a non-Freeman is not an executor of any of the set of mutually Acceptable Social Contracts which includes this Agreement.

3. All social contracts which do not have the minimum features described above are Unacceptable Social Contracts to the executors of this Agreement and executors of such Unacceptable Social Contracts are treated as non-Freemen.

128) This needs no additional explanation.

4. Notwithstanding the above, a Freeman may decide to execute two or more social contracts, even mutually Unacceptable Social Contracts ones. However, doing so does not absolve him of any obligations under this Agreement.

129) Such a Freeman is actually living in two separate social realities. However, he cannot use the one against the other in any manner - ie. when dealing with Freemen under this Agreement he cannot plead that he is under the rules of the other social contract. When dealing with any Individual, one should always get a sworn statement of which social contract is being used. This will even be necessary when dealing with Freemen who have executed a mutually Acceptable Social Contract, because it will be important to know of the differences that will exist, even though they will be small and mostly insignificant. An Individual who has executed two or more mutually unacceptable social contracts may serve a very useful function as a kind of "go-between" with respect to those who are living under different social systems. It will be natural for such Individuals to also setup any courts which adjudicate disputes between the disparate social systems.

E. Term, Breach, Arbitration and Termination of this Agreement

130) As with any Valid Contract, such a section governing its term, Breach and methods of termination is of utmost importance and cannot be omitted.

1. This Agreement shall become a Valid Contract once executed and published on a UCN.

131) Names and images of signatures of executor and witness Searchably Linked to their Identifying information must be attached, and then the document must be published on some website (the current form of the UCN). It is expected that the job of maintaining the information required by this Agreement on a UCN will become a business opportunity for one or more Freemen. This will not be done by anyone until the Founders of the Self-sovereign Individual Project (Kitty and Paul Antonik Wakfer) are satisfied that the Declaration of Individual Independence and the Natural Social Contract are sufficiently finished to warrant a formal beginning to the implementation stage of the Project. Currently it is assumed that initially the Founders will provide a website on which all the information of each Freeman will be published. However, if someone else wishes to setup and provide the data base features to implement this, we would be delighted to have them do it as long as the fee for service charged is reasonable. In addition, there is nothing to stop anyone from offering this service with or without our approval.

2. This Agreement shall be "Terminated" for a given executor when he executes and publishes a "Notice of Termination" on a UCN Searchably Linked to his Identifying Information. His status under this Agreement will then terminate 30 days after the publication of such a Notice.

132) This Agreement is always open to be Voluntarily terminated as easily as it is Voluntarily executed. However, such termination must give sufficient notification to allow others in Equity Relationships with the Freeman taking such action to respond to protect themselves. In fact, a complete and protected Valid Contract will need to contain Stipulations which come into force if one of the Parties Voluntarily terminates his Freeman status or has such status Revoked. Such termination also does not allow one to remove the public information which was already in place nor does it allow one to escape any responsibilities incurred under this Agreement prior to its termination, even if these have not yet come to Trial or even been discovered.

3. The Social Imperatives of this Agreement are the "Whereas declarations" and all Stipulations signified by the term "must". Where a Social Imperative relates to a positive action to be taken, any Freeman who is in Voluntary non-compliance with any Social Imperative beyond the time Stipulated in this Agreement or 30 days, where no time is Stipulated, is open to a Charge of Breach of this Agreement. Non-Freemen are just as responsible for obeying the Social Imperatives of this Agreement as are Freemen, in the sense that if a Non-Freeman Breaches this Agreement, he can be Charged through a Surrogate and all the same conditions will apply to the Non-Freeman as would apply to a Freeman.

133) Breach of this Agreement is such a strong penalty that the items which are grounds for such a Charge were very carefully considered and made to be only those which were truly essential for the social meta-needs described by this Agreement to be effective. Since once Freemen get to be dominant (by virtue of having Control of most Real Estate, products and services) in a geographical area, it is not even clear how non-Freemen could function in that area, expect perhaps by living on a kind of "reservation" where Freemen would interface with them at the boundaries. The time durations of various actions under this Agreement are somewhat arbitrary and certainly open to change. They are also the very sort of thing which could be different within other fully Acceptable Social Contracts.

4. Any Alleged Breaching Freeman of this Agreement is, thus, an Alleged Violator of all other Freemen who have executed this Agreement and other Acceptable Social Contracts. Therefore, any other Freeman may become a Plaintiff and initiate Charges against the Alleged Breaching Freeman. Such Charges must specify both the event which constitutes an Alleged Breach and the Restitution Request which must include a requested duration for which the Revocation of Freeman status must remain in effect with respect to this Agreement and all Acceptable Social Contracts. If the Breach is validated at a Trial, the only acceptable Excuses are that such Breach was the only alternative to grave irreversible harm (if intentional), was Involuntary or was merely the Violation of making a Charge Determined at Trial to be invalid, which Excuses, if validated by the Trial, will allow a dismissal of the Breach Charge. However, the Breaching Freeman (now Excused) must still fully Restitute all Freemen Violated by any of his actions according to the terms of this Agreement.

134) This is the main Stipulation governing how a Freeman is caused to be in Breach of this Agreement. As it states, the only Excuses (grounds for dismissal of the Charge) for Breach are some circumstance where grave irreversible harm (to himself or those Existents he values) is the Freeman's only possible alternative, or where the Freeman is Culpably Threatened into such Breach. In either case, however, the Breaching Freemen must be fully responsible for his actions including all Restitution and Peonage, if awarded. Any Breach conviction will also contain a duration during which the Individual must remain a non-Freeman. During such time he will not be eligible to execute any other Acceptable Social Contract.

5. Arbitration of this Agreement, including all Charges of Breach of this Agreement, must be done by means of a Trial which must include a Judge and any other Freemen who wish to be part of the Jury, which body becomes the Arbitrators.

135) This it the only Arbitration Clause in this Agreement. Since for any purpose of Arbitration of this Agreement there is no requisite "outside body" or "higher court of appeal", any disputes concerning this Agreement and/or its Breach must perforce be handled by a "committee of the whole". Therefore, all Freemen are entitled to take part in any such deliberations.

6. Any Individual against whom there is a Finding of Breach of this Agreement or any other Acceptable Social Contract, or who has Terminated this Agreement and has not executed another Acceptable Social Contract, is a non-Freeman with respect to this Agreement. If the Termination is by a Finding of Breach at a Trial, then the Plaintiff(s) must maintain the current UCN information of the ex-Freeman with a designation of "In Breach" for the duration of the Revocation period which was Determined by the Trial.

136) It is up to the Freeman who brings the Charge of Breach and gets a conviction to monitor the non-Freeman's UCN information to see that he does not attempt to reinstate his status during the Revocation period. This will be part of the Restitution Requirement which he is awarded by the Trial Determination. If he does not think that the Freeman he is charging is likely to pay the fees and costs necessary for the Trial, then he can also request a Peonage Enjoinder.

7. Even though Breach of this Agreement is effectively a Violation of all Freemen, if a Charge of Breach is validated by a Determination and Freeman status is Revoked, no other Freeman may use the same validated Breaching Event to make another such Charge.

137) This is the only case where a "no double jeopardy" provision is required. That is because it is the only situation where a Violation is essentially "global" in nature. Of course, if there is new evidence suggesting that the Breaching Event was worse than originally Determined so that, perhaps the duration of Revocation of status should be longer, or if another separate uncharged Breach is discovered, then a new Charge may be laid because neither of these would be the same effective Event as was validated previously.

8. Notwithstanding the Termination of this Agreement by an Individual, Voluntarily or by Breach, all other Valid Contracts executed by him and other Freemen must remain Unbreached. In addition, all Violations that occurred during the time of his Freeman status whenever discovered must still be Settled under this Agreement.

138) As stated before, the social meta-needs require it to be made impossible for an Individual to escape his responsibilities under this Agreement by resigning from or Breaching the Agreement. If he does so Voluntarily then he must give sufficient notice that any Freeman with whom he has a Valid Contract or otherwise owes any value has the chance to take appropriate action even including obtaining a Peonage Enjoinder to ensure payment. The same may be true for termination due to Breach.

9. An Individual who has Breached this Agreement or any other Acceptable Social Contract must remain a non-Freeman for the duration of the Revocation period which was Determined by the Trial, and must have concluded all necessary Restitution Agreements before he can again become a Freeman. In addition, any Individual who becomes a Freeman must include within his UCN information all prior information which was necessary to be included on a UCN under this Agreement or any other Acceptable Social Contract.

139) An Individual must be fully in "good standing" with all other Freeman before he can become a Freeman either initially or again. It will be up to all Freemen to ensure that this is so. It will particularly be the Freemen with whom he is not in good standing who will ensure this. All his prior public information must also be retained as part of his "dossier" when he regains his Freeman status.

F. Execution, Attesting and Publication

1. As soon as this Agreement becomes a Valid Contract by my execution and publication of it on a UCN, any interactions/relationships which were in place with Individuals before my execution of this Agreement will be Equity Relationships.

2. I do solemnly declare that I must abide by all the terms of this Agreement which will be termed my Social Contract once it is executed and published on a UCN. Furthermore, I accept that my execution of this Agreement does not make it a Valid Contract nor does it have any effect on others until it is published on a UCN.

Executed on this ____ day of _________ (month) in the year ____ AD,
by ____________________________ (print name),
a Self-Sovereign Individual accessible via email address:__________________

(Signature image)

I, ____________________________ (print name),
a Self-Sovereign Individual accessible via email address:__________________,
have seen a picture identification (ID) of the Executor and I attest to the best of my ability that he/she and his/her signature above match that ID.

(Signature image)

Published on the Internet on: ___________ (date)

140) As with any important binding document, this one needs to have identification of the signer verified by an attestor, one who "attests" to the genuineness of the signature. In addition, this will be placed on the Internet for all to see and verify its existence. Such a public place of verification of the self-sovereign status of a person is a very important part of the operation of the structure of society which is here beginning.

Note: The appendices of the original Natural Social Contract have been deleted in this annotated version for brevity, because there was no need to add explanatory remarks to them.

0.For a philsophical argument for this statement see the essay: "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction"

1.Refers to the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

2.For another excellent viewpoint see: "Economic Secession Won't Succeed" by Paul Birch and Gene Callahan. Note however that I don't agree with the authors' (perhaps unintentional) implication that tax evaders are dishonest.

2a.For a recent book that makes a forceful case that man evolutionary ancestors were not hunter/killers, but instead "peaceful, cooperative and social animals", see: Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution by Robert W Sussman, PhD and Donna L Hart, PhD.

3.In all my writings the word "essential" should be understood to mean: "that which is the very essence or most important fundamental aspect of something". There is no mind/body dichotomy in reality. What is generally called the "mind" is nothing more nor less than the patterned organization of information and structure of the brain. The "attributes" of mind: feeling, reason, consciousness, volition, etc. are thus merely additional properties emerging from the complexity of the underlying material substrate, just as the property of "chairness" emerges from the ordering of materials into a certain general form.

3a.Scientific studies are beginning to elucidate a neurological basis for this important attribute of human empathy for one another. For a recent example see: Grasping the Intentions of Others with One's Own Mirror Neuron System PLoS Biology, Volume 3 | Issue 3 | March 2005

4. A phrase for which I am indebted to Nathaniel Branden which I first heard while attending his Intensive Program in 1978 or 1979; it is part of his numerous writings on self-esteem. The following quote was found in a personal online Journal (July 21, 1998), though unfortunately the individual does not give a direct source reference - "The feeling that 'I am enough' does not mean that I have nothing to learn, nothing further to achieve, and nowhere to grow to. It means that I accept myself, that I am not on trial in my own eyes, that I value and respect myself. This is not an act of indulgence but of courage."

4a. Although not critical with respect to the implementation of Social Meta-Needs under this Contract, we think that the way that value is defined also needs to be modified to be in accord with the fundamental subjectivism of human evaluation. For more details about this concept of "value-for-value" see Supporting MoreLife and the Self-Sovereign Individual Project.

5. For a legal definition of "tort" see Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

5a. In this respect I disagree with von Mises statement: "Human action is necessarily always rational.".

5b.For extensions to the "standard" definition of life that apply to various states of human life impairment ultimately including death, see: "States of Life and Death Defined" by Paul Wakfer.

6. Text for definition of "Consideration" taken from Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

7. For a legal definition of "conveyance" see Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

8. It is important to realize that the nature of reality is such that "justice" is not always attainable. However, there is an important sense in which this is not totally correct, since ultimately, even with such cases as Unrestitutable Violations, the harmed person is still responsible for his own fate. In this regard see my essay "Self-Responsibility and Social Order".