The reader will only be able to understand the purpose and meaning of this annotation and its relationship to the Natural Social Contract (NSC), if s/he has first read the Introduction section of the NSC and its explanatory and elucidating annotation.
1) There should be no Social Constraint on a Freeman's ability to assign any of hir Contractual Entitlements and Responsibilities to Agents who are also Freemen. However, such Agents do not gain any special privileges (ie. particular immunities, Benefits, advantages or powers, beyond those of other Freemen) under the NSC by such assignment. The Responsibility of an Agent for hir Actions as a Freeman is not altered in any manner by being an Agent. For this reason, before becoming an Agent most Freemen will likely require some form of Valid Contract with a Client stating that the Client will in turn be Responsible to pay any Restitution that is incurred by the Agent causing Responsible Harm as a necessary part of hir Performance of Actions on the Client's behalf (usually termed an indemnification Contract). In turn, anyone using an Agent needs to be very careful about giving such a "blank check" of Entitlement or Responsibility to the 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 an Agent having hirself insured against liability for Restitution. All such details are clearly matters that the free market of services will work out to mutual advantage once a Social System based on the Theory of Social Meta-Needs is in place to guide it.
2) Generally a Freeman-A must convey a clear set of directions to a Freeman-B before s/he can Beneficially and Non-Harmfully become Freeman-A's Agent. Normally this would be done by a preplanned Valid Contract clearly understood by all Parties. However, there are times when and situations under which (called crises) a Freeman may be in immediate danger, and therefore have insufficient time to make such a direction, or may be incapacitated and incapable of making such a direction. Therefore, a Freeman-B may also unilaterally Decide to be the Agent of any other Freeman-A. However in doing so Freeman-B gains no special Status with respect to the Actions that s/he takes - ie. s/he is still a Responsible Agent. After the crisis Events have reached a point where Freeman-A has time for or is capable of making Decisions, giving directions and Evaluating hir own Happiness, if s/he then agrees that the Actions of Freemen-B were Beneficial to hir, then s/he effectively gives to Freeman-B retroactive Permission to have been hir Agent all the time. However, since the Action of Freeman-B was an UnRequested Benefit, this retroactive Permission (effective acceptance of the Benefit) dose not place on Freeman-A any Requirement to Reward (Return Value for Value Given) Freeman-B and therefore Freeman-B also has no Entitlement to payment. Instead any lack of such Reward in payment for clear and accepted Benefit must be left for Social Preferencing to judge and balance. However if, at that time (of recovery to mental functionality), Freeman-A Decides that the UnPermitted Actions of Freeman-B actually Harmed hir, then Freeman-B was not hir Agent and has done Responsible Harm to Freeman-A who s/he thought that s/he was helping. In summary, although s/he may increase hir Total Future Happiness Expectation by Acting as an Agent, a Freeman gains no special Status by so doing and always remains completely Responsible for hir Actions whether they are Beneficial or Harmful to hir Client or any other Freeman.
3) Since Freemen only Exist and Act as individuals, all Equity Relationships must be between individual Freemen. Therefore, in order for the Responsibilities of a Freeman under a Valid Contract or Covenant to be able to continue for the natural Duration of the purposes for which they were made, which may even include a Duration after the death of one of the originating Freemen, a method for the continuation of such purposes beyond the Duration of the original Equity Relationship is needed. Therefore, I have defined an extended concept, Perpetual Agent, to handle those situations where purposes are to continue beyond the Lifetime of the Freeman originating them. However, because purposes, just like Evaluations, are, by definition, initially subjective to the Freeman who holds them, all such purposes must be carefully written down in Contract form and any new Freeman continuing them, as Agent of the originating Freeman, must fully understand and be in agreement with what is written. 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, the purposes of the original Owner are written in the Covenants of the Real Estate as clearly as possible. One of the Stipulations of each Covenant is that the current Owner of the Real Estate is only Entitled to transfer Ownership of the Real Estate to someone who Contractually agrees to uphold the purposes written in the Covenants - ie. he agrees that those purposes will be his own purposes before he takes Ownership of the Real Estate. In this manner his acquisition of the Real Estate gains him Benefits and Entitlements, but also commits him to the Responsibilities of all its Covenants.