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.

Natural Social Contract Annotations

Violation - Responsibility for Restitution

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) The most critical aspect of the concept of Violation is that it captures all possible Events for which a Freeman may be held Responsible for Restitution under the NSC. It is important to note that under the NSC Freemen are not held Responsible for their Actions, but instead for the resulting Events and Effects of those Actions. The reason for this is that it is the Value of the Harm Attribute of a Violational Event (the subjective affects on the UnActing - therefore non-causal - Victim) which UnPermittedly (by the Victim) reduces the Total Future Happiness Expectation of the Victim and, thus, operates to decrease the Social Meta-Needs of all Freemen. The purpose of Responsibility for the Harm of Violation by means of Restitution is to ensure as much as possible in a compossible manner that each Freeman Benefits from hir Chosen Action where the Actions of one or more other Freemen are the Effective Cause of that Chosen Action not achieving the Desired Effect of the Actor. This means that while a Freeman may suffer Harm because of some Event of which a Freeman is not the Effective Cause and can only ensure that such Harms are minimized by using hir skill in predication and planning (just as s/he can also only ensure that hir Actions most Benefit hir), s/he is Entitled by the NSC to not suffer Harm by any Event Effectively Caused (or Effectively Prevented) by Freemen.

2) An important difference between the Stipulations of the NSC and the laws of current society is that Intent to Violate is not necessary for a Violation to have occurred, just as Intent is not a precondition for the occurrence of Responsible Harm, Defendable Threat, Abandonment, Theft or Breach of a Valid Contract. This is particularly important for the Social Meta-Needs since from the point of view of the Alleged Victim the resulting Harm of a Violation is what reduces hir Total Future Happiness Expectation (just as is the Harm or Benefit the most important personal result of any Event that ever occurs). However, the objective Finding of Violation and possibly of Intent, and the subjective Evaluation of Harm also affect the Social Meta-Needs and will determine the degree and type of Social Preferencing of the both the Violator and the Victim by other Freemen. Intent to Violate is a worse offense than mere accidental or negligent (by incompetence) Violation in a way which is quite separate from the fact of Violation itself and the Harm to the Victim - it is an indication of the Social unfitness of the Violator to Benefit from the Entitlements of a Freeman. (Although perhaps gross incompetence should also be so viewed - and this would be accomplished, in practice, by the degree of Social Preferencing brought to bear on such an incompetent Freeman.) That is why Intent to Violate is grounds for Breach of the NSC and Revocation of Freeman Status (which is a kind of Global Social Preferencing). See the section of the NSC entitled Term, Breach, Arbitration and Termination of The Contract for details of how this is accomplished.