The HarmConsentRule (HCR)
Trevor Watkins
The HarmConsentRule (HCR)
Render no harm without consent, except in self-defense
The HarmConsent rule (HCR) provides a brief and simple statement for assessing the morality of human behaviour. It applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. It provides a template against which all human action can be tested.
The HCR emphasizes individual rights, freedom, the rule of law, respect for others, property rights, and the right to self-defense. It rejects the use of arbitrary coercive force by anyone, including governments. Some harms can be consented to, such as surgical procedures or participation in contact sports.
The HCR is so brief that anyone can understand it, and apply it. It is as clear and simple as the Hippocratic oath - First do no harm.
MotivationSince biblical times mankind has struggled to define which acts should be permitted and which should be forbidden in a desirable and peaceful society.
The ten commandments specify just 2 impermissible acts, killing and stealing. All the rest are recommendations relevant to a specific culture.
The non-aggression principle (NAP) forbids all aggressive or harmful actions, including playing contact sports or performing surgery.
Most national constitutions are long and often contradictory. The common law is useful, but is not universal, nor even that common. The less said about state legislative law the better.
The HCR provides a template against which the many complex ethical and moral issues facing humanity can be tested. When faced with a dilemma, such as abortion, or capital punishment, or immigration, many organisations advocating individual freedom differ strongly. How do you come to a rational decision on which position to support?
By asking just 3 questions you can apply the HCR to most situations. (The “victim” is the individual suffering harm.}
Did the “victim” initiate an unjustified attack on anyone?
Did the “victim” suffer real, physical harm?
Did the “victim” consent to that harm?
HCR Decision tree
The HarmConsentRule applies to ALL individuals. It does not have exceptions for wealth, age, gender, position. The rule applies equally to a penniless female child, and to a wealthy and powerful man.
“Individual” is defined as an independent, sentient, human entity.
“Harm” is any act which physically damages the target individual. Not all harms are negative, eg surgery.
“Consent” is given when an individual authorises an action affecting themselves. Consent should be informed, explicit, freely given, preferably before witnesses, without fraud or falsehood.
EnforcementWho enforces the HCR? This question betrays a deeply statist mindset. It denies all individual agency in favour of a violent state. The HCR is not enforced. It is adopted by people seeking a consistent worldview, and who hope others will share that worldview simply because it is more consistent.
IssuesBecause we have lacked a reliable standard of conduct, a large number of commonplace actions which contradict the HarmConsent rule have become widely acceptable . Many of these actions are perpetrated by groups such as government, ostensibly for our own good. For example
Taxation.
Unless consented to, taxation harms the targeted individual using theft.Conscription
Forcible abduction, generally by the state.Freedom of movement.
Passports, state border controls, restricting an individual's harmless freedom of movement constitutes a harm to them.Freedom of speech
Restricting an individual's freedom of speech constitutes a harm to them.Medical mandates
Forcing individuals to abide by a particular medical protocol constitutes a harm to them.Currency controls
Restricting your choice of currencies, limiting your ability to deploy your own funds, constitutes a harm to you.
Trevor Watkins 26th December 2024
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.
Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Gabri Rigotti
The choice of the six items is excellent, as these surely address the majority of instances when the state or others use physical force or the threat of physical force, aka violence, to enforce “compliance” from the individual.
There are of course many more items one could add but an 80/20 approach as a focus principle is an efficient and effective real world approach to reduce the vast majority of instances of state or other violence by addressing the least number of issues that can secure the greatest outcome.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/8843d03c-216c-490d-b12a-0b3a977ee58dn%40googlegroups.com.
" It is not the water in the fields that brings true development, rather, it is water in the eyes, or compassion for fellow beings, that brings about real development. "
—Anna Hazare
Charl Heydenrych
Gabri Rigotti
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAFDzsf2SVF-tiw0OC_SQkkRROfuM56BSXaM5g38tZ9xZHXROYQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
viv...@iafrica.com
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2024 3:01:07 AM
Subject: Re: IM: The HarmConsentRule (HCR)
Trevor Watkins
I have several issues with the post below.
1. A person who initiates violence is not a victim. Not true on several levels. In this doc I tried to parse the meaning of the HCR, and discovered to my surprise that one must start with the last clause "Except in self-defense" first. I repeat "The “victim” is the individual suffering harm". A "victim" in a mugging may well initiate harm, but is justified by the particular circumstances. In judging whether a harm is justified, you must first establish if it was committed in self-defense. If yes, no HCR violation occurs. A medical procedure which cures something cannot be considered harmful If I have to be careful with my choice of words, so must you. Almost all medical procedures will cause some harm to the patient (surgery, medication), but are acceptable if consented to by the patient. (How about a procedure to stop the patient from smoking which the patient does not consent to. If it works you could call it a cure, but that is irrelevant.) and I fail to see any other type of medical procedure. Currency controls do not do physical harm, of course they do! they stop you from using YOUR OWN MONEY for the purposes you intended. That is a harm just like theft at gunpoint. so if you include that, you have to also include not using my preferred pronouns and a chapter on micro-agressions in the workplace no real world physical harm occurs. There are a number of other such objections, but the next two objections will automatically address all of them.2. Harm is of no relevance. Hippocrates begged to differ, "first do no harm". I don't like the title of HCR for a number of reasons, but the superfluous nature of Harm in that acronym is my top gripe. "Harm" replaces the word "action" from the Consent axiom, which was too non-specific. The difference between rape and sex is consent - sex can harm, yet be desirable. That is the problem with the NAP. The difference between tax and charity is consent. Tax is always a harm, charity is a choice. The difference between a generous gift vs. handing my car keys over at gun-point is consent. Harm is entirely irrelevant and is not the deciding factor in determining the moral binary answer you're looking for. To include harm is to muddy the waters and introduce unnecessary complexity. I beg to differ. Do you have a better word for describing the thing you're consenting to, and why?3. Very few people are out to harm others between 5 and 10% of almost every population. In SA thats more than 3m people. I believe a gun and a philosophy are both essential, to avoid being classified as part of the 5%. and you don't need a moral philosophy to protect yourself or your social circle from it... all you need to prevent harm is a dog and a gun good luck explaining your moral objection to the tax department using your dog and gun.. Far more concerning are peope who would do things to prevent harm or who do things for your own good... like regulating firearms and licensing dogs or insisting to pay for your healthcare or gathering up all the political power available to ensure your children are educated or banning micro-plastics. Those kinds of threats deserve far more of a moral compas and counter-acting social cooperation. I agree, hence HCR
You may as well change Harm Consent Rule to Do-gooder Consent Rule... but if you simply remove all references to Harm, I would probably agree to 99.9% of what was left... but as it stands, I'm closer to 50:50... and the 50% I object to is with a defiant fist in the air.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7B4s6OsbUNUm4z86%2BxPWJqiLeQQY-j5uqZJhFbE%3DqvMg%40mail.gmail.com.
Sid Nothard
The first action in the flow diagram: “Did the victim initiate an unjustified attack on anyone?”
How does the “Victim” initiate an attack on someone else? The injured party is the victim
And why should a “victim” ever agree to being injured?
If a party knowingly agrees to being injured then he is no longer a “Victim”
The “Victim” needs to be defined.
In order to be meaningful the HCR needs to be enforced, so that a victim is compensated for the loss/suffering,
I personally prefer the Neo-Tech Prime Law:
The Prime Law®*
(The Fundamental of Protection)
Preamble
*The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily.
*The function of government is to provide the conditions that let individuals fulfill that purpose.
*The Prime Law guarantees those conditions by forbidding the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual, property, or contract.
Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual’s self, property, or contract.
Article 2
Force is morally-and-legally justified only for protection from those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.
Sid
From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2024 3:01 AM
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: The HarmConsentRule (HCR)
I have several issues with the post below.
1. A person who initiates violence is not a victim. A medical procedure which cures something cannot be considered harmful and I fail to see any other type of medical procedure. Currency controls do not do physical harm, so if you include that, you have to also include not using my preferred pronouns and a chapter on micro-agressions in the workplace. There are a number of other such objections, but the next two objections will automatically address all of them.
2. Harm is of no relevance. I don't like the title of HCR for a number of reasons, but the superfluous nature of Harm in that acronym is my top gripe. The difference between rape and sex is consent - sex can harm, yet be desirable. The difference between tax and charity is consent. The difference between a generous gift vs. handing my car keys over at gun-point is consent. Harm is entirely irrelevant and is not the deciding factor in determining the moral binary answer you're looking for. To include harm is to muddy the waters and introduce unnecessary complexity.
3. Very few people are out to harm others and you don't need a moral philosophy to protect yourself or your social circle from it... all you need to prevent harm is a dog and a gun. Far more concerning are peope who would do things to prevent harm or who do things for your own good... like regulating firearms and licensing dogs or insisting to pay for your healthcare or gathering up all the political power available to ensure your children are educated or banning micro-plastics. Those kinds of threats deserve far more of a moral compas and counter-acting social cooperation.
You may as well change Harm Consent Rule to Do-gooder Consent Rule... but if you simply remove all references to Harm, I would probably agree to 99.9% of what was left... but as it stands, I'm closer to 50:50... and the 50% I object to is with a defiant fist in the air.
S.
Op Vr. 27 Des. 2024 om 01:27 het Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> geskryf:
Once again, I welcome any comments or criticisms which wold improve this document.
The HarmConsentRule (HCR)
Render no harm without consent, except in self-defense
The HarmConsent rule (HCR) provides a brief and simple statement for assessing the morality of human behaviour. It applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. It provides a template against which all human action can be tested.
The HCR emphasizes individual rights, freedom, the rule of law, respect for others, property rights, and the right to self-defense. It rejects the use of arbitrary coercive force by anyone, including governments. Some harms can be consented to, such as surgical procedures or participation in contact sports.
The HCR is so brief that anyone can understand it, and apply it. It is as clear and simple as the Hippocratic oath - First do no harm.
Motivation
Since biblical times mankind has struggled to define which acts should be permitted and which should be forbidden in a desirable and peaceful society.
The ten commandments specify just 2 impermissible acts, killing and stealing. All the rest are recommendations relevant to a specific culture.
The non-aggression principle (NAP) forbids all aggressive or harmful actions, including playing contact sports or performing surgery.
Most national constitutions are long and often contradictory. The common law is useful, but is not universal, nor even that common. The less said about state legislative law the better.
The HCR provides a template against which the many complex ethical and moral issues facing humanity can be tested. When faced with a dilemma, such as abortion, or capital punishment, or immigration, many organisations advocating individual freedom differ strongly. How do you come to a rational decision on which position to support?
By asking just 3 questions you can apply the HCR to most situations. (The “victim” is the individual suffering harm.}
1. Did the “victim” initiate an unjustified attack on anyone?
2. Did the “victim” suffer real, physical harm?
3. Did the “victim” consent to that harm?
HCR Decision tree
Definitions
The HarmConsentRule applies to ALL individuals. It does not have exceptions for wealth, age, gender, position. The rule applies equally to a penniless female child, and to a wealthy and powerful man.
“Individual” is defined as an independent, sentient, human entity.
“Harm” is any act which physically damages the target individual. Not all harms are negative, eg surgery.
“Consent” is given when an individual authorises an action affecting themselves. Consent should be informed, explicit, freely given, preferably before witnesses, without fraud or falsehood.
Enforcement
Who enforces the HCR? This question betrays a deeply statist mindset. It denies all individual agency in favour of a violent state. The HCR is not enforced. It is adopted by people seeking a consistent worldview, and who hope others will share that worldview simply because it is more consistent.
Issues
Because we have lacked a reliable standard of conduct, a large number of commonplace actions which contradict the HarmConsent rule have become widely acceptable . Many of these actions are perpetrated by groups such as government, ostensibly for our own good. For example
1. Taxation.
Unless consented to, taxation harms the targeted individual using theft.
2. Conscription
Forcible abduction, generally by the state.
3. Freedom of movement.
Passports, state border controls, restricting an individual's harmless freedom of movement constitutes a harm to them.
4. Freedom of speech
Restricting an individual's freedom of speech constitutes a harm to them.
5. Medical mandates
Forcing individuals to abide by a particular medical protocol constitutes a harm to them.
6. Currency controls
Restricting your choice of currencies, limiting your ability to deploy your own funds, constitutes a harm to you.
Trevor Watkins 26th December 2024
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.
Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/8843d03c-216c-490d-b12a-0b3a977ee58dn%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7B4s6OsbUNUm4z86%2BxPWJqiLeQQY-j5uqZJhFbE%3DqvMg%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen vJ
Stephen vJ
HCR Decision tree
Stephen vJ
Sid Nothard
What Is a NAP?
Sid
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/5764A516-92A7-438D-A35C-28F8B0FE1935%40gmail.com.
Sid Nothard
There must be a means of dealing with criminals and the enforcement of contracts.
If contracts cannot be enforced then the contract becomes meaningless.
So it seems to me that limited government institutions are unavoidable.
Yes, no government anywhere gives a hoot about these matters because they are all based on the
Platonic model in which the people are ruled by the “Elite” who are in it for their own short term gain.
So government structures need to be completely overhauled, but that is not likely to happen in the near
future because those with political power will cling to it even if it means climbing over a mountain of skulls.
Sid
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/78F304A4-494F-4875-8F13-A02AF7B691C5%40gmail.com.
viv...@iafrica.com
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2024 12:22:13 PM
Trevor Watkins
I take Sid and Stephen's point - my definition of victim was not obvious to everybody (I try to be as brief as possible, which is often a fault). I have rewritten that section of the essay as follows:
Most conflicts between 2 or more individuals involve some form of violence. How do you apportion blame, if any, for such incidents?
Did any victim suffer real, physical harm?
Did the victim of the harm consent to that harm?
Scenario 1
As an expert on the HCR, imagine you are asked to resolve a conflict between 2 individuals, Bob and Mike. Witnesses at the scene confirm that Bob attacked Mike and wrestled him to the ground. It seems like a simple case of initiated violence for which Bob is responsible. However, it emerges that Mike had stolen Bob’s wallet at knife-point, and Bob was defending himself and his property, as is his right. No HCR violation by Bob.
Key point: always establish if the use of force was justified before leaping to a conclusion. Simpler rules such as the NAP do not make this critical distinction.
Scenario 2
Jill accuses Jack of causing her severe mental harm by insulting her in public. No real, physical harm to Jill is observed. Jack asserts his right to free speech. No HCR violation by Jack.
Key point: if no actual harm occurs, there is no HCR violation.
Scenario 3
Paul is observed choking to death in a restaurant by Dr Jim. Paul is unconscious. Dr Jim performs a tracheotomy, which saves Paul’s life. Paul sues Dr Jim for committing violence against him without his consent. Dr Jim is guilty of an HCR violation.
Key point: you can never assume consent.
All these cases would be subject to a review by a jury of peers.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/002a01db59c8%242bdf3020%24839d9060%24%40mweb.co.za.
Sid Nothard
The only thing a person has is his good name – his reputation.
It takes years to build it, and it can be destroyed in a flash.
Damage to one’s reputation may not cause any immediate physical harm, but the damage can be far reaching
and as bad as being choked to death, only much slower.
Sid
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LmHazu0Kn7D0x-6j2UM3Tfbk72q71hOUq%3DkiFxB6UPAkA%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen vJ
HCR Decision tree<image001.jpg>
Stephen vJ
HCR Decision tree<image001.jpg>
Trevor Watkins
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/001201db5a10%24733b14f0%2459b13ed0%24%40mweb.co.za.
Trevor Watkins
"Taken property is not physical harm". Oh well, there goes the "right to own property" of the whole freedom movement.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/009F0977-7820-46C3-9E50-CBE556706DB2%40gmail.com.
Stephen vJ
Sid Nothard
Lose your reputation with your business associates and you will starve..
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3DCxv-QHGe1ZUR2TV%3DW2q6dDRGahSE7Q6Zm_8sz%2BvxCmg%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen vJ
HCR Decision tree
