Manifest lies

[Trevor Watkins]

Manifesto season is upon us. Every man and his dog has a heartfelt and lengthy manifesto, words filled with sound and fury, promising everything, delivering nothing. Not one is honest, Not one lists the things you can’t expect, the stuff you must do if you wish to succeed, the sacrifices this will involve. 

As a voter and citizen of South Africa, what should you be looking for in a political party and its manifesto?

How about a track record of delivering on promises? Fat chance.

Perhaps honesty? Do they promise stuff that everyone knows is unachievable, like free medical care for all, or free tertiary education, or land redistribution without compensation. Extravagant ideas, but not a snowball’s chance in hell of being implemented.

Do they skip over the nasty bits, like crime, unemployment, infrastructure collapse?

Do any of them promise to leave you alone? To let you keep your income. To raise your kids as you see fit. To protect you from the bad guys. To stop interfering in every aspect of your life. To do less, rather than more.

On 29th May I might vote for a party with the following manifesto. I just haven't found it yet.

We will not harm you.

We will not steal from you.

We will respect you.

We will not lie to you.

We will not solve all your problems, you must do that.

We will not give you special advantages, that is not fair.

We will not fix everything, because that is too hard.

oooOOOooo

The Individualist Movement is not a party, and it is not contesting the elections. It is a group of South Africans who believe in individual freedom. However, we do have a manifesto, which follows.

The Individualist Manifesto is short, less than a page. It consists of 4 short sentences, propositions that anyone can understand. Its aim is to provide words that will protect the rights of each individual within a society, without exceptions.  It uses profound but simple words, like harm, consent, respect, property, rule of law.

The Individualist Manifesto

Render no harm without consent, except in self-defense

Respect those who respect you

Recognise property rights

Resolve disputes by jury

Governments, businesses and other individuals would have to seek consent from each and every individual before causing them harm. They would have to respect the independence of their citizens and customers. They could not take their property without their consent. This manifesto would protect the integrity of every individual, poor, rich, powerful or weak.  

This is hopelessly utopian, many would say. Yet we live most of our lives within these rules. If you are not causing harm, you expect your neighbour to respect your privacy. You do not expect your neighbour to decide what you may eat, or say, or how you must behave, in public or in private. You do not expect to be robbed, or attacked, or held captive. If you or your neighbour behaves unreasonably, you expect  to be judged for this. 

For some reason this only becomes utopian when government gets involved.

The Individualist manifesto does not promise grants, or houses, or jobs paid for by some unspecified others. Mostly, it specifies what individuals or groups may not do. 

If you are averse to lies, if you do not seek to profit at the expense of others, if you simply wish to be left alone, then this is the manifesto for you.

For more information, or to become a member, visit the Individualist Movement website at www.individualist.one

[Gabri Rigotti]

😊👍👌

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/7b1514b8-d6c1-40dd-a080-ae93de90e262n%40googlegroups.com.

[Stephen vJ]

My "review comments";

0. In your preamble you say "Its aim is to provide words that will protect the rights of each individual within a society, without exceptions". It is unclear to me how words will protect people, so the "words that will protect" part reinforces the idea alluded to in several other places that a) there will be some government, governing body, mob, mafia or gun-toting institution to support and enforce the manifesto and b) you envisage some kind of legal system to support this. Mere words will not protect and rights imply some system of law, which in turn implies an authority of some sort. It is not clear to me who or what that body or bodies will be.

The 4 lines of the manifesto itself;

1. I might have added "or by accident", but it is ok as written. I also think this is the core of the manifesto and the meat of the case.

2. To me, this line is superfluous and redundant. Someone can respect me and still take part of my income in taxes (illogical and flawed reasoning on their part, but we're not assuming here that all humans are logical, reasonable, educated, consistent and correct)... or they could disrespect me, but still respect my right to life and property, which is close enough. Personally, I don't think this line is necessary.

3. Sure... except I would have left out the word "rights", since that implies a government or some system of authority or imposed law. I would have phrased this as "Respect private property".

4. I don't like juries. Someone needs to pay for their time or compel them to do it, which implies taxation and / or the use of force. Also, I've watched enough episodes of Dateline to know that juries are similar to throwing dice. The outcome is just as often as not the opposite of what a reasonable man or a trained judge would have concluded. In many US states you can choose if you want a trial by jury or by judge... I would choose judge every time. Unless your jury is a large population voting ala Wisdom of Crowds, I would rather go for the trained professional. But who am I to stifle and limit your choices ? Maybe the ability to choose judge or jury is the best way to go, so I can have my judge and you can have your jury.... and if it's done in a free market, one of us will have an incentive to switch to the cheaper option... which, who knows which one it will be.

All that said, if I were a citizen of SA and you had a party with that manifesto, I would still not vote, but if compelled to vote, this is the one I would choose. Nobody else comes anywhere close to a manifesto that puts individual rights and freedom first and this one comes about as close as I think you could.

Stephen.

[Trevor Watkins]

In red below

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Sun, 12 May 2024 at 19:33, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

My "review comments";

0. In your preamble you say "Its aim is to provide words that will protect the rights of each individual within a society, without exceptions". It is unclear to me how words will protect people, so the "words that will protect" part reinforces the idea alluded to in several other places that a) there will be some government, governing body, mob, mafia or gun-toting institution to support and enforce the manifesto and b) you envisage some kind of legal system to support this. Mere words will not protect and rights imply some system of law, which in turn implies an authority of some sort. It is not clear to me who or what that body or bodies will be.

 

"Its aim is to provide words that will protect the rights of each individual within a society, without exceptions

We use words to describe our opinion, our point of view, what we believe, what we will do. It is the primary feature that separates us humans from the rest of the planet. Unless delivered above 100 decibels, words will not physically protect you, but they are regularly used to summon help that might protect you. Shouting "Help" from the middle of a swimming pool does not imply a government or mafia, but probably implies others near you who might assist. If its the state-appointed life-guard paid for with your taxes, then you got lucky. Mostly, its not.  It does not imply a legal system, merely a sense of common self-interest and concern for one's fellows..

rights imply some system of law, which in turn implies an authority of some sort

Your "rights" are the terms of the agreement which you and your fellow inhabitants of an area agree to mutually respect. For example, "don't kill without cause, don't steal without consent." They are words, not swords. They will not physically protect you like a magic spell. But agreeing on a sensible and fair agreement is a good start towards a peaceful and prosperous society. The HCR is a step in that direction. You might appoint an authority to give force to your agreement, but you do so at your peril.

 

The 4 lines of the manifesto itself;

1. I might have added "or by accident", but it is ok as written. I also think this is the core of the manifesto and the meat of the case.

Yip, that's why it's first. 

2. To me, this line is superfluous and redundant. Someone can respect me and still take part of my income in taxes (illogical and flawed reasoning on their part, but we're not assuming here that all humans are logical, reasonable, educated, consistent and correct)... or they could disrespect me, but still respect my right to life and property, which is close enough. Personally, I don't think this line is necessary.

but still respect my right to life and property,

Interesting that you use that phrase.  I observed that almost all human conflicts started with a lack of respect for the other and their point of view. I thought it worth mentioning. But yes, it is a bit airy-fairy.

3. Sure... except I would have left out the word "rights", since that implies a government or some system of authority or imposed law. I would have phrased this as "Respect private property".

4. I don't like juries. Someone needs to pay for their time or compel them to do it, which implies taxation and / or the use of force. Also, I've watched enough episodes of Dateline to know that juries are similar to throwing dice. The outcome is just as often as not the opposite of what a reasonable man or a trained judge would have concluded. In many US states you can choose if you want a trial by jury or by judge... I would choose judge every time. Unless your jury is a large population voting ala Wisdom of Crowds, I would rather go for the trained professional. But who am I to stifle and limit your choices ? Maybe the ability to choose judge or jury is the best way to go, so I can have my judge and you can have your jury.... and if it's done in a free market, one of us will have an incentive to switch to the cheaper option... which, who knows which one it will be.

A judge is just a jury of one. Stats will show a tendency towards a true mean the larger the sample. A jury as I describe solves many problems, but not all. Let the litigants decide in a free market.

All that said, if I were a citizen of SA and you had a party with that manifesto, I would still not vote, but if compelled to vote, this is the one I would choose. Nobody else comes anywhere close to a manifesto that puts individual rights and freedom first and this one comes about as close as I think you could.

Thanks

Stephen.

On May 12, 2024, at 02:34, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Its aim is to provide words that will protect the rights of each individual within a society, without exceptions

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/BA9FA55D-67BD-47F3-9AF1-5609C0E674F9%40gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

"A judge is just a jury of one.".

Well. Ok. That made me think long and hard. That makes me very uncomfortable. I might lie awake tonight because of this.

S.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2LkmW0f7_u4y9V8RfHunO%2BjEt3JJ2_cq6tf3-yDO4%2Bg-1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

The idea that a judge is an impartial omnipotent dispenser of justice is a dangerous myth propagated in the absence until now of an option that is but a Stone Age artifact ...

The jury is a desperate attempt to find a method that is less dangerous ...

But do you want to be Trump facing a partisan judge and a jury selected from an area that is almost 90% Democrat voting and manifesting a pandemic of full blown TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) ... 😂?

TDS is rampant even among self identyfing "libertarians" ...

A jury can mitigate the risk of error or bias but not in the way it is selected in the USA ... half the population of the USA is not represented in the sitting jury ... 

But it could be if the jury selection was based on a more representative basis.

A jury is less dangerous but it should be representative of the overall national  demographic ... 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAMr06S7tf%3DBEhO4cw-0ozMRyj4N_nm0LZA9nDK2fU_Dyemk%2ByQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Basing a jury on the national demographic doesn't work so well in SA if you are white. Rather let half the jury be chosen by the complainant, half by the defendant, and the jury foreman with a casting vote is chosen randomly from amongst the jurors.  Then allow appeals until 3 identical verdicts are obtained.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN1dCODKLxhPPnmyGSX-XnH7fx3GxtvJVP1EfS29O95vXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

Yes that is a practical realistic jury option Trevor ... 😊👍👍👍👌

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2L%3DdonkkNQJ1M9HD4ALbNf%2BWWHTgt2C3aCX4y6PmEYU%3D%2BQ%40mail.gmail.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

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

That's nice, but who pays for it all ?

S.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN1H%2BNk93Ep%3D%3D1PLEpsaM3AeZCF2Di7v0zMjLKwbj97_HQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Both litigants pay in equal share if they wish the matter to proceed. Thereafter, the losing litigant pays in full. If they don't or won't a new case is opened, by the winning litigant. After 3 identical decisions, the winning litigant may exercise force to achieve restitution or payment, without sanction.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/libsa/2ScYuRatWeI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAMr06S5hQqN1Bske-dg4AbGo2TwxK6n-oJcmDSxLnks7q3NtPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

This is certainly a reasonable proposal.

Right now the USA has the jury system, paid for by the taxpayer. So there is a real world basis, albeit not even remotely as fair as that which you propose.

In a libertarian system the free market will deliver innovative offers regarding jurors. More than likely there will be the offer of a supply of jurors who may very well be operating as professionals.

It is difficult to imagine all that could come about but in a genuine free market all sorts of solutions are possible even if they cannot be imagined now.

For example, there is a branch of mathematics that has a comprehensive symbology of vocabulary that any verbal argument can be distilled into a sequence of true or false statements.

Typically philosophers tend to use this (I suspect Wittgenstein did so especially) although lawyers are supposed to as they will have done at least a Logics 1.01 in their degrees. Even if it is the case that once they have passed their exam most lawyers probably never ever will use formal logic symbology ...

Today, AI could do the distillation of any verbal argument and render the True/False sequences graphically, a flow chart of the truth or falseness of pleadings and counter pleadings.

This would be literally a mathematical proof, which can be peer reviewed by independent AIs automatically or even manually by logic experts.

Being lightning fast, the jurors could be AI services chosen by the litigants on the basis that you propose.

Initially these services would appear in the market at a cost that will through competition reduce to reach affordable price points for the general market.

How I have stated it may be somewhat crude in hindsight 😂 at a future point but the free market is a powerful phenomenon and AI jurors may eventually be a trusted reality.

Already voluminous bodies of law could be analysed to ascertain internal consistency, just for starters.

My view is that how this is paid for in a libertarian state will be resolved ... it is merely creative innovation ... and the free market will most probably deliver.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2LnmvWstcpxMwG4V00Gzihe51g_tY8coGUF%2B5kQd1hZsFg%40mail.gmail.com.