HarmConsentRule - HCR

[Trevor Watkins]

Render no harm without consent, except in self-defense

Trevor Watkins 7th February 2024

The HarmConsentRule (HCR) provides a brief and simple statement for judging 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 specifies 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 receiving 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.

Like physicists seek the fundamental particle of reality, ethicists seek  the fundamental principle of morality. The one principle that integrates and incorporates the many others. Many might say this is an impossible task, but logic alone says that a correct moral principle must have a single expression. If there are 2 correct but different moral principles on the same subject, one must be more correct than the other, otherwise they are the same principle. The challenge is to identify the most consistent, all-encompassing, least contradictory principle from amongst the many on offer.

Definitions 

The HarmConsent rule applies to ALL humans. 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.

“Harm” is any act which materially 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.

“Harmed” is any act which harms you. 

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.

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.

7. Other opinions of what’s good for you
   Others can suggest, or demonstrate, or persuade - but they cannot compel you
   
   

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]

😊👍👌 ... 

Yes, this is one of those in a nutshell wisdoms that seem trivial yet someone had to first articulate them, that someone being you, Trevor 😊👍👍👍

I expect that HCR will gain more and more traction in the overall content relating to libertarianism and individualism ... as evidence AI already having picked up on it!

It is not often that one would have the privilege of being in contact with the originator of an innovative principle 😊 ... kudos to you Trevor !!!

--
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/61c42651-23b3-42f2-be75-1b7502973ae0n%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

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Yes, kudos Trevor. I know that I question, critique and disagree with certain bits of just about everything on this forum, but let me tell you when I got to Calgary and met up with the local Libertarians, they were all waving NAP around like it was the bible... they were stunned to silence when I pointed out several of the shortcomings of NAP w.r.t. medical procedures, sexual acts and contact sports... some of them asked "but what then ?" and I had a ready answer in the Consent Axiom, which made several people really sit up and pay attention. I believe that writing this all down, then mauling it over and continuously refining it, is the real value a Libertarian society like ours adds to this world. It is the cutting edge of philosophical thinking, at least in this corner of the field. I'm eager to absorb whatever the next version of that edge is and I should point out that I do that by trying to poke holes in it... as others may when I share it with them. I hope that does not come across as criticism.

S.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN1NN53VG1Cj4r7GsPRY_RttEV6T%3DRf0namaA3PoFfGoJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

👍👍👍👌 ... 😊

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAMr06S7LVMw1kZ6Og0%3D-nRi95w4Nnp406TwserLM7P1SkcLFiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dewald Katzke]

"Because we have lacked a reliable standard of conduct,"

What you are talking about is basically the golden rule right? You are just not grounding it on a god or religious institution but reason right?

Your contradiction (point 1 - 7) might be explained as no longer treating others like you would like them to treat you, but being perceived to do so. So it all becomes performative and what you can get away with.

What is the cure for the lack of a standard? A new religion or god for enforcement?

[Trevor Watkins]

The Golden Rule is generally expressed as "Do as you would be done by". This says you should behave towards others as you wish others to behave towards you. But this is an arbitrary standard, dependent on the vagaries of human nature. If I am a narcissist, I will expect everyone to adore and praise me, as I adore them. If I am a psychopath, I may expect very dangerous behaviour from others to match my own dangerous behaviour. This rule requires others to mind read the behaviour I happen to expect, and respond accordingly.

The cure I propose is the HCR, render me no harm without my consent. It is not subject to the expectations of others, it is not subject to circumstances or debate. If you do not have my consent (for whatever reason) you may do me no harm.

How do you enforce this? Long answer. But at least start with the right rule.

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/BPJvIDr7awA/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/467ddaf2-cd8e-4143-83d1-4f7e6e36fd7cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

👍👍👍👌 ... HCR is more precise than the Golden Rule by far ... 

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/CAN6K2Lmwf5XTSYLtZA_jg%2B0VWmZdHhg8xnjxLuZvMhL%3DWBh%2B%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.