Morality is the guide to action. It pertains only to human choices.
It is the study of what to do, and of judging what has been done.
Morality is the higher-level topic of discerning right action from wrong action.
Politics is the higher-level abstract topic of coordinating moral judgment among a community of humans and encoding rules into laws.
All forms of governance and rule throughout history have been built upon a system of rights.
There is a foundational observation and statement of fact that any rational system of rights must be based on and it is this:
Each person has one and only one life to live.
This is the way in which we are all equal. This is the real meaning of the ideal of equality before the law.
It is a fact which all rights must be discussed within the context of. It is the constant context of any discussion of rights.
Each individual has a life, the have only one life, and they are the only rightful and proper owner of that life. So it is also the foundation of any discussion of property.
The bad can only be judged in relation to some concept of the good, so we should start with a statement of the good.
People survive by producing beneficial circumstance. An example is breathing. The intake of oxygen is necessary for the continuance of the decision-making process beyond a very limited timeframe, and so it serves as a good example. The inhalation of oxygen also only needs to occur for a short duration before effluent needs to be exhaled, there is a time-based decision-making component of judgment, and this is true of all decision making and all judgement. The value of inhalation it’s valuable too a particular person and for a particular duration.
Each of these theories of politics starts from the premise of establishing a “right to rule”.
That means they still depend on a moral justification of a right.
The problem is, none of them achieve the concept of right. They attempt to build a political system that are claimed to be based on a right, while at the same time violating that actual concept of a right.
A right is a universal principle of what is right, so as to blame a violation of a write, which is called a wrong. If a man’s rights are violated, we say he was wronged.
You can’t establish a universal system of rights by basing it on a right to violate other people’s rights. There can be no such right, since it would undermine the concept of right and wrong in general.
It’s important to show the problems with democracy as an ideal, because it’s the most popular ideal in many ways.
Countless books and articles focus on “The Threat to Democracy” and “Liberty vs Democracy” [citation needed]
Additionally, societal progress of privatly owned printing, production, and industry is labeld “The democratization of printing” and “the democratization of production”, when, in fact, it’s the opposite of democratization. No one has to vote on what their private means of production will produce.
Democracy is not identical to liberty. Whenever a majority votes to violate the liberty of minorities, democracy is in opposition to liberty. At that point, democracy stands in opposition to rights.
The popular vote is not a moral principle.
Many real-world examples are available: The National Socialist Party of the 1930s and ’40s were popularly elected. Before them, the Soviet socialist “Bulshevek” had been popularly elected at one point, and took the name, which means “majority party”. And, of course, before either of those, the American Democratic Party used the popular vote to enslave minorities in the Democrat South. At that time, the Democratic Party was clear in their messaging that they favored “majority rule” over a system of individual rights, and they used that majority rule to build slave plantations and to start a war to preserve the institution of slavery.
Pretending that popular votes are principles has many adjacent affects. One of the biggest is mistaking populations for populations are principles.
Any discussion of a moral principle in popular media is shure to spend a majority of it’s time referring to popular opinions of representative populations. When discussing the Right or the Left, news commentators will refer the the “new Left” or the “alt right” or to “what the right is now” by referring to popularly elected officials, as if the popularly elected official defines what the principle is.
To clarify this point, I must state what a principle is.
Majority-rule is called out explicitly because it pervades politial thinking amongst advocates of the left and the right in the current day.
It is nearly impossible to discuss a political navigation system, or any political principles, without devolving into arguments over current public opinion with the implied assertion that that is what political distinctions are made out of.
Contra populism, the assertion of this document is that immutable political principles exist, and that it is important to discover, identify, recognize what they are.
It must be pointed out that this view against populism, against the rule by majority vote, is so contrary to generally accepted assumptions and language and narratives that it must be pointed out. There are many widely used idioms which make the assumption that majority opinion is sufficient justification for moral rightness. This document makes the assertion that moral rightness must be corrected by the few, perhaps the one, before it will be adopted by any general population.
Politics is about governance and governance is about laws, and laws are about distinguishing, judging, right from wrong.
It is not about estimating and satisfying the material needs of a population, or of deciding which population to favor over another population.
The “right” and the “left” are often discussed as warring population of competing intents that must be balanced, one against the other, by a political system of checks and “balances”. The left/right dichotomy is described as two “wings” of a bird, which is often taken to be the great Golden Eagle of the national symbol.
But what kind of bird has wings which are at war with each other? How well does a bird fly whose wings are working against the intent of the other wing? That is not how birds work. Birds use their wings together.
But how much more destructive is the view of a great nation of nearly 400 million people to say they have only one head among them? That each person is merely a member, perhaps a feather, making no choices of their own and only obediently following the decisions made in the far awaay head controlled by others?
How has such a destructive image been placed into cultural currency?
Although all forms of governance in the world depend on a system of rights, they are all poorly defined.
Old-world rights have been mostly discarded worldwide after the Declaration of Independence. Devine right reigned in July 1776, but now almost all governments of the world are some form of republic. That is a change unparalleled in world history.
Vague allusions to old-world rights persist, such as films like “The Kings Speech” in which the hero “finds his voice” to declare his right to rule, or in Chinese Communist Party claims to be “favored” by circumstance, or the Democrat Party adoration and elevation of “majority rule” as a foundational principle of the United States, even though they cite the affects of majority rule on minorites as “America’s original sin”.
The problem, the reason these obviously outmoded and outdated systems of rights still have any currency in modern civilization is because the system of individual rights rely almost entirely on the basis of “endowed by our creator”, an unnecissarily vague religious allusion.
This document sets out to establish on a solid foundation an objective system of rights and each of the requirments to formulate them into a valid and validatable government in absentia.
The primary goal is not to establish a government but to establish the requirements for a proper government and to provide a document to which candidates for governments can subscribe.