Ending Imprisonment’s Slavery With Border Enforcement

Capitalism is in a political deadlock with liberal democracy’s tyranny of the majority limited only by vague laundry list of selectively enforced “human rights”.

Breaking this deadlock requires empirically grounding the social sciences by sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them: Sortocracy.

This means that the current model of “human rights” must be replaced with a single, well defined, right to vote with your feet. This right to vote with your feet necessarily implies three material rights:

  1. The material right to land.
  2. The material right to transportation.
  3. The material right to border enforcement.

#1 is obvious since you can’t put your social theory into practice without land. #2 is also obvious as people who cannot practically relocate cannot vote with their feet.

#3 _should_ be obvious but, due to the moral zeitgeist, it is not. Incarceration rates, particularly in the US, show us that there are two, fundamentally opposed, kinds of borders: Those that keep people out and those that keep people in. Of the two, the kind that keeps people in is least compatible with the right to vote with your feet.  Even the US’s 13th Amendment to the Constitution has provision for involuntary servitude: Slavery for those imprisoned.  We see a prison-industrial complex arising at the interface of government and capitalism to exploit this loophole in the 13th Amendment.  The moral zeitgeist’s mandate is “let people in”.  What is not admitted is this necessarily entails walls that keep people from leaving who are found to be “criminal” by the admitting society.

The moral zeitgeist has to reconcile its moral outrage at imprisonment with its moral outrage at border controls. The only realistic answer to this is absolute enforcement of free emigration combined with absolute tolerance of restrictive immigration.

The State of Nature

In “The Social Conquest of Earth, E. O. Wilson presents a compelling argument that individual selection is compatible with biodiversity while group selection, resulting in highly social organizations as found in eusocial insects, tends toward dominance of the environment. This tendency toward environmental dominance reaches its ultimate expression in humanity’s potential for eusocial organizations, such as civilization with its concomitant mass extinctions.

Therefore, where humans intend to coexist with nature’s biodiversity, a sound social arrangement prefers individual, over group, selection. The rules governing such a society may be thought of as constituting a State of Nature.

In statecraft, a useful way to think about “selection” is via the concept of “sovereignty” or “integrity”.  Sovereignty is the locus of agency.  Integrity — the proper integration of parts into a whole — is in service of that agency.  Individual integrity is more compatible with nature’s biodiversity than is group integrity.

In what follows, underlined words are my modifications* to the original (cite given at the end) “Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals” — a contract entered into by individuals with other individuals so as to create a society within which individual sovereignty is upheld. These agreements are thought by the author of the book within which they appear to formalize the culture of the pre-Christian Germanic** peoples.

*The here-modified version of the agreement has not been tested in an actual community.  The original form of the agreement, with natural duel and death penalty replaced by non-lethal forms in a “dress rehearsal” society, has been tested successfully.  For a perspective on that test, read “Brave New World: A Different Projection” by John Harland.

**”Germanic” is used in the anthropological sense — that is to say it refers to all pre-Christian northern European peoples, not the modern nation-state.


Instead of using the words “adult” and “minor,” or “female” and “male,” or “authority” and “layman,” or any of the many other pairs now used to designate and confuse social roles, this agreement uses only two words “sovereign” and “shielded.” A significant carry over from current word usage is that “sovereign” implies decision backed by force. Full definition is given to the word “sovereign” and “shielded” by pointing out their social function.

This agreement recognizes that force is an element of every social structure. At the same time it recognizes that a quality of being that inspires protection is the essential balancing element to force.

The force that perpetuates the social organization set forth here is that of sovereign individuals.

Those who inspire and receive the protection of an individual sovereign are designated as “shielded.” The shielded have some protection by all sovereigns and some behavior is enforced on them by all sovereigns. When old enough, children of either sex who have been shielded, may choose forceful sovereignty. As an alternative, they may choose to continue non-participation in the use of force by not declaring their sovereignty.

This agreement gives formal social approval to the use of force in certain circumstances by sovereign individuals. This agreement severely limits the use of group force. The group can use only as much sovereignty as individuals — by this agreement — have delegated to the group and no more.

Within this agreement a vote is always a deliberated group decision to use group force within the severely limited area herein specified that group force can be used. Because a vote is a basis for the use of force, only sovereigns can vote on matters that are decided by vote.

A provision for formal combat between individual sovereigns is a group enforced protection against demagogues who seek to extend the areas for the use of group force. Because men of honor and integrity usually disdain the twisted use of mob-swaying words (the reason-mutilating weapon of demagogues) formal physical combat on Nature’s terms is every sovereign’s prerogative.

A shielded person cannot vote and cannot be challenged to formal combat.

Small children cannot effectively function as sovereigns, and some adults may not wish to do so. Such persons may be shielded by a sovereign individual.

The shielded are partially protected from action of other sovereigns by the one sovereign under whose shield they live. A shielded person becomes subject to the discipline of all sovereigns if the one sovereign’s shield is removed.

The following statements help define the terms “sovereign” and “shielded”:

A child is born protected by the shield of its mother if she is sovereign or by the shield of her sovereign if she is shielded. Anyone who has reached the age capable of procreation may become sovereign by formal declaration of one’s sovereignty — except for the special condition noted below regarding formal combat.

Except for the special condition noted below regarding formal combat, a sovereign acting alone may remove the shield from one protected by it. Removal is made by a formal declaration of the fact. The shielded person thereby becomes sovereign.

All who are protected by a sovereign’s shield become sovereign if their sovereign dies or disappears.

A sovereign who, is shielding no one may cease to be sovereign and become shielded by another sovereign if formal declaration of the relationship is made by both sovereign and shielded.

A sovereign (unshielded) child who is too young to make a valid declaration of its wishes may become shielded by a sovereign who makes a formal declaration of the relationship.


  1. Except in self defense or enforcement of this agreement, no one may willfully kill, disable, or permanently disfigure another. No one may secretly restrain another. No one who has reached the age capable of procreation may physically force upon another any offensive, sexually-oriented act; nor engage in any offensive, sexually-oriented act with any person who has not reached the age capable of procreation even when no force is involved. An open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns assembled as set forth In 3 below shall be the effective determination as to whether the alleged act took place and whether the act was offensive and was sexually-oriented. Any degree of participation in group force that results in violation of this point of agreement regarding offensive, sexually-oriented acts makes every participant fully guilty of the result, along with the person actually performing the act.
  2. No man shall force the act of procreation on a woman. Rape Is hereby defined as an act of procreation without the involved woman’s deliberated consent. Any man who engages with a woman in an act of procreation without her formal, publicly-proclaimed deliberated consent may be found guilty of rape. In the absence of a formal public acceptance, the individual woman involved Is the sole judge of whether an act of procreation was rape. If a woman who has not made advance formal acceptance of a man prior to the act of procreation, formally accuses him of rape within three months after the alleged act, and if a majority of sovereigns assembled as set forth in 3 below vote that the man engaged in the act, then It shall invariably be construed as rape – even though it may clearly be shown that the woman Invited, or even persuaded, the man to engage In the act. A woman may revoke formal acceptance of a man at will by giving formal notice of such revocation.
  3. Any individual, either sovereign or shielded, or any group of Individuals, may restrain persons suspected of breaking these agreements for a period of not to exceed fifteen days, conduct a trial for them at a specified, easily accessible place on a date, time, and place publicly and formally announced three days In advance, and penalize (in person or by proxy or proxies) those deemed guilty by an open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns at the trial who are permanent residents of the community. (The composition of “community” and the meaning of “permanent resident” is to be defined by those entering into this agreement.)
  4. No one shall be required to give testimony at a trial but it Is agreed that one found guilty of perjury by formal trial, as set forth In 3 above, shall be subject to the penalty set forth In 7 below.
  5. No additional agreements that give a group’s decisions effective power over individuals shall be made. Any group of two or more individuals who make other agreements giving a group decision effective power over Individuals, or who fail to abide by these agreements, shall be deemed a conspiracy against Individual freedom. All acts against them by an Individual or a group of Individuals who have entered into this agreement shall be construed to be self-defense. — Further explanation: Anyone may bring interpersonal problems before a voluntarily convened formal open Forum structured after the manner of a traditional court of law. In such a Forum opinions regarding the interpersonal problems, and deliberated recommendations for settling differences, can be formally given, but such opinions and recommendations will not be binding on those Involved. Those who bring problems before the formal Forum may, if they choose, make personal agreements congruent with the Forum’s recommendations after the recommendations have been made. Those found guilty of making agreements to be bound by the Forum’s recommendations before the recommendations are made are guilty of making agreements giving a group decision effective power over individuals.
  6. Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:
    1. All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual.
    2. A challenger shall give formal public notice three days prior to combat and a formal public declaration of reasons therefore.
    3. There shall be up to a one year interval from the time one is challenged to formal combat before one may again be engaged as the challenged. This interval may be shorted by the challenged issuing a formal public declaration of its termination. The challenged may not shield others from the end of combat through the end of this interval.
    4. Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed. Terrain of the combat ground shall be varied and extensive enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them. Combatants shall have equal weapons and clothing. Weapons shall be a sword or knife with a blade not to exceed 25 cm (approximately 10 inches) plus a 15 meter (approximately 50 feet) length of strong cordage. All previous agreements between challenger and challenged are automatically suspended during the period of formal combat. There shall be no rules within the combat ground. Challenged and challenger shall enter combat ground from opposite sides. No one but challenger and challenged shall be within the combat ground. No one shall attempt to aid, hinder or observe what happens. It Is intended that only one shall return alive from formal combat. When two return alive one shall forever be shielded by the other. The relationship must be announced jointly by them before they are permitted to leave the combat ground. Two are not permitted to return alive if one has been permanently disabled or disfigured by his opponent.
    5. No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one’s sovereignty.
  7. Guilt for breaking any point of this agreement shall be determined according to Item 3 above. The invariable penalty for anyone found guilty of breaking any point of this agreement shall be death within twenty-four hours.

p90-93, “Valoric Fire And a Working Plan for Individual Sovereignty” From the Valorian Society ISBN 0-914752-18-9

($5 to Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Rd., Rochester, WA 98579)

Minimalist Rules for Sortocracy

Minimalist* Rules for Sortocracy:

  1. Sortocracy recognizes all States* have legitimate power to control the presence of individuals on their respective territories.  This includes exclusion or exile of anyone for any reason whatsoever.
  2. Sortocracy requires that all States provide relocation for anyone, and their dependents, requesting emigration or being exiled. This does _not_ necessarily include relocation of capital assets claimed as “property” by those relocating.  “Property rights” are defined by States themselves, not by Sortocracy. Their dependents include any children that have not been given up for adoption.
  3. Sortocracy grants States territorial value in proportion to a census of their members.  Sortocracy issues cash flow to States for territorial rent.   This money is backed by territorial value.  States then competitively bid to rent territory from Sortocracy.
  4. New individuals qualify for admission to Sortocracy  under one of 2 conditions:
    1. Inheritance:  For example, an ancestor of a child may will his membership to a descendant.
    2. Territorial acquisition:  A State admitting an individual as a new member of Sortocracy must add territory to Sortocracy equal in value a member’s territorial rent.
  5. If no other State will accept a relocating member, at least one State of Nature must be set aside for such members in which human group selection is suppressed by rules enforcing individual sovereignty, including death penalty and deadly natural duel as nature’s preferred dispute processing of last resort.

This eliminates prisons, war over territory and tyranny in all its forms including liberal democracy’s tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced “human rights”.

*Sortocracy achieves the aim of radical minarchism by recognizing the individual’s right to territory is prior to group authority in the form of government, including any more elaborate notions of “property”.  This is founded on the recognition that access to territory is a necessary condition of life and that, prior to group force, such as government, such access is often granted through natural aggression between individuals.

Jury Nullification Remediating Treason Against the People

The controversy over jury nullification reduces to a simple trade-off:

The risk of local tyranny of the majority vs the risk of global tyranny of all kinds.

No humane and sane person would choose the later risk over the former.

No one is truly sovereign without the rightful power to grant amnesty. The most direct expression of a sovereign people is their rightful power to grant amnesty in jury nullification. The systematic and systemic attacks on jury nullification are acts of treason against the sovereignty of the people. The traitors responsible for these attacks should be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced in order to restore the institution of jury nullification as the penultimate  palladium of liberty before it becomes necessary for the sovereign people to take up arms against the de facto government.

The program for overcoming intransigence toward this reform in a timely manner cannot rely on politics, as the de facto government has neutralized the political process. Nor can it rely on the de facto government’s courts, as they — particularly the Supreme Court — have organized the attack on jury nullification. Nor is  State nullification a remedy as these same courts have arrogated to the Federal government unconsititutional powers so great as to render State nullification impotent. This particular failure-mode of the Republic was forewarned during its formation. Specifically the tendency of the Federal courts to arrogate power to the Federal government was seen as counter-balanced by State nullification. This failure mode has now been realized. State nullification is rendered impractical by the bias in revenue and authority in favor of the Federal government. States are de facto agents of the de facto Federal goverment.

The remnant of the institution of jury nullification still retains enough power to remediate the de facto courts’ treason against the people. Therefore the program for overcoming intransigence toward reinstituting jury nullification in a timely manner is to utilize what is left of jury nullification, itself.

Let us herewith establish an internet-based sovereign people’s jury consisting of no less than 1,000 identified (verified as registered voters) citizens wielding openly published, revocable proxies on specific resolutions, indictments, judgments and sentences.

No calls for specific action are permitted but formal calls for jury nullification of the following form:

It is the decision of this sovereign people’s jury that all patriots vote not guilty on any count of indictment, in a trial held in the de facto government’s courts on which they sit as a juror, if the indictment is that the accused is guilty of carrying out the sentence of this sovereign people’s jury, which is hereby declared to be that…. Patriots have a duty to use any means necessary to seat themselves on the de facto government’s juries  in such cases.”

In such a program, there will be 4 classes of actors:

  1. Those sitting on the sovereign people’s jury.
  2. Those spreading the word about the sovereign people’s jury.
  3. Those who manage to get onto the juries of the de facto government’s treasonous courts.
  4. Those who carry out acts that end up in the de facto government’s treasonous courts.

Classes 2 and 3 are available to people who have children or for whatever reason are unable to bear the burden of risking prosecution.  Class 1 is available primarily to single men who are not disposed to other forms of action.  Class 4 is, in part, drawn from the ever-increasing (due to ongoing de facto government treason) population of single men who are otherwise more likely to act injudiciously and trigger martial law, thence bloody revolution as the ultimate “palladium of liberty” within the second amendment.

The need for at least 1,000 members of the Sovereign People’s Jury prior to any action is to ensure that any action taken against the Sovereign People’s Jury results in sufficient public awareness of Jury Nullification that it will be difficult to exclude from the de facto government’s courts at least one juror who understands the techniques of penetrating the treasonous government’s jury selection process.

Since the problem is that the risk of Federal tyranny has been realized as a consequence of attacks on both State and jury nullification, the sovereign people’s jury must consist of those from around the country who have a history of loyalty the the sovereign people and who are willing to put their names forward, publicly, for this purpose. This large and geographically diverse jury necessitates the aforementioned, internet-based open proxy system — open so that it is publicly auditable at all times. This will expose those sitting on the sovereign people’s jury to attacks from the enemies of the sovereign people, but that is necessary for garnering the sovereign people’s trust in its verdicts. As a large number of jurors sit, unanimity must be approximated. A reasonable approximation of unanimity would be 12 parts in 13 of those whose votes, or proxies are, present (voting either yea or nay).

As the First Amendment is still largely functional, this call for specific action is defensible, even when carrying out the sentence may violate the de facto government’s arrogance.

All members of the sovereign people’s jury must formally and publicly report to the “authorities” of the de facto government any and all attempts to discuss with or suggest to them plans for carrying out sentences when those would entail “illegal” activity as defined by the de facto government.

Presently, the treasonous courts will prosecute attorneys for reminding juries of their  duty, as sovereign individuals sitting as jurors, to nullify injustice in the case before them.  But what happens when the case before them is about, precisely, jury nullification?  The treasonous courts can bar from “the facts of the case” obviously relevant information such as the case for jury nullification.  In so doing, they will be providing a conspicuous example of the tyrannical behavior of the government toward the sovereignty of the people.  Moreover, the number of people that must be indicted under such a prosecution would be so large — numbering at the very least in the thousands — that it will be very difficult to contain news about the conspicuous treason of the judge sitting for the case.

The treasonous courts will have a hard time keeping from its carefully-selected jurors, who are deciding “only the facts of the case”, the facts of jury nullification.

In that case, the inescapable judgement call between risking localized tyranny of the majority vs risking globalized tyranny all kinds may be presented, not only to the jury of the de facto government’s courts, but to the sovereign people themselves.

The sovereign people, then, ruling in favor of their own local rightful powers and duties, and doing so within the de facto government’s own courts, the sovereignty of the people might be reasserted peacefully, thereby avoiding the chaos of bloody revolution — the ultimate palladium of liberty embodied in the Second Amendment.

There is a lot of work to be done for this program to be workable but this work is tractable, unlike the work demanded by the treasonous electoral and judicial processes.

The two primary tractable problems to be solved are:

1) Develop software (donations will help expedite this) that realizes the potential of an open proxy system, as outlined in the aforelinked demonstration. Among the sub-problems to be solved are security measures to ensure the authenticity of votes and proxies in a timely manner — possibly involving  repurposing recent innovations in cryptographic currency systems.

2) Develop a method of identifying registered voters who have a history of resisting treason against the people’s sovereignty so that they can be invited to sit on the sovereign people’s jury.

Contact James Bowery if you can contribute at this stage.