Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals

Posted by zuwr on December 16, 2008, 03:54 PM | #

Are women sovereign?  May a man challenge a woman to combat?

Posted by James Bowery on December 16, 2008, 04:20 PM | #

The definition of “Shield” is a mutually consenting relationship—frequently between a man and a woman of reproductive age—in which one gives up their status as Sovereign in exchange for the protection of a Sovereign—protection from being challenged to formal combat. 

Only Sovereigns may vote.

It is also the default status of children with respect to their mothers and or their mothers’ respective Sovereigns.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 16, 2008, 08:08 PM | #

Any particular woman you were thinking of challenging, zuwr?

Posted by Guessedworker on December 16, 2008, 08:11 PM | #

James, would a politics of sovereignism affirm or negate particularity and dependence?

Posted by Rollory on December 16, 2008, 10:33 PM | #

This is a bit too wordy to be popular. 

As for point 6, I for one would never consent to giving up the ability to use a gun, and I would use said gun on anybody who attempted to compel it.

Posted by Rollory on December 16, 2008, 11:18 PM | #

... and having said that, and thought about it some more, I can see the value in having the blade-only rule for this specific circumstance.

Need to think this over.

The rest of it seems very sound.

Posted by James Bowery on December 17, 2008, 01:23 AM | #

GW, different territories would tend to acquire their own human ecologies simply because incompatibles residing too close to each other would be at each other’s throats in a most literal and legitimized manner.  This is one of the reasons I am so focused on assortative migration.

As for “dependence” I’m not sure what you mean.  Certainly there would be dependence of men upon women for reproduction and women and children upon men for protection.  The rest would be a matter of societal amity but I think there are inherent limits imposed by the idea that individuals cannot really be sovereign if they are too dependent on others.

Where things get more interesting is when armed gangs start roaming the countryside attacking individuals.  Point 5 gives license to the individual sovereigns to form voluntary armies in self-defense.  Desertion would not be punishable by the group—only by individuals willing to challenge the deserter or, less severely, to merely fight him in a non-lethal and non-disfiguring manner.

Posted by James Bowery on December 17, 2008, 02:50 AM | #

A little illustration of how this would affect things in practical terms:

In 2002, Waisman rejected a challenge to a duel with pistols on a Lima beach with independent congressman, Eittel Ramos, to settle a dispute over alleged insults. Ramos said the vice president had insulted him after Ramos criticised first lady Eliane Karp for saying “two-bit parties” were trying to undermine her husband. The vice president “called my attitude cowardly because I said what I said about a woman,” Ramos said. He said the invitation to Mr Waisman to a duel was a matter of honour for him. Waisman said he was a civilised and peaceful man, and his moral beliefs prevented him from trying to end another’s life.

Both David Waisman and Eliane Karp are Jewish immigrants to Peru and both of them held highly influential government positions in Peru.

Waisman’s refusal to accept Ramos’ challenge to mortal single combat would result in him being subject to the death penalty at the hands of legitimate group force.

Posted by Al Ross on December 17, 2008, 05:22 AM | #

Good plan. Ask Santa Claus.

Posted by John on December 17, 2008, 06:39 AM | #

I said in 2003 that I’d have much preferred to an Iraq War simply to hold between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein a cage match on Pay per View according to WWF rules with no holds barred and a referee agreed to by both of them.

Posted by zuwr on December 17, 2008, 10:30 AM | #

@Fred:  I was testing the boundaries.

@James What is to stop David Waisman from paying to be a shield?  He couldn’t enter politics, but he could still make a living from debt collection/usury.  He would just have to pay some Ultimate Fighter type to be his sovereign.  Is this prohibited in section 5?  If so, how does shielding work?

Posted by cladrastis on December 17, 2008, 12:07 PM | #

This sounds like a great way to get rid of impulsive individualists and subvert the evolution of a more collectivist European group strategy (as predicted by Kevin MacDonald).

One question: when does a shield become a sovereign (or a boy become a man)?  Does this require some minimal number of accomplishments (like survival in the wilderness) and a vote of the sovereigns, or is it wholly age-dependent?

Posted by cladrastis on December 17, 2008, 12:46 PM | #

Also, if a sovereign dies, is killed, or abandons his shields, what happens to such shields?  Are they transferred to the sovereign of the closest living kin?

Posted by James Bowery on December 17, 2008, 04:00 PM | #

Al:  You seem smug. Do you really think the center is going to hold?

As for the discussion of Sovereign vs Shielded, from pages 88-90:

LANGUAGE FOR THE AGREEMENT

Instead of using the words “adult” and “minor,” or “female” and “male,” or “authority” and “layman,” or any the many other pairs now used to designate and confuse social roles, this agreement uses only two won “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 specfied 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.

Posted by James Bowery on December 17, 2008, 05:29 PM | #

zuwr asks (rewording slightly for accuracy): “James What is to stop David Waisman from paying to be shielded?”

Nothing except other sovereigns who would find Waisman’s sovereign shield to be despicable for shielding him.

This is, in fact, part of how Jews originally gained entry to the Goths: Court Jews.  Together they brought down the corrupt Roman Empire but, Jews managed to replace the Goths’ indigenous religion with a “turn the other cheek for foreigners” religion while Jews retained their tribal “tit-for-tat for foreigners” religion.  The way they did this was probably a combination of setting up Gothic leaders with permanent gang structures based on spoils from the Roman Empire.  The problem is how to prevent that from happening again—perhaps not with Court Jews this time but perhaps with Court Dravidians, Court Muslims or Court Africans.

The key is watching carefully for the “Ultimate Fighter with his toadies” game and make sure that the moment he does anything that even smells of violating point #5 that he is tried, convicted and executed by an army of other sovereigns.

Posted by Rollory on December 17, 2008, 06:46 PM | #

Thinking about this more, the last sentence of point 2 is a problem.

Any civilization worthy of the name (and I am not convinced that civilization itself is invariably bad) must be patriarchal.  http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html goes over this argument at length, and better than I can.  A society where a woman has the ability to summarily and unilaterally dissolve a family with no consequences is not a society that will produce anything worthwhile.  That she have veto power over acceptance in the first place, yes, but once accepted, divorce or its equivalent needs to be very very difficult.

A man works for his children.  If he has no children - or, more commonly right now, no control over them or input into their lives - he might as well stay home and drink beer and play video games all day.

Posted by James Bowery on December 17, 2008, 07:51 PM | #

Correct, Rollory.  The question is whether civilization can be made eugenic rather than dysgenic.  Clearly the “woman’s choice” civilization that provides state protection of women invites all manner of subversion of healthy sexuality.  In an individual sovereignty culture a woman’s choice has far reaching consequences for her without the state as sovereign.

Posted by Lurker on November 28, 2009, 01:16 AM | #

A man works for his children.  If he has no children - or, more commonly right now, no control over them or input into their lives - he might as well stay home and drink beer and play video games all day.

Though sometimes they work for their neices/nephews.