Laws & Freedom: Abstract - Revision history

Mr Fox at 23:01, 3 August 2026

2026-08-03T23:01:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 3 August 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:
	=== '''Fundamentals''' ===		=== '''Fundamentals''' ===

	Because this approach is taken, laws may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly, unless they apply to a specific pre-defined group as a whole. The Liminal State recognizes three pre-defined groups: ''Non-Citizens'', ''Protected Citizens'' (children, some with an intellectual disability, etc.), and ''Emancipated Citizens'' (adults). Any laws specifically applied to one of these groups must still work within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State.~~<blockquote>~~
			Because this approach is taken, laws may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly, unless they apply to a specific pre-defined group as a whole. The Liminal State recognizes three pre-defined groups: ''Non-Citizens'', ''Protected Citizens'' (children, some with an intellectual disability, etc.), and ''Emancipated Citizens'' (adults). Any laws specifically applied to one of these groups must still work within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State.
	Example 1: A law forbidding men from owning guns would not be allowed, but a law that prevents ''Protected Citizens'' from owning guns would be.		Example 1: A law forbidding men from owning guns would not be allowed, but a law that prevents ''Protected Citizens'' from owning guns would be.
	~~</blockquote>~~Even if a law uses ambiguous or misleading language which overtly doesn’t appear to target a specific sub-group, yet by virtue of the way enforcement would need to be applied still would, that too would be illegal. It is prohibited for any laws to be written in any way that would, in practice, disproportionately affect a subgroup within one of these pre-defined groups.~~<blockquote>~~		Even if a law uses ambiguous or misleading language which overtly doesn’t appear to target a specific sub-group, yet by virtue of the way enforcement would need to be applied still would, that too would be illegal. It is prohibited for any laws to be written in any way that would, in practice, disproportionately affect a subgroup within one of these pre-defined groups.
	Example 2: A law that allows only those people with low average levels of testosterone to own guns would not be allowed, even if some minority population of men could still be eligible under this law.		Example 2: A law that allows only those people with low average levels of testosterone to own guns would not be allowed, even if some minority population of men could still be eligible under this law.
	~~</blockquote>~~While guns could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the ''80% Rule''. This means 80% eligible voters would be required to vote in favor to limit this freedom.		While guns could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the ''80% Rule''. This means 80% eligible voters would be required to vote in favor to limit this freedom.

	It may seem unlikely that 80% of a voting population would agree on anything, but this highlights the greatest advantage of the Liminal State. Only very common sense laws with the widest support of the population should be applied to the whole population. Instead of an entire nation forced to accept a rule that passes with 50% + 1 vote, where clearly half the nation opposes, the ''80% Rule'' forces populations to check themselves from forcing unpopular laws on an unwilling population.		It may seem unlikely that 80% of a voting population would agree on anything, but this highlights the greatest advantage of the Liminal State. Only very common sense laws with the widest support of the population should be applied to the whole population. Instead of an entire nation forced to accept a rule that passes with 50% + 1 vote, where clearly half the nation opposes, the ''80% Rule'' forces populations to check themselves from forcing unpopular laws on an unwilling population.

Mr Fox at 19:08, 3 August 2026

2026-08-03T19:08:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 3 August 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:

	=== '''Conclusion''' ===		=== '''Conclusion''' ===
	While the ''Justice Branch'' of the Liminal State first ensures all potential laws meet a minimum legal standard before there is ever a vote, there’s nothing like a Supreme Court that could overturn existing laws. The Liminal State is truly a government by and for the people, and that means that the people’s votes truly and directly determine the rules of the land, and only by massively popular vote among ''Eligible Voters'' can a law be enacted or removed.		While the ''Justice Branch'' of the Liminal State first ensures all potential laws meet a minimum legal standard before there is ever a vote, there’s nothing like a Supreme Court that could overturn existing laws. The Liminal State is truly a government by and for the people, and that means that the people’s votes truly and directly determine the rules of the land, and only by a massively popular vote among ''Eligible Voters'' can a law be enacted or removed.

	The key understanding here is that smaller groups of ''Citizens'' may have specific freedoms they would like to forfeit for the good of their community. Instead of having to fight for important laws to get passed at the national level, where half of the population will then immediately work to reverse it, ''Citizens'' can mold their communities with their neighbors the way they see fit for themselves.		The key understanding here is that smaller groups of ''Citizens'' may have specific freedoms they would like to forfeit for the good of their community. Instead of having to fight for important laws to get passed at the national level, where half of the population will then immediately work to reverse it, ''Citizens'' can mold their communities with their neighbors the way they see fit for themselves.

Mr Fox at 19:04, 3 August 2026

2026-08-03T19:04:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 3 August 2026
Line 13:		Line 13:

	=== '''Fundamentals''' ===		=== '''Fundamentals''' ===

	Because this approach is taken, laws may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly, unless they apply to a specific pre-defined group as a whole. The Liminal State recognizes three pre-defined groups: ''Non-Citizens'', ''Protected Citizens'' (children, some with an intellectual disability, etc.), and ''Emancipated Citizens'' (adults). Any laws specifically applied to one of these groups must still work within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State.<blockquote>		Because this approach is taken, laws may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly, unless they apply to a specific pre-defined group as a whole. The Liminal State recognizes three pre-defined groups: ''Non-Citizens'', ''Protected Citizens'' (children, some with an intellectual disability, etc.), and ''Emancipated Citizens'' (adults). Any laws specifically applied to one of these groups must still work within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State.<blockquote>
	Example 1: A law forbidding men from owning guns would not be allowed, but a law that prevents ''Protected Citizens'' from owning guns would be.		Example 1: A law forbidding men from owning guns would not be allowed, but a law that prevents ''Protected Citizens'' from owning guns would be.

Mr Fox at 17:43, 3 August 2026

2026-08-03T17:43:34Z

Mr Fox at 16:40, 3 August 2026

2026-08-03T16:40:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 3 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== '''Piers of ~~Sandstone~~''' ===		=== '''Piers of Chalk''' ===
	It may be surprising to some that many nations currently have jurisprudence originating in medieval precedence, from works such as the Magna Carta, Bible or Quran, or even based on the Code of Hammurabi. Over time these laws may stop being enforced, their meaning redefined, or they could be capriciously enforced anew for nefarious reasons by elites as they dictate their preferences onto society.		It may be surprising to some that many nations currently have jurisprudence originating in medieval precedence, from works such as the Magna Carta, Bible or Quran, or even based on the Code of Hammurabi. Over time these laws may stop being enforced, their meaning redefined, or they could be capriciously enforced anew for nefarious reasons by elites as they dictate their preferences onto society.

Mr Fox at 03:26, 3 August 2026

2026-08-03T03:26:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:26, 3 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			=== '''Piers of Sandstone''' ===
	It may be surprising to some that many nations currently have jurisprudence originating in medieval precedence, from works such as the Magna Carta, Bible or Quran, or even based on the Code of Hammurabi. Over time these laws may stop being enforced, their meaning redefined, or they could be capriciously enforced anew for nefarious reasons by elites as they dictate their preferences onto society.		It may be surprising to some that many nations currently have jurisprudence originating in medieval precedence, from works such as the Magna Carta, Bible or Quran, or even based on the Code of Hammurabi. Over time these laws may stop being enforced, their meaning redefined, or they could be capriciously enforced anew for nefarious reasons by elites as they dictate their preferences onto society.

			=== '''New Bedrock''' ===
	The Liminal State instead deconstructs these sources, takes lessons from history, philosophy, and even evolutionary psychology, and ultimately asks “what do we really need to coexist in a modern society?” In essence, the Liminal State starts with a blank slate and builds up; using a unique and far more equitable method among existing democracies for creating new laws and and shaping our communities.		The Liminal State instead deconstructs these sources, takes lessons from history, philosophy, and even evolutionary psychology, and ultimately asks “what do we really need to coexist in a modern society?” In essence, the Liminal State starts with a blank slate and builds up; using a unique and far more equitable method among existing democracies for creating new laws and and shaping our communities.

Line 7:		Line 9:
	This philosophy makes the Liminal State the only government intentionally designed from inception to accommodate vast populations with unique perspectives and cultures, and perhaps therefore the only governmental structure that could ever work at an international level.		This philosophy makes the Liminal State the only government intentionally designed from inception to accommodate vast populations with unique perspectives and cultures, and perhaps therefore the only governmental structure that could ever work at an international level.

	=== '''~~Aspiration~~''' ===		=== '''Summation''' ===
	At ~~the highest~~ level ~~of the Liminal State~~, all people start with complete freedom. ~~Laws~~ are ~~then~~ passed to restrict these freedoms in the most limited ways possible, until there is an ideal balance between freedoms and the limits on those freedoms, and a balanced social construct has been reached where all ''Citizens'' can live and work together in this healthy and ~~productive~~ society.		At a high level, all people start with complete freedom in the Liminal State. Foundational laws then ensure all are treated equally and the people are prioritized above all else, thereby creating a level playing field. Then subsequent laws are passed, per the Citizens' wishes, to restrict these freedoms in the most limited ways possible, until there is an ideal balance between freedoms and the limits on those freedoms, and a balanced social construct has been reached where all ''Citizens'' can live and work together in this healthy, productive, and fulfilled society.

	=== '''Fundamentals''' ===		=== '''Fundamentals''' ===

Mr Fox at 01:23, 3 August 2026

2026-08-03T01:23:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:23, 3 August 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:

	=== '''Aspiration''' ===		=== '''Aspiration''' ===
	At the highest level of the Liminal State, all people start with complete freedom. Laws are then passed to restrict these freedoms in the most limited ways possible, until there is an ideal balance between freedoms and the limits on those freedoms, and a balanced social construct has been reached where all ~~citizens~~ can live and work together in this healthy and productive society.		At the highest level of the Liminal State, all people start with complete freedom. Laws are then passed to restrict these freedoms in the most limited ways possible, until there is an ideal balance between freedoms and the limits on those freedoms, and a balanced social construct has been reached where all ''Citizens'' can live and work together in this healthy and productive society.

	=== '''Fundamentals''' ===		=== '''Fundamentals''' ===
	Because this approach is taken, laws ~~affecting citizens~~ may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly.		Because this approach is taken, laws may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly, unless they apply to a specific pre-defined group. The Liminal State recognizes three pre-defined groups: ''Non-Citizens'', ''Protected Citizens'' (children, some with an intellectual disability, etc.), and ''Emancipated Citizens'' (adults). Any laws specifically applied to one of these groups must still work within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State.<blockquote>
	~~For example, "~~men ~~may not get tattoos" is~~ not be allowed ~~because it singles out men~~, ~~though "tattoos are forbidden"~~ would be ~~lawful~~.		Example 1: A law forbidding men from owning guns would not be allowed, but a law that prevents ''Protected Citizens'' from owning guns would be.
	Even if a law uses ~~other~~ language ~~that~~ doesn’t ~~overtly~~ target a specific group, ~~but would~~ by virtue of the way ~~the law was written or~~ enforcement would ~~require~~, that would ~~also not~~ be ~~allowed~~. ~~Even in situations where the law~~ is written ~~broadly but~~ would in practice disproportionately affect ~~a subset~~ of ~~the population, it would not be allowed~~.		</blockquote>Even if a law uses ambiguous or misleading language which overtly doesn’t appear to target a specific sub-group, yet by virtue of the way enforcement would need to be applied still would, that too would be illegal. It is prohibited for any laws to be written in any way that would, in practice, disproportionately affect one of these pre-defined groups.<blockquote>
	~~For example, “no one~~ with ~~less than 2xX chromosomes may get tattoos”~~ would not be ~~lawful~~.		Example 2: A law that allows only those people with low average levels of testosterone to own guns would not be allowed, even if some minority population of men could still be eligible under this law.
	While ~~tattoos~~ could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the 80% ~~rule~~. This means ~~that~~ 80% of voters~~, which makes up 80% of the eligible population,~~ would be required to vote in favor ~~of this law~~ to limit this freedom.		</blockquote>While guns could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the ''80% Rule''. This means 80% eligible voters would be required to vote in favor to limit this freedom.

	It may seem unlikely that 80% of a voting population would agree on anything, but this highlights the greatest ~~difference and benefit~~ of the Liminal State. Only very common sense laws ~~that~~ the widest ~~portion~~ of the population ~~support~~ should be applied to the whole population.		It may seem unlikely that 80% of a voting population would agree on anything, but this highlights the greatest advantage of the Liminal State. Only very common sense laws with the widest support of the population should be applied to the whole population. Instead of an entire nation forced to accept a rule that passes with 50% + 1 vote, where clearly half the nation opposes, the ''80% Rule'' forces populations to check themselves from forcing unpopular laws on an unwilling population.

	If, for example, ~~there is a really important rule for a small portion of the population, but not enough~~ to ~~reach~~ the ~~80% threshold at the national level, then that portion~~ of ~~the population could coalesce at a lower level within~~ the Liminal State~~, such as~~ a ~~state~~, ~~district, or city to implement this change. Wherever 80% of the population~~ within ~~a political boundary might agree with this restriction on~~ their ~~freedoms~~, ~~it could be implemented~~.		=== '''Local Self-Determination''' ===
			On the other hand, local communities have much more power over their own lives within the Liminal State. A town, for example, may pass laws to restrict their freedoms however they wish (within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State). They would still be forbidden from passing a law banning men from owning guns, but they could ban all gun ownership within their community, while the next town over may allow gun ownership across all pre-defined groups.

	~~While the~~ ''~~Justice Branch~~'' of the ~~Liminal State first ensures~~ all ~~potential laws meet a minimum legal standard before there is ever a vote~~, ~~there’s nothing like a Supreme Court that~~ could ~~overturn existing~~ laws. The Liminal State is ~~truly a government by~~ and ~~for~~ the ~~people~~, and ~~that means that~~ the ~~people’s votes truly~~ and ~~directly determine~~ the ~~rules of the land~~, and ~~only by~~ popular ~~vote among citizens can a law be enacted or removed~~.		In this way ''Citizens'' can mold their communities the way they see fit and all communities can learn from one another. With the previous example, surrounding communities could watch and see how these laws regarding gun ownership affect the school shootings, personal defense, domestic violence, inconvenience to hunters, etc. in those communities. The same goes for abortion, vaccines, transgendered bathrooms, etc. All these hot-button social issues that are currently being debated nationally would be better addressed locally, and only within the Liminal State is it possible to do this. When these ideas get tried locally and real data behind the effects of these laws becomes available, those winning ideas from the local level will gain additional support and get proposed at a higher level. Only the best ideas and laws will rise to the top, and through demonstrable data and popular support will the best ideas become national laws.

	The key understanding here is that smaller groups of ~~citizens~~ may have specific freedoms they would like to forfeit for their community. Instead of having to fight for ~~the most~~ important laws to get passed at the national level, where half of the population will then immediately work to reverse it, ~~citizens~~ can mold their communities the way they see fit for themselves and their neighbors.		=== '''Conclusion''' ===
			While the ''Justice Branch'' of the Liminal State first ensures all potential laws meet a minimum legal standard before there is ever a vote, there’s nothing like a Supreme Court that could overturn existing laws. The Liminal State is truly a government by and for the people, and that means that the people’s votes truly and directly determine the rules of the land, and only by massively popular vote among ''Eligible Voters'' can a law be enacted or removed.

			The key understanding here is that smaller groups of ''Citizens'' may have specific freedoms they would like to forfeit for the god of their community. Instead of having to fight for important laws to get passed at the national level, where half of the population will then immediately work to reverse it, ''Citizens'' can mold their communities the way they see fit for themselves and their neighbors.

	This is how people are provided the freedom to live the lives they want, based on their values, while allowing other citizens to live the lives that they want. It’s an ideal compromise; getting to live life the way you truly desire, and only giving up the ability to force others to live that same way.		This is how people are provided the freedom to live the lives they want, based on their values, while allowing other citizens to live the lives that they want. It’s an ideal compromise; getting to live life the way you truly desire, and only giving up the ability to force others to live that same way.

Mr Fox at 17:44, 1 August 2026

2026-08-01T17:44:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 1 August 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:
	For example, "men may not get tattoos" is not be allowed because it singles out men, though "tattoos are forbidden" would be lawful.		For example, "men may not get tattoos" is not be allowed because it singles out men, though "tattoos are forbidden" would be lawful.
	Even if a law uses other language that doesn’t overtly target a specific group, but would by virtue of the way the law was written or enforcement would require, that would also not be allowed. Even in situations where the law is written broadly but would in practice disproportionately affect a subset of the population, it would not be allowed.		Even if a law uses other language that doesn’t overtly target a specific group, but would by virtue of the way the law was written or enforcement would require, that would also not be allowed. Even in situations where the law is written broadly but would in practice disproportionately affect a subset of the population, it would not be allowed.
	For example, “no one with ~~a 'Y' chromosome~~ may get tattoos” would not be lawful.		For example, “no one with less than 2xX chromosomes may get tattoos” would not be lawful.
	While tattoos could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the 80% rule. This means that 80% of voters, which makes up 80% of the eligible population, would be required to vote in favor of this law to limit this freedom.		While tattoos could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the 80% rule. This means that 80% of voters, which makes up 80% of the eligible population, would be required to vote in favor of this law to limit this freedom.

Mr Fox at 17:31, 1 August 2026

2026-08-01T17:31:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 1 August 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:
	=== '''Fundamentals''' ===		=== '''Fundamentals''' ===
	Because this approach is taken, laws affecting citizens may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly.		Because this approach is taken, laws affecting citizens may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly.
	For example, "~~women~~ may not get tattoos" is not be allowed because it singles out ~~women~~, though "tattoos are forbidden" would be lawful.		For example, "men may not get tattoos" is not be allowed because it singles out men, though "tattoos are forbidden" would be lawful.
	Even if a law uses other language that doesn’t overtly target a specific group, but would by virtue of the way the law was written or enforcement would require, that would also not be allowed. Even in situations where the law is written broadly but would in practice disproportionately affect a subset of the population, it would not be allowed.		Even if a law uses other language that doesn’t overtly target a specific group, but would by virtue of the way the law was written or enforcement would require, that would also not be allowed. Even in situations where the law is written broadly but would in practice disproportionately affect a subset of the population, it would not be allowed.
	For example, ~~“anyone~~ with a ~~“Y”~~ chromosome may get tattoos” would not be lawful.		For example, “no one with a 'Y' chromosome may get tattoos” would not be lawful.
	While tattoos could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the 80% rule. This means that 80% of voters, which makes up 80% of the eligible population, would be required to vote in favor of this law to limit this freedom.		While tattoos could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the 80% rule. This means that 80% of voters, which makes up 80% of the eligible population, would be required to vote in favor of this law to limit this freedom.

Line 21:		Line 21:
	If, for example, there is a really important rule for a small portion of the population, but not enough to reach the 80% threshold at the national level, then that portion of the population could coalesce at a lower level within the Liminal State, such as a state, district, or city to implement this change. Wherever 80% of the population within a political boundary might agree with this restriction on their freedoms, it could be implemented.		If, for example, there is a really important rule for a small portion of the population, but not enough to reach the 80% threshold at the national level, then that portion of the population could coalesce at a lower level within the Liminal State, such as a state, district, or city to implement this change. Wherever 80% of the population within a political boundary might agree with this restriction on their freedoms, it could be implemented.

	While the Justice Branch of the Liminal State first ensures all potential laws meet a minimum legal standard before there is ever a vote, there’s nothing like a Supreme Court that could overturn existing laws. The Liminal State is truly a government by and for the people, and that means that the people’s votes truly and directly determine the rules of the land, and only by popular vote among citizens can a law be enacted or removed.		While the ''Justice Branch'' of the Liminal State first ensures all potential laws meet a minimum legal standard before there is ever a vote, there’s nothing like a Supreme Court that could overturn existing laws. The Liminal State is truly a government by and for the people, and that means that the people’s votes truly and directly determine the rules of the land, and only by popular vote among citizens can a law be enacted or removed.

	The key understanding here is that smaller groups of citizens may have specific freedoms they would like to forfeit for their community. Instead of having to fight for the most important laws to get passed at the national level, where half of the population will then immediately work to reverse it, citizens can mold their communities the way they see fit for themselves and their neighbors.		The key understanding here is that smaller groups of citizens may have specific freedoms they would like to forfeit for their community. Instead of having to fight for the most important laws to get passed at the national level, where half of the population will then immediately work to reverse it, citizens can mold their communities the way they see fit for themselves and their neighbors.

Mr Fox at 17:25, 1 August 2026

2026-08-01T17:25:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, 1 August 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The Liminal State instead deconstructs these sources, takes lessons from history, philosophy, and even evolutionary psychology, and ultimately asks “what do we really need to coexist in a modern society?” In essence, the Liminal State starts with a blank slate and builds up; using a unique and far more equitable method among existing democracies for creating new laws and and shaping our communities.		The Liminal State instead deconstructs these sources, takes lessons from history, philosophy, and even evolutionary psychology, and ultimately asks “what do we really need to coexist in a modern society?” In essence, the Liminal State starts with a blank slate and builds up; using a unique and far more equitable method among existing democracies for creating new laws and and shaping our communities.

	To begin with, the laws ensuring universal equality and basic freedoms, those expected ~~for~~ any modern society, are set from the start and are immutable. Communities then decide for themselves what additions they wish to make within this framework, while the Liminal State focuses on those aspects of governance that fall outside the scope of social issues. While there is some gray area here, this generally means that the ~~state~~ will maintain the regulations affecting the economy, business practices, etc., while the citizens will shape the laws that impact their local communities based on their own values. The only ongoing role of the Liminal State in regards to social matters is enforcement of those laws as communities pass them.		To begin with, the laws ensuring universal equality and basic freedoms, those expected of any modern society, are set from the start and are immutable. Communities then decide for themselves what additions they wish to make within this framework, while the Liminal State focuses on those aspects of governance that fall outside the scope of social issues. While there is some gray area here, this generally means that the Liminal State will maintain infrastructure and the regulations affecting the economy, business practices, etc., while the citizens will shape the laws that impact their local communities based on their own values. The only ongoing role of the Liminal State in regards to social matters is enforcement of those laws as communities pass them.

	This philosophy makes the Liminal State the only government intentionally designed from inception to accommodate vast populations with unique perspectives and cultures, and perhaps therefore the only governmental structure that could ever work at an international level.		This philosophy makes the Liminal State the only government intentionally designed from inception to accommodate vast populations with unique perspectives and cultures, and perhaps therefore the only governmental structure that could ever work at an international level.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:43, 3 August 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	The Liminal State instead deconstructs these sources, takes lessons from history, philosophy, and even evolutionary psychology, and ultimately asks “what do we really need to coexist in a modern society?” In essence, the Liminal State starts with a blank slate and builds up; using a unique and far more equitable method among existing democracies for creating new laws and and shaping our communities.		The Liminal State instead deconstructs these sources, takes lessons from history, philosophy, and even evolutionary psychology, and ultimately asks “what do we really need to coexist in a modern society?” In essence, the Liminal State starts with a blank slate and builds up; using a unique and far more equitable method among existing democracies for creating new laws and and shaping our communities.

	To begin with, the laws ensuring universal equality and basic freedoms, those expected of any modern society, are set from the start and are immutable. Communities then decide for themselves what additions they wish to make within this framework, while the Liminal State focuses on those aspects of governance that fall outside the scope of social issues. While there is some gray area here, this generally means that the Liminal State will maintain infrastructure ~~and~~ the regulations affecting the economy, business practices, etc., ~~while~~ the ~~citizens~~ will shape the laws that impact their local communities based on their own values~~. The only ongoing role of the Liminal State in regards to social matters is enforcement of those laws as communities pass them~~.		To begin with, the laws ensuring universal equality and basic freedoms, those expected of any modern society, are set from the start and are immutable. Communities then decide for themselves what additions they wish to make within this framework, while the Liminal State focuses on those aspects of governance that fall outside the scope of social issues. While there is some gray area here, this generally means that the Liminal State will first ensure all are treated equally and fairly, then focus on maintain infrastructure, the regulations affecting the economy, business practices, etc. On the other hand, the ''Citizens'' will shape the laws that impact their local communities based on their own values.

	This philosophy makes the Liminal State the only government intentionally designed from inception to accommodate vast populations with unique perspectives and cultures, and perhaps therefore the only governmental structure that could ever work at an international level.		This philosophy makes the Liminal State the only government intentionally designed from inception to accommodate vast populations with unique perspectives and cultures, and perhaps therefore the only governmental structure that could ever work at an international level.
Line 13:		Line 13:

	=== '''Fundamentals''' ===		=== '''Fundamentals''' ===
	Because this approach is taken, laws may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly, unless they apply to a specific pre-defined group. The Liminal State recognizes three pre-defined groups: ''Non-Citizens'', ''Protected Citizens'' (children, some with an intellectual disability, etc.), and ''Emancipated Citizens'' (adults). Any laws specifically applied to one of these groups must still work within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State.<blockquote>		Because this approach is taken, laws may never target only a portion of the population, overtly or covertly, unless they apply to a specific pre-defined group as a whole. The Liminal State recognizes three pre-defined groups: ''Non-Citizens'', ''Protected Citizens'' (children, some with an intellectual disability, etc.), and ''Emancipated Citizens'' (adults). Any laws specifically applied to one of these groups must still work within the minimum legal framework of the Liminal State.<blockquote>
	Example 1: A law forbidding men from owning guns would not be allowed, but a law that prevents ''Protected Citizens'' from owning guns would be.		Example 1: A law forbidding men from owning guns would not be allowed, but a law that prevents ''Protected Citizens'' from owning guns would be.
	</blockquote>Even if a law uses ambiguous or misleading language which overtly doesn’t appear to target a specific sub-group, yet by virtue of the way enforcement would need to be applied still would, that too would be illegal. It is prohibited for any laws to be written in any way that would, in practice, disproportionately affect one of these pre-defined groups.<blockquote>		</blockquote>Even if a law uses ambiguous or misleading language which overtly doesn’t appear to target a specific sub-group, yet by virtue of the way enforcement would need to be applied still would, that too would be illegal. It is prohibited for any laws to be written in any way that would, in practice, disproportionately affect a subgroup within one of these pre-defined groups.<blockquote>
	Example 2: A law that allows only those people with low average levels of testosterone to own guns would not be allowed, even if some minority population of men could still be eligible under this law.		Example 2: A law that allows only those people with low average levels of testosterone to own guns would not be allowed, even if some minority population of men could still be eligible under this law.
	</blockquote>While guns could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the ''80% Rule''. This means 80% eligible voters would be required to vote in favor to limit this freedom.		</blockquote>While guns could theoretically be outlawed, in the Liminal State laws may only be implemented using the ''80% Rule''. This means 80% eligible voters would be required to vote in favor to limit this freedom.
Line 29:		Line 29:
	While the ''Justice Branch'' of the Liminal State first ensures all potential laws meet a minimum legal standard before there is ever a vote, there’s nothing like a Supreme Court that could overturn existing laws. The Liminal State is truly a government by and for the people, and that means that the people’s votes truly and directly determine the rules of the land, and only by massively popular vote among ''Eligible Voters'' can a law be enacted or removed.		While the ''Justice Branch'' of the Liminal State first ensures all potential laws meet a minimum legal standard before there is ever a vote, there’s nothing like a Supreme Court that could overturn existing laws. The Liminal State is truly a government by and for the people, and that means that the people’s votes truly and directly determine the rules of the land, and only by massively popular vote among ''Eligible Voters'' can a law be enacted or removed.

	The key understanding here is that smaller groups of ''Citizens'' may have specific freedoms they would like to forfeit for the ~~god~~ of their community. Instead of having to fight for important laws to get passed at the national level, where half of the population will then immediately work to reverse it, ''Citizens'' can mold their communities the way they see fit for themselves ~~and their neighbors~~.		The key understanding here is that smaller groups of ''Citizens'' may have specific freedoms they would like to forfeit for the good of their community. Instead of having to fight for important laws to get passed at the national level, where half of the population will then immediately work to reverse it, ''Citizens'' can mold their communities with their neighbors the way they see fit for themselves.

	This is how people are provided the freedom to live the lives they want, based on their values, while allowing other citizens to live the lives that they want. It’s an ideal compromise; getting to live life the way you truly desire, and only giving up the ability to force others to live that same way.		This is how people are provided the freedom to live the lives they want, based on their values, while allowing other citizens to live the lives that they want. It’s an ideal compromise; getting to live life the way you truly desire, and only giving up the ability to force others to live that same way.