Laws & Freedom: Abstract

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.

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.

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.

Summation

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Site Navigation

Continue Reading:

← Goals | Laws & Freedom: Abstract | Laws & Freedom: In Practice →

Site Map:

Forward

LS Framework

Other