A Martian Bill of Rights - A list of Right put out for discussion.

Ares · 2002-06-14 04:23:02

In response to the Focus section in Zubrin's book Entering Space, I have generated this list of Human Rights. I have also posted it on the web as part of a proposed constitution (although the governmental portions are currently empty) at the following URL: Martian Constitution.

I would like to point out that I intend to synthesize a new document from the discussion here, and update the web version from time to time.

-----------------------------------------------------------
I A Declaration of Rights

We declare and confirm that all Humans are born free and equal and are endowed with a certain dignity and with certain inalienable rights. In order to protect and safeguard these rights, we list them here and forbid any Martian to abridge or infringe upon these rights. Further there shall be no laws made that restrict these rights, except to protect the superior rights of others. The rights given in this declaration shall apply in the order and precedence in which they are named.

1 Right to Equal Opportunity and Protection

Everyone, regardless of race, colour, sex, native language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status, is entitled to equal treatment in terms of the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled. Furthermore, all are entitled to equal opportunity for employment and education, and to equal protection under the law.

No group based on race, colour, sex, religion, political organization, or nationality may be given preferential treatment in terms of employment, education, rights, or entitlement regardless of past discrimination, persecution or forced servitude. Nor can any group based on these things be subjected to discriminatory treatment because of past discrimination, persecution, or forced servitude or others.

2 Right to Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Everyone has the right to practice any religion they may choose, or to practice no religion at all. All religions shall be considered equally valid provided there is at least one established body of people who practice it. The right to practice a religion does not grant an individual the right to commit criminal acts.

Everyone has the right to speak freely without fear of arrest, censure, or fine regardless of whether others may find their words offensive. The right to free speech also applies to written and electronic forms of communication. No one shall abridge or diminish this right be they private citizen, business, employer, or the government.

3 Right to Life, Liberty, and Security of Person

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. No one has the right to kill except if they or another be in immediate jeopardy of losing their life. Furthermore everyone has the right to waive their right to life, and so to end their life or to permit someone to end it, and to engage in behavior them may endanger themselves, but not others.

To support the right to life, everyone has an entitlement to have access to the basic requirements of life, such as food, housing, clothing, and basic health care. Any person (such as a child, or the disabled) not having access to these requirements shall be provided with them until such time as they can provide them for themselves.

To support the right to security of person, everyone has the right to keep and bear weapons and arms except when the keeping or use of a weapon poses an unreasonable risk to others. Weapons of mass destruction are specifically excluded from this right.

4 Right to Sovereignty

Everyone has the right to sovereignty over their body and what they do with it, or put on it. No one may, by exercising this right, endanger or infringe on the rights of another.

No one may be forced to tattoo, pierce, or mutilate their body or have their body tattooed, pierced, or mutilated, nor may they be forced to perform any sexual act, ingest any substance, wear any clothing or device, or submit to medical care.

Conversely everyone may, as they see fit, tattoo, pierce, mutilate, or alter their own body and may perform any sexual act, ingest any substance, wear any clothing or device, and submit to whatever medical care that they see fit.

5 Right to Freedom from Torture and Cruelty

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

6 Right to the Free Pursuit of Knowledge

Everyone has the right to pursue whatever knowledge or technology they desire so long as they do not endanger or infringe upon the rights of others.

7 Right to Marriage and to set the terms of Marriage

Everyone has the right to marry or to not marry whomever they wish and to set beforehand the terms of the marriage contract. However, all such contracts must provide for the care of any offspring ensuing from the marriage.

8 Right to Procreate

Everyone has the right to procreate, or to choose not to. Responsibility for the child ensuing from the procreation by default falls upon the biological parents of the child, but may be assigned to others by agreement either permanently or in whatever manner agreed upon. If assigned permanently, the biological parents no longer have any responsibility or interest in the child.

9 Right to Self-Government

The people have the right to govern themselves by direct vote wherever practicable, and where not practicable to invest in certain individuals whatever authorities and powers are not best served by direct vote.

10 Right to Peaceably Assemble

The people have the right to peaceably assemble.

11 Right to Travel

All Citizens have the right to travel and to immigrate and emigrate as they wish, although they may be detained briefly on immigration for purposes of determining citizenship.

12 Right to Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest

No one shall be arrested or held against their will without having been charged with a crime or having been informed of what crime they are suspected of, and then for no more than 24 hours without being charged with a crime.

13 Right to Privacy

Everyone has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, electronic media, and effects, against all searches and seizures without a warrant issued by a grand jury which has determined there to be probable cause supported by open affirmation made under penalty of perjury. Refusal to submit to a warrantless search may not be held to be probable cause for issuing a warrant.

To support their right to privacy, everyone has the right to use encryption to prevent unintended persons from reading or overhearing statements made to specific persons. The mere fact that encryption has been used may not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing.

14 Right to Full Access to Information and Knowledge

The people have a right to full knowledge of the activities of their Government, except for matters of colonial security that should remain secret. A grand jury shall determine what information constitutes a matter of colonial security.

Further, everyone has the right to access any knowledge put into the public domain, broadcast on the public electromagnetic spectrum, or sent via the public Internet. This right does not restrict a person's right to privacy.

To support the right to full access to knowledge, everyone has the right to petition the their Government for disclosure of information.

15 Right to Property

Everyone has the right to own property, whether solely or jointly with others and to use it in any manner that they see fit.

No one may be deprived of the full use of their property through force or fraud nor may they be charged for the right to own property. They may not be forced to share their property with others nor to quarter others in their home.

A person's body and the fruits of their labor are their own property.

16 Right to Practice One's Chosen Profession

Everyone has the right to practice the profession of their choice without regard to whether or not they hold any license, certification, or specific education. Of course, everyone has the right not to patronize or employ a person because they lack such license, certification, or education.

17 Right to the Opportunity for Useful Employment

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable working conditions, and to have their work be useful.

No one may be deprived of their right to work because of race, colour, sex, religion, nationality, or their association or non-association with any political or other organization.

Also, all persons are entitled to equal pay for equal work regardless of race, colour, sex, religion, nationality, or their association or non-association with any political or other organization.

No one who is not a member of a labor union may be forced to accept a union contract.

18 Right to Free Enterprise

Everyone has the right to engage in any business they choose alone or in association with others and to form a corporate entity to govern the association.

No one may be required to hold any license or permit to engage in any business so long as they do not endanger others.

19 Right to Justice

Everyone has the right to bring suit against any other person for crimes and misdemeanors committed against them and for acts violating their fundamental rights.

No person shall have immunity from such prosecution regardless of race, colour, sex, religion, nationality, diplomatic status, or their association or non-association with any political or other organization.

20 Right to the Presumption of Innocence

Everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

No one may be held to be guilty of any crime, or misdemeanor on the basis of any fact or omission which did not constitute a crime, or misdemeanor at the time when it was committed nor may a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that applied at the time the crime, or misdemeanor was committed.

21 Right to Freedom from Unjust Prosecution

Everyone has the right to be free from unjust prosecution and frivolous and extortionate lawsuits.

To preserve this right, any person accused of a crime, or misdemeanor may bring a counter-suit of harassment and false arrest to be tried conjointly with the original suit, by the same jury.

22 Right to Freedom from Double Jeopardy and Self-Incrimination

No one may be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense.

Everyone has the right not to incriminate themselves.

Further a person's statements which were made before they had been charged with a crime or informed that they are suspected of a crime, whether verbal, written, or electronic, may not be used against them in a court of law, except where they were obtained pursuant to a warrant or the intended recipient of the statements present the evidence.

23 Right to a Timely and Public Trial by Impartial Informed Jury

All persons prosecuted for crimes and misdemeanors shall have the right to a timely and public trial by an impartial jury in a court with jurisdiction over the crime or misdemeanor.

24 Right to Face One's Accusers

All persons prosecuted for crimes and misdemeanors shall have the right to be present at trial, and to have all accusers and witnesses present, and to witness the verdict.

25 Right to Full Investigation

Any person bringing suit as the victim of a crime or misdemeanor shall have the right to hire someone to investigate the matter or to do so themselves. The accused has the right to have the findings of any investigation made available to them.

26 Right to Equal, Accessible Counsel

Everyone involved in prosecution for crimes and misdemeanors shall have the assistance of council for the prosecution and defense and to have free and confidential access to such counsel. The cost of this counsel as well as all other court cost shall be borne by the loser.

27 Right to Judicial Review

All persons convicted of crimes or misdemeanors shall have the right to have the court record reviewed by a grand jury to determine is there is probable cause for the verdict to be appealed by a higher court.

Pat Galea · 2002-06-14 15:26:04

Hi!

For what it's worth, I'll give you my initial thoughts.

Here goes:

Who is the Bill of Rights (BOR) aimed at? The US BOR (i.e. amendments 1-10 of the constitution) is specifically aimed at the government; it specifies the things that the government may not do. Your BOR includes some items like this, but also includes others which are proscriptive on the actions of the citizenry in general. That raises questions about how you will force people to comply with the BOR.

I note that you've included a passage that is analogous to the US Declaration of Independence (DOI): "We declare and confirm that all Humans are born free and equal and are endowed with a certain dignity and with certain inalienable rights." I think it's important to note that the US DOI held the position that we have rights by our very nature. They are not given to us by other humans, or granted by law. We just have them. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident.")
Thus, I'm a bit concerned about this passage:

Further there shall be no laws made that restrict these rights, except to protect the superior rights of others. The rights given in this declaration shall apply in the order and precedence in which they are named.

It's the phrase "The rights given... shall apply". It makes the rights become no more than a matter of law, rather than a recognition of humanity.

Everyone, regardless of race, colour, sex, native language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status, is entitled to equal treatment in terms of the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled. Furthermore, all are entitled to equal opportunity for employment and education, and to equal protection under the law.

This is treading on dangerous ground. By enumerating the specific attributes that should not be considered grounds for discrimination, you leave the door slightly ajar for other criteria to slip in. For example, is it OK to discriminate against people with beards?

No group based on race, colour, sex, religion, political organization, or nationality may be given preferential treatment in terms of employment, education, rights, or entitlement regardless of past discrimination, persecution or forced servitude. Nor can any group based on these things be subjected to discriminatory treatment because of past discrimination, persecution, or forced servitude or others.

Given preferential treatment by whom? Following this literally would mean that it would be wrong for a Catholic school to demand a Catholic teacher (or a Catholic church to employ a male Catholic priest for that matter), or a single woman to employ a female assistant (maybe due to her past experiences she is uncomfortable being alone with men).

Also, you refer to a 'group' being discriminated against. In practise, it isn't really the group that suffers as such; it's the individual person. So if an employer refuses to take on black people, it's not 'black people' as a group who are suffering; it is each individual black person who has been refused a job.

All religions shall be considered equally valid provided there is at least one established body of people who practice it.

Dangerous! Why can an individual not practise a religion? And why is it necessary for the recipient of the BOR (presumably the government) to consider a religion 'valid'? There's a world of difference between agreeing that people have a right to practise their religion and agreeing that their religion is 'valid'.

(This brings me back to the earlier point: who is the BOR aimed at? In this case, who is it who does the 'considering', and what must they do with such consideration?)

Everyone has the right to speak freely without fear of arrest, censure, or fine regardless of whether others may find their words offensive. The right to free speech also applies to written and electronic forms of communication. No one shall abridge or diminish this right be they private citizen, business, employer, or the government.

The right to free speech is an interesting one. As many people have pointed out, regardless of the 1st amendment, there isn't actually a right to free speech as such. Just a right to exercise of one's own property. So, for example, you may make a speech or pin up a poster on your own property, or the property of someone with whom you've contracted for that purpose. But you don't have the right to stand on someone else's front lawn and make your speech without their permission.

No one has the right to kill except if they or another be in immediate jeopardy of losing their life.

Dangerous! You haven't actually said who they have a right to kill! Read literally, this would allow someone who sees a total stranger in jeapordy to take the opportunity to kill some innocent passerby who has nothing to do with the incident.

To support the right to life, everyone has an entitlement to have access to the basic requirements of life, such as food, housing, clothing, and basic health care. Any person (such as a child, or the disabled) not having access to these requirements shall be provided with them until such time as they can provide them for themselves.

This is dodging the issue of what the word 'right' means. To have the 'right' to life does not mean that you must be supplied with the means to exercise that right. Also, you say that they shall "be provided" with these items. Who shall provide them?

The people have the right to govern themselves by direct vote wherever practicable, and where not practicable to invest in certain individuals whatever authorities and powers are not best served by direct vote.

Direct vote by and for whom? And how shall these votes be counted?

To support their right to privacy, everyone has the right to use encryption to prevent unintended persons from reading or overhearing statements made to specific persons. The mere fact that encryption has been used may not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing.

This is tied very closely to the present day. (In fact, the very mention of electronic media is very specific to now.) It may not stand up well when being interpreted in 100 years time.

Further, everyone has the right to access any knowledge put into the public domain, broadcast on the public electromagnetic spectrum, or sent via the public Internet. This right does not restrict a person's right to privacy.

Again, very specific to now. These technologies are possibly transient. Do you want to deny these rights to the folk using the Quantum Interferometric Net in 2150?

No one may be deprived of the full use of their property through force or fraud nor may they be charged for the right to own property.

Now... are you going to have the government impose taxes on the people? If so, how can you square that with the statement that "no one may be deprived of the full use of their property through force"? If not, how are you going to arrange for people to receive 'essential' supplies (as mentioned above)?

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable working conditions, and to have their work be useful.

I'm not sure what you mean by "have their work be useful". Useful to whom? They either do or do not find it useful. No one (surely) can force them to hold such a judgement.

Also, all persons are entitled to equal pay for equal work regardless of race, colour, sex, religion, nationality, or their association or non-association with any political or other organization.

Ah, but then the right specified above ("No one may be deprived of the full use of their property through force") totally negates this one. If an employer wishes to employ only males (i.e. he only wishes to hand over his money to men) then any restriction of his right to do so is an imposition on his right to use his property as he sees fit.

Well, that wraps it up for now. I've only mentioned the things I have issues with because I think they're the points worth mentioning. In many cases, the flaws I've discussed also exist in real constitutions and Bills of Rights; it's a minefield alright.

(Of course, I don't need no steenkin' gubmint, so anyone pops a copy of this propaganda through my door will just be helping to fuel my stove through the cold Martian winter. )

Regards, pg

Cobra Commander · 2002-06-14 19:20:05

It seems to me that as a Martian Bill of Rights this list is a bit too concise. By being as specific as some of the articles are they allow for a great deal of infringement of their spirit through careful interpretation of their wording. Perhaps following (roughly) the model of the US Bill of Rights might be more effective, setting up a system with a brief and in some ways vague list of prohibitions directed at the government that essentially let the colonial government do whatever is needed for the good of the state as long as it doesn't interfere with those rights. Not perfect, but there is no "right" answer.
Of course nothing written now is going to mean much to Martian colonists, they'll do whatever the hell they want and at times I guarantee it won't be pretty. Quite a dillema.

Ares · 2002-06-15 04:41:31

Who is the Bill of Rights (BOR) aimed at?

The BOR is meant to be a listing of Rights basic to Humanity. Specifically, I include it on The Ares Concordant Home Page as part of a Constitution (although all other sections are blank) for a proposed Mars Colony.

I note that you've included a passage that is analogous to the US Declaration of Independence (DOI): "We declare and confirm that all Humans are born free and equal and are endowed with a certain dignity and with certain inalienable rights." I think it's important to note that the US DOI held the position that we have rights by our very nature. They are not given to us by other humans, or granted by law. We just have them. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident.")

Actually I based this partly on the DOI but also on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UNDHR). It was meant to be a listing of innate rights such as are described in the DOI, but the wording may lead one to believe that they are given by agovernment. In reality, just the opposite happens, governments are given powers by the people governed.

Everyone, regardless of race, colour, sex, native language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status, is entitled to equal treatment in terms of the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled. Furthermore, all are entitled to equal opportunity for employment and education, and to equal protection under the law.
This is treading on dangerous ground. By enumerating the specific attributes that should not be considered grounds for discrimination, you leave the door slightly ajar for other criteria to slip in.

The operative word in the passage is 'everyone.' Again I take the wording from the UNDHR.

For example, is it OK to discriminate against people with beards?

I would say yes. It would not be unreasonable for an employer to not emply bearded individuals (as long as this applies to both sexes. ) The case may be different if the individual is a member of a religion which espouses the virtues of facial hair.

Given preferential treatment by whom? Following this literally would mean that it would be wrong for a Catholic school to demand a Catholic teacher (or a Catholic church to employ a male Catholic priest for that matter), or a single woman to employ a female assistant (maybe due to her past experiences she is uncomfortable being alone with men).

Anyone. The Priest is not employed in the traditional sense, but I see how it could be argued otherwise. In the case of the school, it would be wrong for non-Catholics to be descriminated against, although they may not be qualified to teach religious subjects.

Also, you refer to a 'group' being discriminated against.

I mean 'group' to include individuals belonging to that group as long as the discrimination is based on their belonging to that group.

All religions shall be considered equally valid provided there is at least one established body of people who practice it.
Dangerous! Why can an individual not practise a religion? And why is it necessary for the recipient of the BOR (presumably the government) to consider a religion 'valid'? There's a world of difference between agreeing that people have a right to practise their religion and agreeing that their religion is 'valid'.

The sentence preceding the one you quoted provides the right to practice, whereas the one quoted is meant to define what constitutes a religion. I meant for it to prevent someone to claim discrimination on the basis of their practicing a made up religion say the worship of Ralph Macchio (sp?). Perhaps it would be more appropriate in a law rather than a BOR or constitution though.

So, for example, you may make a speech or pin up a poster on your own property, or the property of someone with whom you've contracted for that purpose. But you don't have the right to stand on someone else's front lawn and make your speech without their permission.

Here the lawn's owner (although I don't agree with ownership of land as such) would have a prior right to the use of his lawn. However, he would not be able to object to a speech made just off his property.

No one has the right to kill except if they or another be in immediate jeopardy of losing their life.
Dangerous! You haven't actually said who they have a right to kill! Read literally, this would allow someone who sees a total stranger in jeapordy to take the opportunity to kill some innocent passerby who has nothing to do with the incident.

Interesting point altough I think its fairly obvious I meant only the threatening individual to be fair game. And then the minimum force necessary should be used.

To support the right to life, everyone has an entitlement to have access to the basic requirements of life, such as food, housing, clothing, and basic health care. Any person (such as a child, or the disabled) not having access to these requirements shall be provided with them until such time as they can provide them for themselves.
This is dodging the issue of what the word 'right' means. To have the 'right' to life does not mean that you must be supplied with the means to exercise that right. Also, you say that they shall "be provided" with these items. Who shall provide them?

That is what the passage says. In a colonial environment all individuals are pretty much dependent on their neighbors. Again, perhaps this is better place in a body of law.

The people have the right to govern themselves by direct vote wherever practicable, and where not practicable to invest in certain individuals whatever authorities and powers are not best served by direct vote.
Direct vote by and for whom? And how shall these votes be counted?

This is just the right to vote directly on issues (by referendum) or for representative or officials if they are deemed necessary -- a constitution and not a BOR should address how this is carried out.

To support their right to privacy, everyone has the right to use encryption to prevent unintended persons from reading or overhearing statements made to specific persons. The mere fact that encryption has been used may not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing.
This is tied very closely to the present day. (In fact, the very mention of electronic media is very specific to now.) It may not stand up well when being interpreted in 100 years time.

This passage affirms the right to use encryption to protect privacy. It does not specify the method of encryption. It could be electronic, but it could just as well be decoder ring or quantum interferometry.

Further, everyone has the right to access any knowledge put into the public domain, broadcast on the public electromagnetic spectrum, or sent via the public Internet. This right does not restrict a person's right to privacy.
Again, very specific to now. These technologies are possibly transient. Do you want to deny these rights to the folk using the Quantum Interferometric Net in 2150?

Perhaps, but show me a passage that doesn't but says the same thing.

No one may be deprived of the full use of their property through force or fraud nor may they be charged for the right to own property.
Now... are you going to have the government impose taxes on the people? If so, how can you square that with the statement that "no one may be deprived of the full use of their property through force"? If not, how are you going to arrange for people to receive 'essential' supplies (as mentioned above)?

Again, I don't see land as being owned, so one could argue for fees for registration of permits to use the land (not ideal). However, I prefer a weak government, on better able to fund itself with user fees charged only to those who use its services (i.e. court costs, registration fees, etc.)

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable working conditions, and to have their work be useful.
I'm not sure what you mean by "have their work be useful". Useful to whom? They either do or do not find it useful. No one (surely) can force them to hold such a judgement.

A good point. It's probably best to remove the useful part.

Also, all persons are entitled to equal pay for equal work regardless of race, colour, sex, religion, nationality, or their association or non-association with any political or other organization.
Ah, but then the right specified above ("No one may be deprived of the full use of their property through force") totally negates this one. If an employer wishes to employ only males (i.e. he only wishes to hand over his money to men) then any restriction of his right to do so is an imposition on his right to use his property as he sees fit.

The right to equality precedes and overrides. Also, the employer has already voluntarily agreed to give up a certain amount (the salary) in exchange for work done, the passage only protects a persons right against discrimination.

Interesting comments. Exactly the sort of critical dialog I hoped for.

alokmohan · 2003-10-03 06:19:27

Bit premature now,Sir?

Pendragon · 2004-01-14 22:17:00

well, lets see.

Further there shall be no laws made that restrict these rights, except to protect the superior rights of others.

First off, you haven't given any mention to what "superior rights of others" might entail. For example, does security outway other freedoms? IMHO the Bill of Rights should be the very basic rights that for no reason should be restricted.

The right to practice a religion does not grant an individual the right to commit criminal acts.

This leaves way to much room in for loopholes. You don't want the possibility of later laws infringing on this right.

No one has the right to kill except if they or another be in immediate jeopardy of losing their life.

I agree with Pat, this is a dangerous statement

To support the right to life, everyone has an entitlement to have access to the basic requirements of life, such as food, housing, clothing, and basic health care.

What are the "basic requirements for life"? A 2 bed/2 bath with power and water might seem basic for a family by today's standards, but you can live with less.

To support the right to security of person, everyone has the right to keep and bear weapons and arms except when the keeping or use of a weapon poses an unreasonable risk to others.

Isn't this right originaly intended to pose a risk to others? Also, you just limit it to WMD, do you plan on limiting arms like assault rifles? Or what if someone comes up with a reason for owning a tank?

No one may be forced to tattoo, pierce, or mutilate their body or have their body tattooed, pierced, or mutilated, nor may they be forced to perform any sexual act, ingest any substance, wear any clothing or device, or submit to medical care.
Conversely everyone may, as they see fit, tattoo, pierce, mutilate, or alter their own body and may perform any sexual act, ingest any substance, wear any clothing or device, and submit to whatever medical care that they see fit.

So you are protecting public nudity, child molestation, and drug use? Ever hear of parentalism?

The people have the right to govern themselves by direct vote wherever practicable, and where not practicable to invest in certain individuals whatever authorities and powers are not best served by direct vote.

So which is it, true democracy or republic?

No one shall be arrested or held against their will without having been charged with a crime or having been informed of what crime they are suspected of, and then for no more than 24 hours without being charged with a crime.

Consider rewording. Maybe something along the lines of "No one shall be arrested or held against their will without being informed of what crime they are suspected of. All charges for said crime must be filed within 24 hours of arrest."

To support their right to privacy, everyone has the right to use encryption to prevent unintended persons from reading or overhearing statements made to specific persons. The mere fact that encryption has been used may not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing.

You don't have to mention encryption, you could say that any evidence gathered without a search warrent is not permissible in court and can't provide grounds for probable cause.

No one may be deprived of the full use of their property through force or fraud nor may they be charged for the right to own property. They may not be forced to share their property with others nor to quarter others in their home.

So . . . no property tax, no sales tax, no income tax, no import tariffs. How is the government supposed to fund itself?

Everyone has the right to practice the profession of their choice without regard to whether or not they hold any license, certification, or specific education. Of course, everyone has the right not to patronize or employ a person because they lack such license, certification, or education.

This is just nuts. The whole purpose of certification is to ensure that whatever building you happen to be in right now won't collapse on you. Or to take an example from the Soviet Union, that hotels don't come with hot water on one half of the hotel and cold water on the other. Also people need protection from HMOs from sending them to quacks.

17 Right to the Opportunity for Useful Employment
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable working conditions, and to have their work be useful.
No one may be deprived of their right to work because of race, colour, sex, religion, nationality, or their association or non-association with any political or other organization.
Also, all persons are entitled to equal pay for equal work regardless of race, colour, sex, religion, nationality, or their association or non-association with any political or other organization.
No one who is not a member of a labor union may be forced to accept a union contract.

This seems mostly redundant from the 1st right. Also, unless you are supporting a socialistic society don't all useless jobs get naturally phased out? Except for government jobs that is

well, that covers most of what I saw.

Stephen · 2004-01-16 09:56:31

Everyone has the right to practice the profession of their choice without regard to whether or not they hold any license, certification, or specific education. Of course, everyone has the right not to patronize or employ a person because they lack such license, certification, or education.
This is just nuts. The whole purpose of certification is to ensure that whatever building you happen to be in right now won't collapse on you. Or to take an example from the Soviet Union, that hotels don't come with hot water on one half of the hotel and cold water on the other. Also people need protection from HMOs from sending them to quacks.

Indeed! I would be intrigued to know what the rationale was for encouraging the practice of brain surgery, building construction, and electrical repairs other such things by those who might well know next-to-nothing about such things.

To make matters worse, this utterly bizarre "right" not only protects the incompetent from paying compensation, it also seems to protect those who would try to deliberately deceive others--by (in effect) protecting them from prosecution.

Of course, everyone has the right not to patronize or employ a person because they lack such license, certification, or education.

Caveat Empor rules! However, just how the average person is to be expected to be able to tell who is skilled and who is not is unclear, given that this same right would also seem to protect the fraudsters' right to use phoney certificates, licences, and outright lies to enhance the deception!

(It also has other possibilities. Can banking be classed as a profession? If so, would this right allow someone to set up a bank on Monday, take deposits from the suckers until Friday, then close up shop and keep the loot? :-)

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-17 10:28:05

Just a few thoughts,

To support the right to life, everyone has an entitlement to have access to the basic requirements of life, such as food, housing, clothing, and basic health care. Any person (such as a child, or the disabled) not having access to these requirements shall be provided with them until such time as they can provide them for themselves.

Can provide for themselves or will? If the latter, then I'll need internet access and cable in my free house. Ooh, and a monster truck. No sense working, eh?

To support the right to security of person, everyone has the right to keep and bear weapons and arms except when the keeping or use of a weapon poses an unreasonable risk to others. Weapons of mass destruction are specifically excluded from this right.

Who decides what poses an "unreasonable risk?"

Also keep in mind, If you have a weapon in your house you're keeping arms, if you have one in your hands you're bearing arms. So if you're going to have this right (which I strongly support) don't start abridging it with inane restrictions, like some governments do... Not mentioning any names...

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Well, isn't prison degrading? All those bars and shackles, being paraded around in an orange jumpsuit.

6 Right to the Free Pursuit of Knowledge
Everyone has the right to pursue whatever knowledge or technology they desire so long as they do not endanger or infringe upon the rights of others.

How does this work with the specific prohibition of weapons of mass destruction listed previously? As long as I don't plan to use the uranium bomb I build in the basement what's the problem? I've got a right to pursue the knowledge and technology I desire, dammit.

7 Right to Marriage and to set the terms of Marriage
Everyone has the right to marry or to not marry whomever they wish and to set beforehand the terms of the marriage contract. However, all such contracts must provide for the care of any offspring ensuing from the marriage.

This would just get confusing. Perhaps it would be better to eliminate the legal basis of marriage altogether, make it purely an arrangement between two people.

8 Right to Procreate
Everyone has the right to procreate, or to choose not to....

So an individual who can neither provide for himself nor attract a mate has a right to procreate?

9 Right to Self-Government
The people have the right to govern themselves by direct vote wherever practicable, and where not practicable to invest in certain individuals whatever authorities and powers are not best served by direct vote.

What if I decide the direct-voting populace has no clue what they're doing, can I then abstain from their laws? I have a right to self-gevernment after all, not to be pushed around by a mob of ignorant cretins.

10 Right to Peaceably Assemble
The people have the right to peaceably assemble.

But can the people peaceably assemble bearing arms

No one may be deprived of the full use of their property through force or fraud nor may they be charged for the right to own property. They may not be forced to share their property with others nor to quarter others in their home.

No property tax! This one I like.

3 Right to Life, Liberty, and Security of Person
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. No one has the right to kill except if they or another be in immediate jeopardy of losing their life. Furthermore everyone has the right to waive their right to life, and so to end their life or to permit someone to end it, and to engage in behavior them may endanger themselves, but not others.
16 Right to Practice One's Chosen Profession
Everyone has the right to practice the profession of their choice without regard to whether or not they hold any license, certification, or specific education. Of course, everyone has the right not to patronize or employ a person because they lack such license, certification, or education.
17 Right to the Opportunity for Useful Employment
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable working conditions, and to have their work be useful.
18 Right to Free Enterprise
Everyone has the right to engage in any business they choose alone or in association with others and to form a corporate entity to govern the association.
No one may be required to hold any license or permit to engage in any business so long as they do not endanger others.

So drug dealer is a legitimate business.

25 Right to Full Investigation
Any person bringing suit as the victim of a crime or misdemeanor shall have the right to hire someone to investigate the matter or to do so themselves. The accused has the right to have the findings of any investigation made available to them.

Presumably this investigator needs no credentials. I see a big market for hired goons.

The US Bill of Rights had it right, expand it at your own peril.

Field Marshal Mathers · 2004-02-28 20:48:12

I suppose you are an objectivist then... I have considered whether a perfect capitalist society could exist on mars. Of cours you could also create a social democracy within this framework. How DO you decide what rights are superior? is it by their order in the BOR?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-14 04:23:02

Re: A Martian Bill of Rights - A list of Right put out for discussion.

#2 2002-06-14 15:26:04

Re: A Martian Bill of Rights - A list of Right put out for discussion.

#3 2002-06-14 19:20:05

Re: A Martian Bill of Rights - A list of Right put out for discussion.

#4 2002-06-15 04:41:31

Re: A Martian Bill of Rights - A list of Right put out for discussion.

#5 2003-10-03 06:19:27

Re: A Martian Bill of Rights - A list of Right put out for discussion.

#6 2004-01-14 22:17:00

Re: A Martian Bill of Rights - A list of Right put out for discussion.

#7 2004-01-16 09:56:31

Re: A Martian Bill of Rights - A list of Right put out for discussion.

#8 2004-01-17 10:28:05

Re: A Martian Bill of Rights - A list of Right put out for discussion.

#9 2004-02-28 20:48:12

Re: A Martian Bill of Rights - A list of Right put out for discussion.

Board footer