Foundational Rights

[Amaterasu Solar]

I can see your point, and agree with it to a degree. It becomes troubling when introducing the concept of "ethics" and trying to commingle it with "sovereignty". The notion of "ethics" implies an agreed-upon framework, and to consent to that is to subsume your sovereignty, your authority over yourself, to a "higher power" - unless you alone (and every other being on the planet, also alone) define those ethics individually, each for themselves. The instant you agree to work within a framework constructed by other than yourself, alone, you have abdicated your sovereignty in favor of communal rules - which is what we have on this planet today, under every government.

I subscribe to the Law of the Jungle. Each individual has an absolute right to defend his or her Self by any means they can devise or acquire. Each individual has an absolute right to be left alone - and may enforce that right by means of the first law. Each individual has an absolute right to feed, clothe, and house them-self by any means at their disposal.

Who defines your ethics? I have a suspicion that your ethics may conflict with mine, and I will not subject myself to the ethics of another - if I'm going to do that, I may as well be living under a government. The end result is always the same. Other folks' rules are other folks' rules, whether "government", "society" or any other collective grouping.

Rights are "rights" because they cannot be legislated away. The government didn't issue mine to me, so thy have no claim on them to legislate them away. Likewise, No one, but NO ONE, has the right to decide if I am behaving "ethically", since they do not have the right to decide my ethics for me.

While I agree that technically the three Laws of Ethics subsume sovereignty, without those Laws, society could not function, as psychopaths did as They choose, and pandemonium would result.  The positive thing here, and why I do not consider the Laws as truly being oppressive to sovereignty, is that most of Us live within these Laws naturally.  We all know that hurting or killing the flesh of anOther, without fully informed consent, is wrong.  We know that taking or damaging things, without fully informed consent, that do not belong to Us alone is wrong.  We know it's wrong to defraud Others.  And in a system that is based on social currency, accounted for in Our hearts and minds, to be sure, breaking these Laws will cost LOTS of social currency.

What We have today is Some being given authority over Others.  In what I propose, We ALL have authority over only Those who choose to behave unEthically, but no One is "in charge," making rules for Others to follow.  Anarchy means no rulers, NOT no rules.  There are three We need to maintain a healthy society.

The Laws of Ethics are well defined.  We can't "redefine" these - like...  "Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of another...unless You're super pissed."  This is not to say that in Self defense One cannot kill anOther bent on hurting/killing Oneself.

It is not a "collective" but a stigmergic system of autonomous Individuals that will emerge.  I loathe the whole idea of "collective."

As for Ethics...  They are clearly and concisely defined in the three Laws.  So in this jungle, it's ok if someOne is killing People for fun (being a psychopath) as long as They are not trying to kill You?