We should note that having a partially ethical constitution does not necessarily produce an ethical government. The Government of the United States stopped even having a pretense of being ethical long ago. In fact, it has become increasingly unethical since the end of the Monroe Administration. But it is only in the last hundred years that each succeeding President has usually been significantly less ethical than the previous President, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, who was clearly an ethical, but ineffective, President. Without the short lived revulsion against the Nixon Administration, a man like Jimmy Carter would never have been elected President. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were as unethical, or worse, than Nixon ever was.

The Ten Commandments

Although there are 613 divinely ordained commandments in Judaism, some Orthodox Jews believe that all 613 commandments can be derived from the Ten Commandments. As was mentioned in the previous chapter, the Ten Commandments can be derived from the Evolutionary Ethic and the Eight Ethical Principles. From the Evolutionary Ethic, the Eight Ethical Principles, and the Ten Commandments all the ethical commandments of the Bible may be derived as well as the metaphorical ethical implications of the ritualistic commandments, but not, to the best of my knowledge, the ritual itself.

Therefore I reject Jewish ritual, but not its ethics, both explicit and metaphorically implicit. But along with Spinoza I believe we should be respectful of other people's rituals, if they are not overtly unethical, but merely trivial to our perceptions. That is how I feel about both Jewish and Christian ritual. I personally find most forms of ritual obnoxious. But the Ten Commandments are explicitly ethical, although they all require rational interpretation in order to apply them properly in our personal lives as well as in political ethical systems, such as in the ethical constitution to be developed later in this book. Later, practical methods to implement an ethical constitution will be suggested.

The Ten Commandments are common to both Judaism and Christianity and are the core of Judaeo-Christian ethics, although the early Catholic Church revised the Ten Commandments, as well as the teachings of Jesus, in order to make its form of idolatry acceptable, as well as to justify its bureaucratic structure. Most Protestant sects have translated the Ten Commandments more correctly, but also with errors. We shall use mostly the Revised American Standard Version of the King James translation to express the Ten Commandments.

The teachings of Jesus are extremely anti-bureaucratic and have added a new dimension to Jewish ethics. Jewish ethics are based on a universal sense of justice. Jesus' interpretation of Jewish ethics emphasizes universal love over justice, although universal love is also within Jewish ethics. Therefore purely Christian ethics will be discussed separately, after first analyzing the rational and political implications of the Ten Commandments, which we now consider.

First Commandment

First Part. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of Bondage.

Second Part. You shall have no other Gods before me.

Third Part. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or is in the earth beneath; you shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to those who keep my commandments.

Interpretation of the First Commandment

First Part. The concept of an emotional, personal God, as we saw in the previous chapter, is a metaphor for the impersonal quantum universe of infinite truth outside of our time and space. God is not an anthropomorphic being, but is rather the process of ever increasing creativity throughout the universe. Solely processes are infinite, never anthropomorphic beings. We are created in God's ethical image, not His physical image, which does not exist.

All creative changes in the universe, such as Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt, occur solely through the intervention of God through His true messengers, e.g. Moses, or His angels. Anthropomorphic angels are metaphors for higher stages of evolution, for ethical beings who have become moral (Moral Societies), i.e. highly, but not yet irreversibly, ethical. Solely God is irreversibly ethical (6,7,8).

Second Part. We cannot put any person, principle, or thing before God. We must worship solely the one true God, i.e. the Quantum Universe beyond our time and space that is the root cause of all evolution and each creative act in the universe. We worship the one true God by learning, teaching, and creating objective truth to the limits of our capability, but without rejecting the subjective truth of true mysticism out of hand, but rather testing it scientifically. This is the Evolutionary Ethic.

Third Part. The one true God is a spirit, i.e. an infinite, non-local process of infinite complexity beyond our time and space, and cannot be represented by any graven, earthly, or finite image. If we hate the one true God, i.e. behave unethically, and decrease anyone's creativity including our own, we shall destroy our own creativity and that of our children unto the third or the fourth generation. Therefore, ethics are partly hereditary, and are not determined entirely by our environment, but our descendants can recover their ethics after several generations. If we follow the commandments of God, i.e. behave ethically, we shall be loved by God, i.e. we shall enhance our creativity and that of our children.

Second Commandment

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Interpretation of the Second Commandment

The name of God is a description of an infinite process infinitely complex. Our knowledge is always finite. Therefore, we never know the true name of God, i.e. a finite being can never fully understand the infinite process that is God. To take the name of God in vain is to speak falsely in the name of God. Since all of nature and everything in it is a part of God, according to Spinoza and Bohm's holographic model of the universe, to say anything false about nature is as much a taking of the name of God in vain as is swearing an oath falsely. This is the ethics of science.

Since the universe is an interconnected whole, as in David Bohm's holographic model, we can never fully understand any part of the universe unless we understand all of it, and we will never understand all of it. But we can grow in knowledge and creativity forever, becoming ever closer to God by understanding Him and emulating Him, i.e. following the Evolutionary Ethic. Therefore, it is unethical to be certain about any aspect of nature, because our knowledge is always at best incomplete, and at worst false. We are believing falsely and speaking falsely when we are certain and express certainty. To be certain is to take the name of God in vain.

We must never say anything that is false under the name of God, i.e. swear an oath falsely, fake a scientific experiment, or express certainty about nature or anything in nature other than our own mind, which is the only thing in the universe about we have direct certain knowledge. We can be certain solely about having our thoughts and perceptions, but never about their causes, since all truth comes from God.

God is infinite; completely true information about any part of the infinite holographic process which is God is also infinite. We are finite, and all the information we will ever have will be finite. Therefore, we can never be certain about any aspect of nature, except our own thoughts and perceptions. This is the Sixth Ethical Principle, and it implies the Seventh Ethical Principle, that it is ethical to doubt. So long as we doubt, we are open to the truth that comes solely from God.

Third Commandment

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, your son, or your daughter, your manservant or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the seas, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Interpretation of the Third Commandment

The natural cycle of creativity for all ethical beings and processes is that of seven time periods. For humans a time period for creativity is twenty four hours. For God these time periods may be very different, since He exists outside of our time and space ( 377, 378).

In order to maximize our creativity we must always rest for a full time period after six consecutive creative time periods, as well as during every individual time period by sleeping. Therefore resting is not doing nothing. Rest is essential to maximize our creativity. We must sleep every day, and sleeping is a creative act necessary to maintain our intelligence and maximize our creativity. The most creative thing we do while sleeping is to dream.

After six creative time periods we rest for a full time period in order to maximize our overall creativity. While awake, the most creative way to rest is to contemplate the nature of God and God's ethics (the Evolutionary Ethic, the Eight Ethical Principles, the Ten Commandments, and other ethical principles tested by time, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.) Therefore on the Sabbath we do no remunerative work, and devote our day to contemplating God and His ethics, by ourselves if we must, but we are obligated to share these contemplations first with our families and second with our friends and neighbors. On the Sabbath we neither work nor cause anyone else to work. This is how we maximize creativity on the Sabbath.

Since we have an ethical obligation on the Sabbath to our family, friends, and neighbors, it is optimal for any creative society to have a consensus on which day of the week shall be the Sabbath. The Jews have for over 3,000 years chosen Saturday. The Christians for almost 2,000 years have chosen Sunday. The Moslems for about 1,300 years have chosen Friday. What is essential on our Sabbath is to contemplate the nature of God and His ethics without doing any directly or indirectly remunerative work, not to engage in some particular ritual. The more compulsively ritualistic a religion, the less ethical and creative its adherents will be.

Fourth Commandment

Honor your father and your mother that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God gives you.

Interpretation of the Fourth Commandment

We have ethical obligations to all humanity, including our enemies. However, we must always behave ethically toward our parents and always treat them with love, respect, and honor. We do this by never doing or saying anything that will diminish their creativity, and by always seeking to increase their creativity, always speaking the truth to them in the most loving way possible. We must do this no matter how unethical or trivial we may perceive our parents to be, because we can never be certain about these things, and we should always treat all persons with love, respect, and honor. But we begin with our parents.

However, we are not obligated to stay in the household of our parents if they are destructive to us, and are, in fact, obligated to leave unethical parents. However, so long as we live in their household, we are ethically obligated to honor and obey them. We must always honor our parents.

If we do not honor our parents, our own creativity will be diminished, because we shall have behaved unethically. We owe our life, our intelligence, our ethics, and our original creativity to our parents. That is why we must always honor them as an ethical obligation. It is always unethical to display any form of disrespect toward our parents, and they should not tolerate it. If parents do tolerate disrespect from their children, then they are diminishing their own children's creativity, which is an unethical act. It is always unethical to tolerate destructive behavior (5th E.P.).

Fifth Commandment

You shall not kill.

Interpretation of the Fifth Commandment

The Fifth Commandment is more than an admonition to not murder. Neither shall we kill except when absolutely necessary to defend our creativity, that of our children, or of our friends and neighbors from unethical assault. Both Judaism and most forms of Christianity recognize the right to self-defense. But self-defense should not be lightly undertaken.

By the Fifth Ethical Principle, it is always unethical to allow our creativity or that of our children or other ethical persons to be diminished, and we are justified, if we are very careful, in using deadly force to defend the creativity of all ethical persons. This is the case because it is unethical to tolerate destructive behavior. But since it is also unethical to be certain, we must be extremely careful not to apply any kind of force to others unless it is to relieve immediate, unethical danger to someone's creativity. Therefore, it is unethical to impose the death penalty on deadly criminals who are already restrained and under control, but we also have the obligation to protect the creativity of society from such dangerous persons. Prison is an unethical way of doing this.

Prisons, as currently constituted in most parts of the world, degrade the prisoner and do not give him an adequate opportunity to rehabilitate himself. A more ethical alternative to deal with all criminals, not just murderers, is to exile them to a carefully guarded island with other prisoners of the same kind, where they will not be brutalized by unethical bureaucrats, but will be given an ethical opportunity to rehabilitate themselves if they wish it. If they do not choose to rehabilitate themselves, they should remain in exile until they do so choose. It is ethical to increase the ethics of criminals. How to rehabilitate criminals ethically is a topic beyond the scope of this book.

A final observation on the Fifth Commandment is that we cannot murder another even to protect, but not defend, our own life. This is to say that we cannot save our own life at the expense of another innocent life. We can take the life of someone solely when that person is in the act of unethically diminishing someone's creativity and he or she will not cease without the use of deadly force.

We cannot take the life of another, even to save our own life, if that person is innocent of any unethical action against our life. If we ever take another's life, we must never lose sight of the fact that we might be mistaken in our action, since we are never certain. We can take a life solely when absolutely necessary in defense of the ethical life of another. It is unethical to unnecessarily degrade the life of another.

Sixth Commandment

You shall not commit adultery.

Interpretation of the Sixth Commandment

Among Orthodox Jews, the Sixth Commandment is interpreted to prohibit all illicit sexual relationships which, in addition to adultery, include rape, incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. Given that the ancient Jews were polygynous, the concept of adultery is quite complex in Judaism, and involves primarily married women and men who have sexual relationships with persons who are married to someone other than themselves. The concept of incest is equally complex. There are many conflicting schools on exactly what is an illicit sexual act.

According to the Second Ethical Principle, to never decrease anyone's creativity including our own, the Sixth Commandment means never having a sexual relationship that will lead to the decrease of anyone's creativity, including our own, even at the cost of our own life.

In Orthodox Judaism there are only three sins which we must always avoid, even at the cost of own life; these are: idolatry (superstition), murder, and illicit sexual relationships. Public idolatry is considered the worst kind of idolatry because it may contribute to the ethical degradation of another. We should, at all costs, avoid communicating superstition or the illusions of certainty to others.

The Evolutionary Ethic says we should die before deliberately reducing anyone's creativity, including our own. It is unethical to allow anyone to degrade another human being, which can be done sexually. According to the Evolutionary Ethic, the most creative form of sexuality is ethically committed, heterosexual monogamy. The Evolutionary Ethic is somewhat more rigorous in regard to sexual ethics than is the Sixth Commandment, but they are similar.

Seventh Commandment

You shall not steal.

Interpretation of the Seventh Commandment

The Evolutionary Ethic and the Fifth and Seventh Commandments say that a person's life and property belong entirely to him or herself. Furthermore, no one has a right to any part of another person's life or property without his or her consent. Therefore, taxes imposed on minorities by majorities are inherently unethical. They are a form of theft. Taxes, to be ethical, must be fair and must not favor one group over another. We shall see how this can be made practical within the concept of an Ethical State.

A person's life and property are a part of his intelligence, i.e. ability to predict and control the total environment, and as a consequence part of his creativity. Therefore, stealing any part of someone's life or property diminishes his or her creativity and should never be done.

The Eighth Commandment

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Interpretation of the Eighth Commandment

In Judaism the notion of "neighbor" refers to a fellow Jew. Recall we use this notion differently to refer to any ethical person. The Commandments still apply with our broader notion of "neighbor." The worst lie we can tell is a lie that leads to the false conviction of another. The Evolutionary Ethic says we should never tell a lie to anyone about anything, because that will diminish truth for them and as a consequence diminish their intelligence and their creativity. Therefore, a lie of any kind is always unethical, but the worst lie is knowingly and falsely to convict another of a crime he or she did not commit. This does not mean we always have to speak the truth to everyone.

We should always speak the truth, or not speak at all. To persons we believe to be engaged in unethical activity, we should not lie, but remain uncommunicative, except as to ethics. The general principle is that we should increase the intelligence solely of ethical persons; it is unethical to increase the intelligence of unethical persons because C=IE, and increasing the intelligence of people with negative ethics will only increase their destructiveness. As it is unethical to be certain about who is ethical or unethical, we should always begin our communication with the communication of true ethics. This is always ethical, whether our audience is ethical or unethical. As Patanjali said, we should begin every new conversation by speaking about God (298).

Persons who are not interested in true ethics should not have their intelligence increased. However, when in doubt, in an emergency, we should always assume that they are ethical and communicate the information that is necessary to save a life or preserve an intelligence, without going through a test of ethics. We should always be very careful in not going beyond this limit in communicating truth to others.

When persons ask us to teach truth, of any kind, to them, we may carefully assume that they are truth seekers, and as a consequence ethical, if we have no evidence that they are systematically destructive to themselves and/or others. The safest course, to avoid engaging in a destructive act, is to always begin our communications with a brief discussion of ethics, and to stop discussion if there is no interest. This is one reason why many great spiritual teachers end up living as hermits.

Ninth and Tenth Commandments

You shall not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.

Ninth Commandment

You shall not covet any part of your neighbor's life or property.

Interpretation of the Ninth Commandment

Recall, our broader use of "neighbor." It is not sufficient merely not to steal your neighbor's goods, because that diminishes his creativity. Neither must you even covet his property, or any part of his life or of his property rights, for that diminishes your own creativity, and may induce you to steal or even to kill. All that we have in life should come from our creative actions; it diminishes our creativity to value the fruits of our creativity more than the creativity itself. It diminishes our creativity even more to value the fruits of someone else's creativity more than we value our own creativity.

In order to maximize our creativity, we must cease valuing the fruits of anyone's creativity, including our own, and learn to take creative action as in end in itself, without expectation of external reward or fear of any punishment.

It is an ethical duty to seek creativity as an end in itself. It is at best trivial to behave ethically in exchange for external rewards. Both trivial and unethical behavior are destructive to our creativity. Therefore, we are behaving destructively and unethically when we covet our neighbor's property or any of his or her rights to his or her own life and property.

Tenth Commandment

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

Interpretation of the Tenth Commandment

Recall, that for us "neighbor" is any ethical person. Not only is adultery unethical because it is destructive to you and to your neighbor's marriage and, as a consequence, to society, but the coveting of your neighbor's wife is also unethical, because it shall also diminish your creativity, and put you in peril of committing adultery. Although your neighbor's wife is not his property, a committed relationship between two people, whether it has been formalized by marriage or is less formal, is a holy relationship, and you should not even lust in your heart after your neighbor's spouse, for when you do you are behaving unethically, diminishing your creativity, and putting your neighbor's marriage in peril.

We should seek our sexual partners solely from unattached persons who truly love us for our creativity, and whom we in turn truly love and value for their creativity. There is never any true or ethical love without a commitment to the creativity of our partner.

If you should ever feel lust for your neighbor's spouse, you should meditate on this and do your best to overcome it, and discreetly avoid your neighbor's spouse until you have overcome this lust. Otherwise, you are heading down the path of destructive behavior. By the Fifth Ethical Principal you are ethically obligated to be intolerant of destructive behavior or its precursors in yourself as well as in others. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

Christian Ethics

Although the Sermon On The Mount is normally considered the best summary of Christian ethics, as distinct from purely Jewish ethics, the simplest, clearest, and most concise summary of Christian ethics is in the Gospel of John. When Jesus is about to be led away to be crucified, the Apostles ask him, "Master, what commandment do you leave us." Jesus immediately replies, "My sole commandment is that you love one another, as I have loved you." Then almost immediately Jesus repeats himself, for the sole time in the Gospels, and says, "My sole commandment is that you love one another." This is the essence of Christian ethics as distinct from Jewish ethics.

In the Sermon On The Mount, Jesus went so far as to say the we should also love our enemies, in contradiction to the Jewish admonition to hate our enemies. Therefore the essence of Christian ethics is that we must try to maximize the creativity of everyone, including our enemies. Note that neither Jesus' sole commandment, nor the Sermon On The Mount, nor the Ten Commandments have anything to do with ritual.

An enemy is any unethical person who systematically decreases the creativity of anyone, including himself. However, we can never be certain about who is an enemy. Therefore, the sole way to behave ethically toward a potential enemy, who appears systematically destructive, is to communicate true ethics to this possible enemy in the most loving way possible.

By "love" Jesus clearly did not mean sexual love, which the Greeks called "eros." Saint Paul, used another Greek word to denote the notion of Christian love. The word he used was "agape." This is a spiritual notion of love which does not involve sexuality, although it may exist in conjunction with sexuality. Sexual attraction can easily exist without love. Sex without love is unethical.

The definition of love which emerges from the Evolutionary Ethic and the Eight Ethical Principles is that love is the desire to maximize, and the act of maximizing, the creativity of another. This is the meaning of true love or ethical love.

Self love is maximizing our own creativity.

There is also a perverse love based upon the desire to maximize, and the act of maximizing, the happiness of another. Children whose parents sacrifice their creativity in order to maximize their happiness, have their ethics destroyed, without having their happiness increased.

The Evolutionary Ethic says that we should treat all persons with true love. The minimum love we should express toward every person we meet is to do our best to communicate true ethics to that person. But we are ethically constrained not to increase the intelligence of unethical persons, because if their ethics are negative, we only increase their destructiveness by increasing their intelligence. Remember, C = IE. But we can never be certain about who is ethical or unethical. We can only do the best we can, by beginning all our communication with true ethics. And this is ethically sufficient.

It is not a legitimate function of government to try to increase anyone's creativity. The maximization of creativity must be an act of individual ethics, not of government intervention. The sole legitimate function of any ethical government is the protection of people from having their creativity involuntarily diminished. No government in history has been more successful in this latter function than the Government of the United States of America, but this is a rapidly diminishing truth.

The Ethical Foundations of the United States of America

The ethical foundations of America are in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the Constitution. The rest of the Constitution is at best an ethical mistake, at worst it is an overtly unethical act, although the basic principles of American Government, such as the system of checks and balances, equal protection under the law for all citizens, and maximum respect for the individual, are completely ethical. The Government of the United States has been straying ever further from these ethical principles, almost from its inception.

All the considerable evil that has been done by the U.S. Government has been allegedly done to do good for someone. The problem is that since governments are inherently uncreative, they can never increase anyone's creativity without decreasing someone else's creativity. Governments usually do this by confiscating the fruits of the creativity of their most creative citizens, and then redistributing them to their least creative citizens. This is done through forced taxation, which, as we have seen, is a form of stealing. Solely taxation by consensus is ethical taxation.

No government should ever try to do good, other than protecting the civil rights of its citizens, for it shall always fail by doing evil instead, i.e. decrease the creativity of its most creative citizens and, at best, merely increase the intelligence of its least creative citizens. Remember that, according to the Third Ethical Principle, unethical means can never produce ethical ends.

Therefore an ethical government must never decrease the creativity of a single human being, no matter how many other human beings might, allegedly, be benefitted by this "sacrifice." However, an ethical government will never try to prevent its citizens from doing evil to themselves, since evil must be allowed to destroy itself, as Jesus taught. That is why Jesus taught that we should love our enemies and suffer evil.

The main function of ethical government is to avoid doing evil, and to prevent evil from being done to its unwilling citizens. Therefore, the sole legitimate function of government is to protect its citizens from having their creativity diminished without their consent by the evil actions of others or by ecological or natural catastrophes. Therefore, the public health functions of government to prevent the spread of infectious diseases or the pollution of the natural environment are ethical methods for preventing ecological catastrophe. An ethical government may also evacuate and render emergency assistance to its citizens when they are ravaged by earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and other natural catastrophes. But ethical governments must not go beyond these limits, and attempt to do good for some of their citizens by doing evil to other citizens. Any government that acts beyond these limits is unethical.

Two of the most evil governments of modern times, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, justified their existence and all their horrendously evil acts by claiming they were doing good for their citizens, as do all the tyrannies of today, such as all the remaining Islamic and Communist governments, some of which were, and still are, just as evil as the Nazis. The same can be said for all the other tyrannies, including some of the democracies, which claim to do good for some by doing evil to others. As the Third Ethical Principle tells us, the ends never justify the means. Unethical means can never produce ethical ends.

For reasons given in the previous chapter, the Founding Fathers did the best they could with what they had and knew. Not even Jefferson could foresee the bureaucratic structure and the tyranny that would emerge from Majority Rule. But Jefferson knew about the foundations of ethical government. He expressed these in the Declaration of Independence, which he wrote, and the Bill of Rights, which he inspired.

The Declaration of Independence went through several drafts, primarily to delete Jefferson's caustic references to slavery, but also to delete another very important passage. In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson had said "...all men are created equal and separate (229)." By "separate" Jefferson meant that no one had a right to any part of another person's life or property, as implied by the Ten Commandments, without that person's consent.

The separate reference was deleted at the insistence of John Adams, who was terrified of anarchy, as were many of the other Founding Fathers. The compromise that was finally reached was to delete "separate" and create a representative republic where the representatives were elected democratically, although suffrage was far from universal.

For example, solely property owners could vote at first, because solely they paid taxes. However, the democratic basis of government was to spread until today there is universal suffrage for all citizens of the United States, with minimal requirements for citizenship; the sole requirements are to be 18 years of age and not to have been convicted of a felony. They do not even have to pretend that they are dedicated to the ethical principles upon which the United States was founded.

This gave the United States a truly democratic Government, which claimed that its main function was to do good for its citizens, thereby violating a fundamental principle of ethical government. The citizens, in turn, became largely ethically corrupt, expecting nothing from the Government, but that it do good for them, and tolerating the most egregious ethical behavior from the elected leaders, so long as they believed that Government was doing material good for them.

The violation of the principle not to diminish the creativity, or violate the basic human and civil rights, of a single human in order to benefit other humans is among the greatest evils that is done today by the Government of the United States. All the evil that government does is done in the name of doing good for its citizens.

A Declaration of Independence

In order to put the Declaration of Independence in a modern, evolutionary, ethical context, it will now be rewritten in terms of the Evolutionary Ethic, with the advantage of two-hundred and thirty years of successful and failed experimentation with democratic government. This is what I believe Jefferson would say if he were alive today, although he would clearly say it better; wherever possible I have kept and/or used the original words of Jefferson.

Any group of people, no matter how small, who jointly choose to live by the ethical principles of the Second Declaration of Independence have created an ethical government for themselves. They are living in, and are citizens of, an Ethical State. An Ethical State evolves and becomes a Moral Society and then goes on evolving forever (115,116,117). An angel is a metaphor for a Moral Society.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that humanity is equal, but separate, before God in being endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable individual rights; that among these are life, liberty, property, privacy, and the maximization of creativity according to the dictates of one's own conscience. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among humanity, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms, that creativity shall be maximized.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that persons are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under any form of despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future creativity.

Such has been the patient sufferance of the subjects of this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former system of government. The history of the Government of the United States is one of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of tyranny over these once-free people. Let the facts be submitted to a candid world.

The Government of the United States, in collusion with the vassal governments of states, counties, and municipalities, have usurped the power originally granted by God and the Constitution of the United States to the people, and imposed destructive taxation, an inequitable legal system, an oppressive, compulsory educational system, the theft of property rights, and insufferable interference in their private lives.

The elected officials have repeatedly lied to and misled the public in order to obtain its support in further reducing its liberty. A majority of the electorate has repeatedly shown itself willing and anxious to be deceived by voting for the most deceitful of the political candidates before them. A majority of the electorate has repeatedly rejected ethical candidates who refused to lie to them. The Government of the United States and a majority of the voters have shown that the United States' system of Government by Majority Rule is a failed ideology which leads to the concentration of power in the hands of the most destructive liars that the society can produce. The possibility that all other systems of government have, in the past, been even worse, does not justify any form of destructive tyranny. We seek the best possible form of Government, and not merely the lesser of popular evils.

The Government of the United States has shown its moral bankruptcy in recent times by squandering the wealth of its people in supporting some of the most corrupt, destructive, evil tyrannies in history. Among these have been the governments of the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1945, the Republic of China (now in Taiwan) since 1941, the regime of the Shah of Iran from 1953 to 1978, South Vietnam from 1954 to 1975, the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua from 1933 until 1979, the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines from 1966 to 1986, many despotic Islamic states in the Middle East and other parts of the world from 1948 to the present, plus many evil, destructive dictatorships in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whenever it seemed politically expedient.

This destructive expediency has been allegedly practiced to inhibit the deleterious spread of even greater evils, particularly communism. But it is self-evident that unethical means can never achieve ethical ends. Confiscatory socialism and other evils have steadily spread and become worse through the unethical acts of the United States Government. This Government now gives aid and support to the largest communist tyranny in the world, the People's Republic of China. Humanity is now closer to self-annihilation than at any time in history.

The Government in its alleged attempt to benefit its people has taken away their liberties and has almost succeeded in destroying them along with the rest of the world.

The Government and a majority of the electorate of the United States have engaged in gross fiscal mismanagement. They have produced a huge national debt of many trillions of dollars. At the same time, they have impoverished the most creative people of the United States by confiscating their wealth and redistributing it to the most destructive persons in the nation, thereby spawning a new parasitical class of politicians, bureaucrats, corporate monopolies, oligopolies, and their clients, who further destroy the creativity of the nation.

The Government of the United States has constantly expanded its police powers, through the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and other bureaucracies, to spy upon and harass its ethical citizens with police-state methods, while selectively aiding and abetting the ever more destructive organized crime syndicates at home and the tyrannies abroad (511-526).

In gross violation of their civil and human rights, the Government has made it increasingly difficult for ethical citizens to arm and defend themselves, while simultaneously contributing to the proliferation of vicious criminals by supporting and expanding a legal system that punishes the ethical and rewards the unethical. These destructive practices are exacerbated by the rulings of the Supreme Court which constantly take away individual liberty for the benefit of the police bureaucracies and for political expediency, by catering to popular fear and prejudice while protecting criminals at the expense of the innocent.

The legal system itself is dominated by parasitical lawyers who corrupt the law to serve solely their own power-seeking and money-making purposes by constantly eliminating all vestiges of truth and justice from the legal process and replacing them with legal technicalities, bureaucratic procedures, and the deception and manipulation of ignorant, fearful jurors. In the current legal system, a combination of money, deceit, and/or a clever, unscrupulous lawyer can almost always prevail over truth and justice.

The Government of the United States, with the criminally negligent acquiescence of an electoral majority, has plundered the wealth of its citizens, imposed upon them an ever growing oppressive government, exacerbated the pollution and destruction of the environment, destroyed the creativity of its youth through a malignant educational bureaucracy, and made it ever more difficult for individual creativity to express itself. The Government has greatly endangered the very survival of humanity and life on earth. The political leaders of the United States, and those who vote for or in any way support them, have shown themselves unwilling to provide for the common welfare and to prevent the destruction of the people's God-given creativity.

In spite of all its faults, we recognize that the Government of the Unites States is among the least evil governments on earth. But just as the United States was originally created when an ethical minority of its inhabitants revolted against what was then the least evil and most powerful government on earth in order not to be forced to accept the lesser of evils, so now must a new ethical minority revolt against the least evil and most powerful government of today. For evil in any form, no matter how powerful, must not be tolerated. We recognize, along with those who signed the original Declaration of Independence, that all current governments are inherently evil; only that government which governs least, governs best. We have used the remaining liberty in the United States to warn our American brethren of these dangers through our words and our actions; we have given alternatives. They have chosen to continue on the path of self-destruction.

We, the People of the Ethical State, choose life over death. We choose creation over destruction. In ethical self-defense, we declare ourselves a free and sovereign people, no longer bound by ties to any government other than our own. We welcome those who choose to join us in a creative, free society. The Ethical State begins. We shall create a Moral Society.

Before the world and the God who created all, we declare ourselves an Ethical State dedicated to the maximization of creativity and bound by no other law. We declare the inviolate liberty of every human being to do and say what he or she pleases, as long as he or she does not impose undeserved harm on others. We declare that harm to another is deserved solely when necessary, in defense against an aggressor who intends to harm an innocent person.

A person's life, liberty, property, and privacy belong entirely to him or herself; no one has a right to any part of another person's life, liberty, property, or privacy. Solely mutually voluntary transactions by 100% consensus can ever be ethical or creative. The tyranny of any majority over any individual is hereby denounced. We, the People of the Ethical State, swear eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of any ethical being. We declare all persons ethical until proven otherwise.

Upon these principles we shall henceforth govern ourselves and interact with others. We shall do our best to maximize creativity. Toward this God-inspired end, we, and all future citizens of the Ethical State, pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Citizenship

Anyone who understands the Evolutionary Ethic well, and sincerely commits to implement it by living in accordance with the ethical principles expressed in the Second Declaration of Independence, is a citizen of an Ethical State. It is not necessary to agree with any of the criticisms of American political history to be a citizen of an Ethical State. However, all citizens of an Ethical State must be fully committed to its ethical principles.

The ethical principles of an Ethical State are further clarified by seeing the correspondence between the Evolutionary Ethic and the Bill of Rights together with the other ethical amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. The following interpretations relate these amendments to citizenship in an Ethical State.

The Ethical Amendments

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Interpretation of the First Amendment

Religion is a question of personal, private morality, and, as we have seen, this should not be a concern of the Government. It is clear that there exist destructive religions; however, so long as these are freely chosen by their adherents for themselves and are privately practiced, and do not impose any undeserved harm upon any other citizens, the Government should remain entirely neutral in questions of religion and other aspects of personal, private morality. This is supported by the Ten Commandments, the Second Declaration of Independence, the Evolutionary Ethic, and the Eight Ethical Principles. Unethical people should be allowed to destroy themselves.

In a free society ethical children will often reject the unethical religion and behavior of their parents, without Government intervention. However, the Government has a certain obligation to protect dependent children from unethical parents; some religions are very destructive to children. How to ethically protect dependent children, without having Government unethically interfering with parental rights, is discussed in the next chapter within the context of a constitution for an Ethical State.

Freedom of speech is also a question of private morality. All truth should clearly be allowed to be spoken, written, and otherwise communicated by everyone, but so should also lies that are private, and do not have to be believed, be allowed to be communicated without any Government intervention. It is solely lies that are fraudulent, libelous, or slanderous that are a concern of an ethical government, since the main task of an ethical government is not to allow its citizens' creativity to be diminished involuntarily.

Therefore, false advertisements which induce anyone to harm themselves financially, physically, or otherwise are fraudulent and subject to criminal prosecution, if they are deliberate, or to civil action if they are accidental or unintentional. Deliberate lies are sometimes considered civil, rather than criminal, fraud, but within an Ethical State any intentional harming of another is a crime. Solely unintentional harm is a non-criminal civil harm. The lies of some religions border on the criminal, but are difficult to prove in a court of law so long as there is no criminal coercion.

Slander is destructive to a person's reputation, and may therefore diminish creativity. Slander damages the creative potential of a person. Therefore, slander should be subject to criminal prosecution if it is deliberate, or to civil action if it is unintentional or accidental.

Peaceful assembly of any group of any size is clearly a basic human right which should not be infringed, so long as this assembly is voluntary among all of the people involved and it is on private land voluntarily provided for this purpose, or on public land set aside for this purpose and for which permission is given or implied by the branch of Government responsible for the use of this public land. Such permission should not be unreasonably withheld or denied by an ethical government. The people cannot maximize their creativity unless they are allowed to assemble peacefully according to the dictates of their own consciences. However they must not impose any undeserved harm on any non-consenting person.

Therefore, the Government cannot ethically infringe on the right of any voluntary assembly for any purpose, unless it can prove that this assembly is harming someone without his or her consent. Therefore, the Government cannot ethically control schools, theaters, sports arenas, or other places of voluntary assembly, or for that matter any voluntary gatherings for any purpose such as in hospitals or businesses. The people so assembled or gathered do so at their own risk.

The same applies for any use of private property for any purpose by the property owner. The burden of proof is on the Government to show that someone is being harmed after the fact. No prior restraint can ethically exist on religion, speech, assembly, or private use of private land. Otherwise creativity shall not be maximized, and the Government shall become destructive. However, the Government is ethically bound to intervene after the fact if someone is being damaged or is recklessly endangered by any of these acts.

As consequence of the ethics of the First Amendment, anyone may petition the Government for a redress of grievances, and the Government is ethically and legally obligated to respond to these complaints in a timely matter, and answer the petitioner as to what action is being taken, and why. Otherwise, the Government is not ethical, and it shall be destructive, thereby violating the Evolutionary Ethic.

Second Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment

The right of self-defense is a basic human right. It is our ethical duty to keep anyone from diminishing our creativity, or the creativity of those we love, even by the use of deadly force, so long as we can prove that deadly force was necessary. Therefore, it is unethical to infringe on the right of anyone who is an ethical citizen to arm and defend him or herself. To do so shall be an unethical act of the Government, in violation of the Evolutionary Ethic and most of the Eight Ethical Principles, as well as the Ten Commandments and the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

A militia is a voluntary group of citizens who have joined together for mutual self-defense. Since peaceful assembly and self-defense are basic human rights, it is unethical to prevent any group of people joining together for mutual self-defense. To do so shall diminish their creativity. No prior restraint may ethically exist on the formation of a militia or on the arming of the citizens of an Ethical State for self-defense. Citizens and a militia may be disarmed solely when it is proved that they have caused undeserved harm to someone, or they are about to do so, by intent or reckless endangerment.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was, when it was originally passed, to permit citizens to defend themselves against criminals and other hostile aggressors, as well as the Government itself if the latter ever became destructive to the human rights and freedoms of its citizens. The Government of the United States has long passed this threshold of not harming its citizens.

Patrick Henry stated that an armed citizenry was absolutely necessary for a people to maintain their freedom, otherwise the Government would infringe upon their freedoms a little at a time, until the people were no longer free. This has now been going on for almost 200 years.

Third Amendment

No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in war, but in a manner prescribed by law.

Interpretation of the Third Amendment

Maintaining the peace and defending its citizens in time of war are the primary ethical responsibilities of an ethical government. But even these responsibilities take second place to the basic human rights of its citizens. These rights are summarized by the Second Declaration of Independence and the Evolutionary Ethic by the statement that "A person's life, liberty, property, and privacy belong entirely to that person and may not be involuntarily appropriated or infringed upon by the Government, even when it is necessary for the public good." This is in harmony with the Fifth and the Seventh of the Ten Commandments, as well as the Third Amendment. Therefore a government may never ethically take any part of any citizen's life, liberty, property, or privacy for any public purpose without that citizen's consent, except when necessary in self-defense against aggression by that citizen.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment

This is another affirmation of the ethical axiom that "A person's life, liberty, property, and privacy belong entirely to that person." Furthermore, even when it is necessary to appropriate any part of another person's life, liberty, property or privacy in an emergency to maintain the peace, this may not be done, unless the criminal is caught in the act, without proper safeguards and permission from a court, after sworn testimony has been given that this appropriation or arrest is absolutely necessary to maintain the peace and to protect someone's creativity from a crime.

If false testimony is knowingly given in this matter, then the persons involved are guilty of a crime, and must be prosecuted as criminals by the Government. If false testimony is given unknowingly, then the persons involved are civilly liable for causing involuntary harm to a citizen by violating his or her absolute rights to life, liberty, property, and privacy.

The Fourth Amendment implies a right to privacy in our life, liberty, property, and communications that are not made public. Since a person's life and property belongs entirely to him or herself, the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Supreme court has correctly determined by a slim majority, also implies the right to privacy, which, in turn, implies the right of a woman to obtain an abortion.

Although an abortion for convenience may be an unethical act, it is an act of private morality and may not be infringed by the Government. The fetus has no right to any part of the mother's life without her consent. However, the Government of the people in an Ethical State should not be involved in abortions or in anyway support them. They should not be done as a matter of public health or eugenics.

However, the Government has certain obligations to dependent children, after they are born, who are not taken proper care of by their parents. How Government may ethically accomplish this obligation, without interfering unethically with the rights of the parents to raise their children according to the dictates of their own consciences, is given in the next chapter.

Abortion is an act of private morality or immorality, as may be determined by the woman and/or her doctor, and is not a matter of ethical concern for the Government or anyone else. Unethical people should be allowed to destroy themselves, but their dependent children have a right to certain ethical protection, solely after they are born, when they are being abused or neglected by their parents.

Dependent children also have no right to any part of their parent's life, liberty, property, or privacy, although parents have a personal ethical obligation, as a first priority, to maximize their children's creativity and never to do anything to diminish the creativity of their children. Therefore, for all legal purposes, dependent children should ethically be regarded as the sole exclusive and private responsibility of their parents, without any infringement on this right by Government or anyone else, except for the welfare of the child, under the special conditions given in the next chapter.

The Government's first duty is to protect parental rights. Secondarily, the Government has an ethical duty to protect the human rights of all dependents. An ethical balance must be struck between the rights of the parents and the basic human rights of the dependent children. An ethical government will never interfere unreasonably with parental rights.

As a consequence, in an Ethical State, parents are each criminally and civilly responsible for any crimes or damages that their dependent children might cause. A child ceases to be an exclusive dependent and responsibility of its parents, if, and only if, the child is adopted by others or qualifies for citizenship. If the child is adopted by others legally, as determined by an impartial jury, then the child becomes the exclusive dependent and responsibility of its new parents.

If an impartial jury determines that a dependent child has qualified for citizenship, then the child shall have all the rights of citizenship, and it shall no longer be the dependent of anyone in an Ethical State. At this time the parents or guardians of the child are no longer responsible for the acts of these children, and they no longer have any right to any part of the life or property of the child. It is the individual, private responsibility of each parent or guardian to prepare his or her children for citizenship in an Ethical State as soon as possible, and to do nothing to inhibit this preparation.

In an Ethical State, the mother is the sole and exclusive parent of the child unless she declares a man to be the father. The man becomes the legal father of the child solely upon his acceptance of the declaration of the mother or when proved to an impartial jury by DNA matching upon a declaration of fatherhood by the mother and refusal to accept this declaration by the alleged father. Otherwise the man has no legal rights or obligations regarding the child.

There is a tacit, implicit, ethical evolutionary contract between a man and a woman when they have a child together. This implicit contract has existed for millions of years. The evolutionary contract says that both parents will do their best to maximize the creativity of their children, and each other, and that they will never do anything to diminish the creativity of their children, or each other.

It is the proper duty of an ethical government to enforce contracts and to demand compensation for the complaining party when any contract is violated. Therefore the Government may intervene on behalf of a child, or either parent, to protect their rights under the evolutionary contract. How to ethically protect both the rights of the child, and the rights of the parent(s), is given in the next chapter.

Requiring a father to pay child support to the child's mother when he does not wish to assume parental responsibility, is part of proper compensation for violation of the evolutionary contract. However, private, voluntary sexual relationships between mutually consenting citizens of an Ethical State, are no concern of the Government, which shall remain neutral in all such relationships, including marriage. Marriage or its absence is a private ethical choice of the partners, who may, or may not, form legal and/or religious contracts in addition to the evolutionary contract.

The legal father of the child holds both the rights and the responsibilities of parenthood jointly with the mother so long as the child is dependent and has not yet become a citizen of an Ethical State. A father loses the rights, but not the responsibilities, of parenthood, if he refuses to assume these responsibilities voluntarily and is later found by an impartial jury to be the responsible father.

The mother is the sole responsible parent with rights to the child when she does not declare who is the father. The father is responsible for half the costs to support and educate the child if he has accepted the declaration of fatherhood, or a court has otherwise declared the man to be the father.

No parent may harm the child without the consent of the other parent if the other parent exists, and has rights to the child. If any parent or guardian chooses to damage a child without the consent of the other parent or guardian, then the child, the parent, or the guardian may sue the party doing the harm, for breech of the evolutionary contract. A party losing such a suit may be assessed damages, and lose his or her rights of parenthood. In an Ethical State, a dependent child would have the right to divorce his or her parents, and collect damages, if they are destructive to the creativity of the child and the child has other citizens willing to become his or her guardians; all to be ajudicated by an impartial jury.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Interpretation of the Fifth Amendment

This amendment affirms again that "a person's life, liberty, property, and privacy belong entirely to that person." Furthermore, a person's life, liberty, property, and privacy are so much his or her own, that the state, even to maintain the peace, may not appropriate any part of a person's basic civil rights without due process of law, and that this process must give the benefit of the doubt at all times to the citizen, who is considered innocent until proven guilty by the unanimous consent of an impartial jury.

Therefore no serious criminal charges may be brought forth without first having been indicted by a grand jury, where the burden of proof of the criminal charges is entirely upon the Government. Then there must be a trial by an independent jury, where the jury can convict solely by unanimous consensus, and a person may be tried solely once for a given crime. Furthermore, no one may be compelled to testify against her or himself in a criminal trial, and may always simply remain silent and require the prosecution or the adversary to prove its case to the unanimous satisfaction of an impartial jury. The worst thing that Government can ever do is to diminish the creativity of one of its ethical citizens, and this must always be guarded against.

Furthermore, a person's property, or any of his or her property rights, may not be taken away, even when absolutely necessary for the public good, without just compensation, even in self-defense against any form of personal or ecological aggression by the person. This must be unanimously determined by an impartial jury. The only compensation that can be just, is a compensation to which the property owner agrees. All transactions to be ethical must be entirely voluntary, except in self-defense against an aggressor.

The absolute right to private property is the foundation for all human rights (309). The violation of private property rights always leads to the violation of all other human rights, as has been shown by all the Communist governments of this century.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have assistance of counsel in his defense.

Interpretation of the Sixth Amendment

All the guarantees of the previous amendments are not sufficient to protect a person's basic human rights to the exclusive ownership of his or her life, liberty, property, and privacy. The Government must also guarantee the right to a speedy trial, and that the accused shall be judged by an impartial jury. It is the ethical duty of an ethical government to have enough courts and juries to assure a speedy trial for all citizens. This is a right which is systematically violated by the courts of the United States.

In an Ethical State juries shall be elected by the unanimous consent of their peers who have similarly been elected by the unanimous consent of the appropriate citizens. This process shall be elaborated in the next chapter.

Seventh Amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of common law.

Interpretation of the Seventh Amendment

The protection of any individual against civil harm will be guaranteed by a trial by an impartial jury. This extends beyond the needs of the Government to protect its citizens; it extends to any significant suit brought by individuals who have claims of having been civilly harmed by the person in question. Furthermore, there shall be no second guessing of local juries by juries from other locales.

The only ethical and legal appeal is to a higher court with another higher impartial jury. In such an appeal, the facts in the civil case shall not be at issue but solely the procedures of the lower jury and court, to assure proper protection of human and civil rights, as well as due process of law. However, new relevant facts may be introduced by the appelants. So shall it be in an Ethical State.

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Interpretation of the Eighth Amendment

A person's life and property are so much his or her own that even when the person is criminally or civilly liable as determined by a grand jury or a local jury, there shall be no excessive bail, fines, or cruel punishment imposed. Fines and bail should fit the situation for the risk involved and the harm that has allegedly been done.

Punishment is never an ethical act. Therefore, all punishment imposed by imprisonment, torture, or any degrading of a human being is excessively cruel. However, an ethical government has the duty to protect its citizens when they are likely to be harmed in any way. Therefore, reasonable compensation for undeserved criminal or civil harm should be required of the person who has been found guilty of imposing this harm on the unconsenting person.

Since, by the Sixth Ethical Principle, it is unethical to ever be certain about cause and effect relationships in the natural world, we cannot be sure that a person convicted of a crime is truly unethical. Because C = IE, and E is never equal to 1 for any finite being. E is, in fact, a random vector, whose components are always less than 1. Therefore, ethical persons can occasionally commit unethical acts, just as unethical persons can occasionally perform ethical acts, depending on the random fluctuations in their ethics. Therefore, the only ethical treatment of a convicted criminal allowable in an Ethical State, in order to defend society, is exile to a place, e.g. an island, where the rest of the society will be secure from further unethical acts by this legally convicted criminal.

Furthermore, it is cruel punishment to put criminals in the company of other criminals who have committed more heinous crimes than they have. Therefore, in an Ethical State the convicted criminals shall be exiled to a place where solely other criminals of the same type shall be located. Furthermore, this place shall be open to businesses as well as individual and organizational volunteers who wish to rehabilitate the criminals, either for profit or as an act of charity. The criminals may choose their rehabilitators. Taxes would not be used to pay the commercial rehabilitators; rather; other ethical and proper business arrangements would be made according to law.

Since Government cannot try to do good for anyone without doing evil to someone, the Ethical State shall not be involved directly in criminal rehabilitation, but it shall cooperate with, listen to, and, within reason, protect those involved in criminal rehabilitation, including the criminals themselves. The risk of rehabilitating criminals shall be born entirely by the rehabilitators and the criminals themselves, but not by the citizens of an Ethical State.

It shall be incumbent upon those rehabilitating criminals, as well as the criminals themselves, to convince a court higher than that which convicted the criminal in the first place, that the criminal has been rehabilitated beyond a reasonable doubt, and should be given another chance to become a member of society on a probationary basis. The conditions of probation should not be cruel or excessive; they should solely reflect reasonable precautions to continue to protect the rest of society from the criminal that has been put on probation. Exile to any country outside of the Ethical State could be an acceptable form of probation. But it is unethical to dump criminals on the citizens of other countries, as Fidel Castro did in 1980.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration of the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Interpretation of the Ninth Amendment

The rights of the people to life, liberty, property, and privacy are absolute and may not be infringed in any way by the Government, except when necessary in self-defense against an aggressor. However, these rights may be incompletely protected by the Constitution.

Therefore when in doubt, the right to life, liberty, property, and privacy of the people shall be foremost and absolute before the Government, which may not infringe upon these rights, but may further protect them. In an Ethical State, the rights to life, liberty, property, and privacy are absolute, and may never be diminished, except in necessary self-defense against an aggressor, although they may be strengthened and expanded.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.

Interpretation of the Tenth Amendment

The Federal Government is strictly limited in its powers to those powers and rights granted by the Constitution. All other rights, not in conflict with the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people. Other than those Constitutional rights given by the people to the states, all other rights belong to the people, and these rights may not be reduced without a Constitutional Amendment.

The notion of strictly limited government is essential to any ethical republic. In an Ethical State the Government is strictly limited solely to protecting the rights of its citizens to life, liberty, property, and privacy from unwanted intrusions and violations by any of the people of the Ethical State, any of the branches of local or national Government, foreign invaders, or the vagaries of human-caused ecological disaster or natural catastrophe. The Government is strictly forbidden to do good for anyone by confiscating the fruits of the creativity of some through taxes, and then redistributing them to less creative or needier people.

Furthermore, all taxes in the Ethical State shall be paid by those who choose to participate in Government. How this can be done practically is discussed in the next two chapters. Those who pay taxes have certain rights which other residents of an Ethical State do not have, primarily the right to participate in Government. There should never be taxation without true representation of the taxpayer. Under Majority Rule, all taxpayers who voted for candidates who were not elected are not properly or ethically represented.

Thirteenth Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment

A person's life is so much his or her own that even to pay for civil damages, unanimously agreed to by an impartial jury, that person may not be subjected to involuntary servitude to collect proper and legal debts.

It is not considered a cruel and unusual punishment by the United States' Constitution to subject a convicted criminal to involuntary servitude, but it is so considered in an Ethical State. The only protection against convicted criminals is that they are exiled to a well guarded place where they may not inflict undeserved harm on any of the people of an Ethical State who are not themselves convicted criminals, convicted of a similar crime. It is unethical to subject any human being to involuntary servitude under any conditions, even to collect just debts or to receive just compensation for undeserved harm.

The only compensation which is ethical to demand from a person who has harmed us is money or property, not a part of his or her life. Every form of human degradation is unethical and may never be ethically imposed upon another. For this reason, exiled criminals are not imprisoned, but are merely guarded around the periphery of their place of exile, so that they may not again endanger the ethical people of an Ethical State.

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The next three sections of the Fourteenth Amendment are not of an ethical nature, but have more to do with bureaucratic requirements for dealing with the aftermath of the Civil War. The ethical implications of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments shall be considered jointly.

Fifteenth Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Nineteenth Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Interpretation of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments

The ethical essence of these three amendments is that all citizens of the United States are equal before the law and that no one is above the law, including the highest government authorities. Furthermore the rights of citizenship of any person in an Ethical State are not subject to any vagaries of biology such as race, gender, or health, but are equal for all, based solely upon behavior.

It is reasonable in an Ethical State to require all citizens to understand minimally the Evolutionary Ethic, basic Ethical Principles, plus the Constitution of the Ethical State to be developed in the next chapter. It is also reasonable that all citizens of an Ethical State be required to uphold these ethics, principles, and constitution, as now are Government officials and the military in the United States. But no rights of citizenship may be infringed due to any biological, religious, or ideological differences between persons. Everything else, other than criminal and uncivil behavior, is permitted. The sole ethical criteria for all the rights of citizenship must be entirely behavioral and for individuals, and there cannot ethically exist privileged or specially protected classes of any kind.

One of the reasons for the ethical decline of the United States has been that the behavioral requirements for citizenship have been extremely lax. Namely, merely being born within the United States, or for naturalized citizens too limited an understanding of English, of the Democratic Ethic, and the history and Constitution of the United States.

The original citizens of the United States were much more committed to the Democratic Ethic than those who followed. More and more people came to the United States not to be free, but to share in the economic prosperity that comes from freedom. These less ethical people became an ever growing majority and debased the original ethical principles of the United States, by turning the United States into a socialist democracy under Majority Rule. The Democratic Ethic led to its own contradiction.

An ethical republic must require, for all its citizens, native born and immigrants, a full understanding of its ethical principles and a personal commitment to them expressed in its official language or languages. English should have long ago been made the official language of United States. To remain ethical an ethical state must require of all its citizens, native born and immigrants, that they fully understand and commit to the Evolutionary Ethic, the Ten Commandments, the ethical teachings of Jesus, the Eight Ethical Principles, and the fundamental ethics expressed in the Second Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the Constitution of the original United States of America. Furthermore, this understanding and commitment must be made in the official language or languages of the Ethical State.

We must learn by experience and keep what works, and eliminate what does not work.

Eliminating What Does Not Work

The purpose of this chapter has been to identify all the ethical principles of religion and government that have been shown to work over time and then show how they relate to the Evolutionary Ethic and ethical government in general. This has been done for the Ten Commandments, the ethical teachings of Jesus, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments. However, it is important to also point out what has been shown to not work. This has been shown to be ritual and Majority Rule, but many other aspects and types of government have also been shown not to work. We will consider all the failed government paradigms in order to avoid them in the future, and to make sure that they are not subtlely included in what might otherwise be an ethical government.

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the other ones, which include monarchy, aristocracy, theocracy, and personal dictatorships. The problem is that democracy has been corrupted to mean "Majority Rule" rather than its true meaning of "Self Rule." The fact that Majority Rule seems to be the least evil system of government up to now does not mean that it is a good system, let alone the best system of government possible. In order to come up with a better system of government, it is necessary to understand exactly how Majority Rule functions, and what are both its inherent advantages and its inherent disadvantages.

The main advantage of Majority Rule is that it tends to diffuse power, and as a consequence inhibits, in the short run, the corruption of highly concentrated power elites; therefore it is usually less tyrannical than all the other systems of government tried until now. Eventually, however, wealthy power elites, plutocracies, learn to manipulate the majority with massive, very expensive propaganda which propagates comforting, popular lies, and in effect convinces the majority to cut their own throats, thereby creating a new type of democratic tyranny by an evil minority.

Tyranny, even a "benevolent" tyranny, is always unethical, because it diminishes at least one person's creativity, including the tyrant's, by taking away the right to choose alternative, more ethical courses of action (111, 115, 116).

The majority of all democratic electorates will almost always sacrifice their own, and almost certainly others', personal liberty in exchange for promises of more security from a centralized authority, which in virtually all democracies quickly becomes irreversibly evil and corrupt. Democratic authority, no matter how virtuous and well intentioned it originally was, becomes corrupted because professional politicians quickly learn that the easiest way to get elected is to openly share the fears and prejudices of the electoral majority, independently of the politicians true beliefs, and then to cater to, and manipulate, the majority by telling the lies the majority wishes to hear. Solely evil politicians will do this. These evil politicians eventually become the leadership in all democratic countries.

This was understood two thousand years ago by Cicero, who said "the world wants to be deceived" (351). It was even better understood twenty four hundred years ago by Socrates who said that democracy (i.e. Majority Rule) would never work, because the least creative majority would always choose to live parasitically off of the most creative minority by confiscating their wealth and then redistributing it among themselves, the first clear understanding of socialism (311). Majority Rule will inevitably lead to unethical, confiscatory socialism in time.

Spinoza rejected Majority Rule because it was destructive to individual liberty, which was essential to maximize creativity. Spinoza said that Majority Rule always leads to the imposition of the will of the majority on minorities, and that this was unethical, because the destruction of freedom also destroys creativity (412). A tyranny of the majority is inherently unethical.

As Bertrand Russell eventually learned through personal experience after running for public office, all democracies with Majority Rule eventually become so corrupt that "solely persons who are hypocritical, stupid, or both can be elected to public office" (351, 356)." This is the case because the hypocrite has learned how to manipulate the majority by speaking what he does not believe; while stupid politicians may actually believe some or all of what they say. Russell, presumably, considered anyone less clever than himself as stupid, and he concluded that a majority of the electorate was stupid.

My own observation is that politicians are more hypocritical than stupid, and that the electorate is more lazy and unethical than stupid. Most of the electorate could understand what is going on if they wished to spend any time studying it, by simply reading what has already been published on political corruption; however, they are too lazy to give up any of their fifty hours per week watching television to study and understand the political process. Furthermore, they are too unethical to reject the blatant lies that they are constantly told by charming but apparently unethical politicians, such as Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton.

It seems that most people choose to believe what they want to believe, not because it is true, but because believing it makes them happy. By definition, someone who values happiness more than truth is already unethical (115-117).

Political Paradigms

Almost all political paradigms fall into one of four classes: conservative, liberal, authoritarian, or libertarian. Conservatives are usually better off economically than the majority and wish no government interference in the economic sector, particularly concerning property rights, or forced government redistribution of wealth from those who have it to those who have less of it. But conservatives wish government to control individual behavior that might be threatening to them, particularly crime, drug use, abortion, homosexuality, and any impediments to the aggressive expansion of their conservative religious beliefs.

In terms of the ideological dichotomies used in my book (116), I would call these types of people conservatives of the right. A "rightist" is defined as anyone who believes that the major cause behind human differences is heredity instead of environment. In the United States most, but not all, conservative-rightists are registered Republicans. Republican-minded persons represent about 40% of the electorate.

The Democrats, or Democratically-minded, are also about 40% of the electorate. These persons are usually called, incorrectly from my point of view, "liberals," although there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Again using my previous paradigm (116), I would call "liberals," "liberal leftists." A "leftist" is someone who believes that the major behavioral differences between persons are due mainly to their environment and not to their heredity.

The scientific evidence is that both heredity and environment determine behavior, but that in a rich, relatively free country, such as the United States, heredity is considerably more important than environment, although both operate (119, 144, 180-183). Since the 1930's, the western democracies have become overwhelmingly biased, particularly in the academic community, toward a leftist view of society.

This bias has caused the phenomenon of "political correctness" in the United States, and other democratic countries, in which rightist views cannot even be mentioned in the academic community or the rest of society without serious social repercussions. However, the leftist bias is scientifically incorrect (116, 119, 144, 180-183). Most ideologues of both the right and the left do not even realize that at the core of their ideology is an unscientific belief about the relationship between nature and nurture, and the relative effects of environment and heredity on human behavior.

A "liberal" is a person who is tolerant of change in all aspects of the environment particularly those changes which most affect his beliefs and paradigms, so long as those changes do not physically affect his life.

A "conservative" is a person who is intolerant of change in most aspects of the environment, particularly those that affect his beliefs and paradigms, even if they do not physically affect his life. All leftists are socialists; liberal socialists are known as "social democrats"; conservative socialists are often called "authoritarians."

About 15% of the electorate in the United States prefers an authoritarian type of government that interferes in people's lives in both (1) questions of personal morality, where authoritarians are usually conservative, and (2) the economic sphere, where authoritarians are usually, but not always, leftists.

Communism, fascism, and Islam are examples of recent authoritarian societies. Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and many of their followers are today's authoritarians. Sometimes authoritarian political movements are called "populism," "statism," or in my terms "conservative leftism" (116). Nazism was an authoritarian socialism of the right, "radical, socialistic rightism."

The least popular of the four political paradigms in all countries of the world is called "libertarianism." It is most popular in the United States, where libertarianism was the political philosophy advocated by Thomas Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers. In the United States, the Libertarian Party attracts about 5% of the electorate, although I suspect that if libertarian-minded voters believed that there was any chance of the Libertarian Party winning, the party might draw enough votes from Republicans, Democrats, authoritarians, and possibly others such as nihilists and existentialists, to perhaps have as much as 20% of the electorate.

The libertarian believes that government should not interfere in people's economic or moral life, except in protecting the members of society from undeserved harm, such as from forces which violate their civil rights of life, liberty, personal property, and privacy. Therefore libertarianism is the only political paradigm in harmony with the Evolutionary Ethic. However, libertarian principles are insufficient to form an ethical government, although they are necessary.

I define libertarians as "radical liberals of the right", according to my previous paradigm (116). A libertarian believes that the only legitimate function of government is in (1) a judiciary and (2) the defense of life, liberty, property, and privacy. The public defense of life against natural catastrophes, pollution, infectious diseases, not providing general health care, is also justifiable to libertarians; all other activities, including education, should be left to 100% voluntary associations between private parties, which is to say to the open market and to private charity. Libertarians regard the initiation of aggression by anyone as evil.

I have shown in my previous book (115) that all political paradigms other than libertarianism lead to contradictions and are inherently unethical and destructive. Indeed it can be stated as a general theorem, that any political paradigm other than libertarianism will lead to the eventual collapse of the society that practices it, as well as to the contradiction of its own ethical principles.

The United States was originally designed by the Founding Fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, to be a libertarian society. However, the democratic structure of the United States has led it to Majority Rule, and then ever closer to confiscatory socialism, extreme leftism, and less personal freedom. Majority Rule, so far, leads to its own contradiction. It leads to ever less freedom while advocating freedom.

The concept of democracy is simply the rule of the people, which for most persons has come to mean the rule of the majority of the people. There can be democracy without Majority Rule, within the context of a truly libertarian government, as will be shown in the next chapter.

Majority Rule is not in itself a political paradigm, but merely a method of implementing one of the previous four paradigms, as is the case for monarchy, biologically based aristocracy, theocracies, and personal tyrannies such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, the Somozas, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein, and Fidel Castro. Some of these personal tyrannies were more like theocracies. All of these political methods are unethical, because unethical means can never produce ethical ends.

Every form of tyranny, including Majority Rule, justifies its existence by claiming to do good for the people while destroying their creativity and impoverishing them. Creativity is the basis of all wealth, and is the only proper criterion for good. Governments can never maximize creativity. The best Government can do is sometimes to prevent creativity from being destroyed for unconsenting persons.

Thomas Jefferson made the mistake of believing that a Majority Ruled, republican form of government was the best way of maintaining a libertarian society. A Majority Ruled republic is a nation in which there is not direct democratic rule, as in the Greek city states, but instead government is formed by representatives who are elected by majorities of the citizens, and in which the power of government over individuals is limited by a constitution.

At the beginning of the American Republic, in a society where 90% of the electorate were likely to be independent farmers on their own land for the foreseeable future, Majority Rule seemed a reasonable risk to libertarians. Society was greatly enhanced by wide respect for absolute property rights. Of course, almost from the beginning of the nation, the industrial revolution caused ever more people to concentrate in the cities, until today about 95% of the electorate are urban dwellers, and only about 5% are rural dwelling, relatively self-sufficient property owners, whose property rights have been greatly eroded and diminished.

Jefferson despised cities, which he saw as concentrations of parasitical, uncreative human beings who lived off the labor of the more creative, self-sufficient farmers and inventive rural dwellers, whom he saw as much more worthy and creative than the city dwellers. Jefferson lived long enough to see the trend of political dominance in national politics by city dwellers. I believe that Jefferson's dream would still have failed, even if a majority of the population had remained self-sufficient, yeoman farmers, as Jefferson hoped and worked very hard to achieve with his illegal, but not unethical, Louisiana purchase. Jefferson believed that there would be a new bloody revolution each generation in order to maintain a libertarian society: "In each generation the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants; it is its natural manure (229)."

The flaw in the American system of government is inherent to the very nature of Majority Rule, as Socrates, Cicero, Spinoza, and Russell had observed. Majority Rule will always be, at best, a tyranny of the majority. All tyrannies are destructive. Unethical means can never achieve ethical ends.

There is nothing inherently creative or ethical in having the allegiance of any popular majority. Adolf Hitler, an authoritarian rightist, was democratically elected, by a plurality and had overwhelming majority support until he died. Richard Nixon, who almost succeeded in turning the United States into a police state, had overwhelming popular support in the 1972 presidential election. It would have been even higher without the Watergate incident.

In the United States, the only politicians who can now be elected are those who tell the majority the lies they wish to hear, whether they speak the lies out of hypocrisy or out of stupidity. The 1992 presidential election in the United States, and almost all subsequent elections, demonstrate this hypothesis.

In the 1992 presidential election Bill Clinton was the most mendacious of all the presidential candidates, and he received about 43% of the popular vote. George Bush was the next most mendacious of the presidential candidates, and he received about 37% of the popular vote. Ross Perot was the third most mendacious of the presidential candidates, and he received about 19% of the popular vote. The only presidential candidates who eloquently spoke the truth at all times and had an ethically consistent political philosophy, were the Libertarian Party candidates, Andre Marrou for President and Nancy Lord for Vice President; they received less than one half of one percent of the popular vote.

The presidential candidates of the Libertarian Party were on all the ballots in all fifty states; their message was clearly disseminated for all who wanted to hear it. Yet the vast majority of the electorate preferred to vote for candidates who told them the lies they wished to hear; they voted in direct proportion to the number and magnitude of lies told by each candidate. This same trend has continued in all the presidential elections since 1992 and in the primaries of the major parties.

This is the fatal flaw in Majority Rule: the majority at almost all political levels, and always at the national level, votes not on the basis of ethical principle but on the basis of whose "promises" (i.e. lies) they believe will make them happiest, either by distributing to them the wealth produced by others, or by chastising those who have beliefs, practices, or behaviors that are offensive to them. The reason for this is that at almost all political levels majorities are not guided by ethical principles, but rather by the desire to be happy; most can be made happy by believing comforting lies appealing to their fear, greed, jealousy, hate, or other negative emotions by which they guide their lives. At the same time, a professional political class, typified by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other career politicians, is created whose sole loyalty is to the powerful special interests who bribe them with "campaign contributions." This is why democracy cannot long endure once it has been corrupted into Majority Rule.

No nation in history has ever been closer to being an ideal libertarian society than was the United States during the 24 years that Jefferson and his closest disciples Madison and Monroe were President. The major flaw at this time was slavery, which all three of these presidents, as well as John Adams the previous president and John Quincy Adams the subsequent president, tried to abolish. They could not accomplish this because of the bureaucratic structure of the Government. It took a catastrophic civil war to abolish slavery, although the major motivation for the Southern Secession was to preserve state rights, not to retain slavery. The North, in turn, fought not so much to abolish slavery, but rather to preserve the Union.

All political paradigms other than true libertarianism lead to ever larger, ever more parasitical bureaucracies. And even libertarianism cannot function or long endure, much less start, under Majority Rule. Libertarianism can endure solely in a truly democratic society which is founded on the Evolutionary Ethic, with maximum respect for the individual and no tyranny of the majority. The United States has, almost from its origins, been moving ever further from libertarianism toward increasingly authoritarian, bureaucratic socialism because of Majority Rule.

Since the end of the Civil War, in contradiction to the Declaration of Independence and the spirit of the early Constitution, the United States has increasingly become a hierarchy of power, with the most power in the Federal Government, then in the state governments, then in the local governments, and least in the private individual, where the most power was originally supposed to reside. This inverse pyramid of power is the exact opposite of what a libertarian society should be like. A libertarian society can never be produced or even maintained under Majority Rule, as United States history shows.

There is an ethical alternative to Majority Rule that not only directly produces a libertarian society as a side effect, but which also produces the freest and most creative society possible. What we wish to achieve is the freest possible society which is orderly, safe, and not anarchistic, but where everyone is free to creatively express themselves, without any bureaucratic constraints, and where at the same time there is no type of tyranny, including a tyranny of the majority. Although this may seem impossible, there are several ways of how to structure such a society.

The first, and simplest way is to turn the Libertarian Party into a libertarian society, which it has never been. The Libertarian Party is a democratic society under Majority Rule, thus its failure. It is failing for the same reason that the United States could not remain a libertarian society. The Libertarian Party is a contradiction in terms, because it is captive to the concept of Majority Rule.

The best way to bring about a libertarian society is to become a living example of one, instead of being just one more contradictory example of a rather unpopular form of Majority Rule. A step by step program of how to turn the Libertarian Party into a libertarian society follows. A detailed rationale for this program is given in the last two chapters of this book.

In order to have ethical government, we must have a libertarian society based on the Evolutionary Ethic, where there is complete individual freedom, without anarchy, and an unbureaucratic government whose powers are limited to protecting life, liberty, property, privacy and human rights in general, and which never interferes in questions of individual private morality; there can be no majority rule or tyranny of any kind.

How to structure such a society and then bring it about is shown in the next two chapters. As a preliminary to this program, consider how the Libertarian Party may cease being a bureaucratic organization under Majority Rule, and become truly libertarian. A truly Libertarian Party is something that should be preserved and can pave the way for an Ethical State.

How to Make the Libertarian Party Libertarian

1. Stop electing the leaders of the Libertarian Party by Majority Rule, instead elect them by hierarchical, 100% consensus.

2. Hierarchical, 100% consensus is established by first organizing Libertarians, at the local level, into small groups, preferably 50% male and 50% female. For example, Lane County, Oregon, where I live, has about 1,000 Libertarian Party members, but very few are active. Almost all of them would become active if they could be politically and practically effective at the local level, even if they might never be effective at the state or national level.

My observation from interacting with local Libertarians is that there are many more men than women in the Libertarian Party; I suspect that this is true at all Libertarian Party levels. In my previous books (115, 116), I have shown why it is important to have men and women, in approximately equal numbers, work together in small groups to formulate social policy and produce a maximally creative society. Furthermore, the optimal arrangement for maximum creativity in a small group is four ethical men and four ethical women, integrated into a working group called an "Octet."

3. Octets are formed first by having eight Libertarians who know each other and wish to work together agree to do so and designate themselves as a Libertarian Octet. If all the members of the local Libertarian Party are not integrated into Octets by this voluntary joining, then the remaining Libertarians would be assigned at random into statistically created Octets, such that each Octet had an approximately equal percentage of the unassigned women in the local Libertarian Party.

If there were not enough women to go around so that each Octet had at least one woman, then women from the voluntary Octets and some of the random Octets could volunteer to participate in more than one Libertarian Octet at the local level, and in effect have more political power, as will soon be shown. This would compensate, within the local Libertarian Party, for having too few women.

The women who are given this extra political power then compensate for it, by being obligated to actively recruit more women members for the local Libertarian Party, until the membership is almost equally divided between men and women. If men were in the minority, the reverse of this procedure would be practiced.

4. Each Libertarian Octet agrees to meet once per month for at least four hours to discuss Libertarian Party issues among themselves and decide what is the best course of action for them to take as an Octet. Octets do not have to cooperate among themselves, except by unanimous consensus of all the Octet members. However, they have an obligation to send one man and one woman representing the Octet to interact with other male-female pairs of Octet representatives. These representatives then form new Octets by voluntary association with other Octet representatives at a one day local Libertarian convention occurring every three months. My last book shows how this process can be implemented easily and quickly, even with millions of persons (115).

5. The representatives for each Octet are chosen by unanimous consensus of all the members of each Octet. If they cannot achieve 100% consensus, then the Octet will not be represented and will have no vote at the next level of political organization. However, in my last book (115) I describe a communication technique called "autopoiesis," which almost always quickly produces a 100% consensus on any question which is being addressed by an ethical Octet. This is a generalization of the biological process of autopoiesis first discovered by Varela and Maturana (462).

Octets who cannot achieve consensus about who should be their two representatives should restructure themselves with new members with whom they are more compatible, and exclude the minority members who are less compatible. The minority Octet members may in turn form new Octets with other local Libertarians with whom they are more compatible. Eventually all Libertarians at the local level who are capable of ethically cooperating with their peers will be in Octets with whom they can work harmoniously by unanimous consensus.

6. At the second level of political organization the new Octets that are formed will, in turn, discuss Libertarian Party issues among themselves and every three months choose, again by unanimous consensus, a male-female pair from the Octet to represent them at the third level of Libertarian Party Organization. Those Octets who cannot achieve consensus, again have no representation at the third level of political organization, but they can reorganize themselves, as before, into new second level Octets. They have three months in which to do this.

7. This process continues until, at the national level, the highest level Octet chooses every four years a male-female pair to represent them. These shall be the next presidential candidates of the Libertarian Party. The members of the immediate lower level Octets, who participated in choosing the presidential candidates, shall be the senatorial and gubernatorial candidates of the Libertarian Party, within their respective states, by their own hierarchical choice. The representatives of the next lower Octets shall be additional gubrernatorial, senatorial, and the House candidates of the Libertarian Party. The next lower level Octets representatives shall be the candidates for their respective state legislatures. The next lower level Octet representatives shall be the candidates for county and city governments. All the next lower Octets shall be grass roots workers.

8. Each member of any Octet who is chosen as a representative must agree to run for the highest office that he or she is qualified for by unanimous consensus within the Libertarian Party. No one should, in any way, campaign to be the representative of any Octet, but should always strive to find the best representative other than him or herself. Solely when all seven other Octet members choose that person, must the person accept the position or resign as a representative.

Persons who seek power, even petty power within the Libertarian Party, should never have it (115). People should serve as representatives from a sense of duty rather than a desire for power. No Octet member, at any level, should ever vote for a representative who actively seeks the job.

9. The power of this process, in lieu of Majority Rule, is that each Octet representative and political candidate has been chosen all along the way by persons who know him or her personally, and the higher the level of the candidate, the more Libertarians have, by unanimous consensus, chosen that candidate. Each Libertarian has, in a sense, a veto, so that persons obnoxious to him or her will never rise above his or her highest level in the hierarchy.

The presidential candidates are, in a sense, chosen by unanimous consensus of all members of the Libertarian Party; this is a much more powerful endorsement than simply a majority of the Libertarian Party members voting for someone that few of them know personally, but whom they know solely through his or her speeches, and possibly writings.

Octets which are incapable of achieving 100% consensus are flawed, and it is best for all that they not participate in higher levels of the Libertarian Party. It is the responsibility of each individual Libertarian at each level of the party to integrate him or herself into an Octet with which he or she can work through 100% consensus. A failure in this task disqualifies the individual party member from further participation in higher levels of the party.

Remember, there is a technique given in my last book (115) for greatly facilitating consensus, and this technique optimizes the consensus process within small groups of four men and four women.

The quality of the Libertarian candidates is already the highest among all the candidates of all American political parties; this process will increase candidate quality geometrically. The Libertarian Party is the sole political party of true ethical principle in the United States with a politically sound, but ethically incomplete, political philosophy. The tragedy is that the Libertarian Party is already a corrupt bureaucracy, because of Majority Rule. But it can be corrected, if there is the will to correct it.

10. At the lower levels, the Octet representatives should pay all of their own expenses. As the Octet representatives reach the higher levels of the Libertarian Party, they should be entitled to a campaign contribution to run for political office, but not for participating in the Octets.

Each Libertarian should have an obligation to contribute a minimum of $25 per year to the Libertarian campaign fund or a total of $100 every four years; this is in addition to their regular party dues. If, sometime in the future, there are 500,000 active Libertarian Party members in the United States, which is not impossible, then the Presidential candidates would receive $25,000,000, the Senatorial and Gubernatorial candidates in each state would receive an average of $125,000 each. The House candidates would receive about $6,000 each. The State Government candidates would receive about $3,125 each. The local government candidates would also receive about $3,125 each. The campaign funds would be stratified according to the Libertarian population in each state and in each locality. These numbers are, of course, approximations.

Each candidate would, of course, be free to solicit more funds for his or her campaign, according to law. This system would enable the Libertarian Party to run outstanding candidates for each election in the nation, and to have their voices heard.

Although a Libertarian President may never be elected, the presidential candidates of the Libertarian Party will be the major vehicle for producing and disseminating information to the American people about Libertarian principles, and about the corruption of the current system. All Libertarian candidates shall reinforce this message in every election, and jointly achieve economies of scale by sharing their educational materials; this is the major advantage of a party based on principle rather than the expediency of the Democrats and Republicans.

Americans will have an alternative, even if they never vote for it. At the more local levels, the Libertarian Party might have a chance of electing some of its best members.

11. We note that at each level the Octet representative pair is representing four times as many Libertarians as at the previous level. Therefore level 1 representatives represent 8 Libertarians; level 2 represent 32 Libertarians, level 3 represent 128 Libertarians, level 4 represent 512 Libertarians, level 5 represent 2,048 Libertarians, level 6 represent 8,192 Libertarians, level 7 represent 32,768 Libertarians, level 8 represent 131,072 Libertarians, and finally level 9 can represent up to 524,288 Libertarians.

For the foreseeable future, therefore, there will not need to be more than nine levels of representation Octets to represent all the active Libertarians in the nation. At level 1, 75% of the total Libertarian population spends only four hours per month creating the consensus hierarchy; those at level 9 will have spent no more than 40 hours per month over a period of four years to reach that level in the consensus hierarchy.

12. Each level 1 Octet focuses on how best to choose level 2 representatives, raising money for the Libertarian Party, and how best to inform their friends and neighbors about the Libertarian Party and get them to join it. It would also be worthwhile if the level 1 Octets chose, by unanimous consensus, to engage in creative projects related to Libertarian principles but having to do with local politics, such as defeating all proposed increases in taxes, governmental theft of property rights, or any other government or private threats to personal liberty.

Libertarian Octets should engage in creative libertarian projects, such as helping themselves and others to become self-sufficient, avoiding taxes, and circumventing the Government controlled money system through barter. In this way, the Octets can serve as examples of how to create self-sufficient libertarian communities, such as on small farms near their homes, which they could purchase and operate as a corporation or as a partnership, with Octet members having equitable shares in the operation. These suggestions are all in the spirit of the vision that Thomas Jefferson originally had for America. Jefferson's mistake was political, not conceptual.

There are many other alternatives for creating practical embodiments of libertarian ethical principles in politics, economics, education, health and social organization. Some of these are given in my last book (115), where all these alternatives are in terms of the Evolutionary Ethic.

A libertarian political system for an entire nation would have no political parties. Instead the whole nation would be organized into voluntary Octets to produce the workers at all levels of legitimate Government, which would be limited entirely to military, public health, police, and judicial functions. A libertarian society would have no bureaucracy, lawyers, or professional judiciary. There would be neither majority rule, tyranny, nor anarchy. Each Octet would be sovereign on its own territory; there would be no public lands, other than those that were declared public parks or dedicated to other public uses by unanimous consensus.

Octets or individuals who did not wish to pay taxes to support a common defense force, public health organization, or a judiciary for resolving disputes among Octets, consisting entirely of higher level neutral Octets, i.e., Octets with no connections to either party, could secede at any time from the libertarian society and go their own way without having to pay for any services they do not want, and will no longer receive.

The major justification for a massive nation-state is to provide adequate military defense against foreign aggressors. The same can be accomplished by a smaller society that is highly creative and invents superior weapons and military organization to those of the large nation-states. If foreign aggressors could be eliminated, or if there were enough technological superiority among the Octets, then it would be possible to have a libertarian society which operates entirely on the basis of voluntary cooperation without any need for a central government. Octet consensus hierarchies would exist solely as desired, to accomplish non-governmental goals not readily achievable by a single Octet; the Government would be much more limited than it currently is.

The Libertarian Party could create a sovereign libertarian society, as a living example of what a libertarian nation would be like, within the confines of the United States, by simply concentrating its members in rural areas suitable for self-sufficiency, self-employment, and voluntary cooperation. Libertarians who share fundamental ethical values and wish to work together could then have the opportunity to do so. Self sufficiency in cities is more difficult, but not impossible.

The libertarian ethic of maximum liberty for all, without the diminution of the liberty of any for the alleged benefit of anyone else, is an inadequate ethical base for a maximally creative, progressive society. That is one of the reasons that the United States could not remain a libertarian society. A necessary and sufficient ethical system for creating and keeping a libertarian society is one based on the notions that the ultimate good is to maximize creativity and that anything that diminishes even a single person's creativity is an absolute evil, no matter how many other persons are allegedly supposed to be benefitted by this "sacrifice."

Ecological ethics can be seen to be in harmony with the above notions by recognizing that the only environmental changes that one is entitled to make, including on one's own property, are those changes that do not decrease the creativity of a single unconsenting person. We cannot ethically pollute our own environment if this also produces pollution for an unconsenting person. The environment is best managed to maximize the creativity of all, without diminishing anyone's creativity. There is no reason why Libertarians should not embrace ecological ethics, thereby expanding their appeal and strengthening their ethical base.

The best political advice I can give to my fellow Americans at this time, is never again to vote for a Democrat, almost all of whom are actively involved in turning the United States into a socialistic democracy, subject to Majority Rule. Vote solely for the best candidates who advocate libertarian principles, and have some reasonable chance of being elected. He or she may not be a member of the Libertarian Party. He or she might be a Republican, although this probability is low. But he or she will never be a member of the Democratic Party or the other parties, such as the Greens, who also advocate Socialism. Almost nothing is worse than Socialism for destroying the creativity of a nation.

The details of how to combine Libertarian Principles with the Evolutionary Ethic are given in an ethical constitution developed in the next chapter. How to practically implement these principles is shown in the last chapter.