The debate "Manifestos should be legally binding" was started by
June 29, 2015, 7:49 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
I_Voyager posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Mathew, I_Voyager, yasanjeewa, musejay1 and 9 visitors agree.
PsychDave and 5 visitors disagree.
I'm sure not all manifestos are competently written enough to be the equivalent of legal documentations. But I'm sure a well-enough constructed manifesto could be on par with a legal document. In the idea I've presented, I envision the manifest/legal document to be structured using a common template.
I agree that having each person pick their own legal code defeats the purpose of law. My idea was not so much to have people interface in society with legal immunity (hey man, my law says killing people is fine.) Just to have a way to interface legal perspectives. It may be you'd have the freedom to write what you want into your legal code, but by it not being compatible with common law you become bound to defy your own law in order to be preserved in society.
Like I said, there are a lot of aspects of this which are undeveloped. There are whole worlds of valid criticism and logic which would inform the specifics of the idea. My morality and ethics are not yet explored enough to infer a valid system of law. I have a picture of how open source law might look, but until preceding elements are well-developed it won't matter.
I tend to see a manifesto as a document of beliefs and views rather than a legal code. When someone publishes their manifesto, it tends to be so that the world can understand them, their beliefs, and see their actions through that lens. This would likely not be detailed enough to provide a true legal code for an individual.
I also would hesitate to let most people choose their own legal code. While many would probably be reasonable, there would be some whose manifesto would allow them to do whatever they wanted.
I'll agree for the sake of argument.
I've had similar thoughts, though I hadn't framed it in terms of "Manifesto". I've thought a person ought to draft a personal set of laws that a person lives by which is associated with a server-based profile in a national network. Compiled "common laws" are compared against rational laws to design legal frameworks for any scale be it household or national. Police and judges exist to arbitrate the relationships between people whose personalities ought to align with their law.
Psychdave, I should think that these legal manifestos should be open to regular change within a given set of rational limits. I haven't spent a lot of time developing this idea as my priority has been economics, politics, ethics and other philosophical realms. So I am sure there are many rules regarding this kind of system which I haven't yet found. One that hits me immediately is that the manifesto should be able to be modified in real-time, but acting to change your manifesto strategically ought to be scrutinized.
For example if it were within my law that I ought not steal from my employer but Friday I had an inclination to steal from employer. I changed my manifesto to acknowledge the fact that I steal, then that shift stole from my employer and later said "Well, it was in my manifesto. They should have known better before assigning me the shift." There would probably be a series of logical problems there which wouldn't support the act. And the kinds of rules and regulations which we could devise to police personal laws would account for these and many other possible loopholes.
Belief can change over time. If I had written up a manifesto of my beliefs ten years ago, and one today, they would likely be very similar but there would be differences. Would you suggest there be something like a statute of limitations on them being legally binding, or would they be binding until a new one was drafted (much like a will)?