The Free Man’s 7-Point Bill of Rights

free man bill of rights

The Roman Catholic Church was guilty of many abuses in Europe all through the Middle Ages, and I think the people of Europe had good reason to walk away from it. But as they did, they made a massive error: They didn’t replace it with anything better.

The Church, regardless of its errors and crimes, taught virtues to the people of that continent. Medieval Europe became home to a culture founded largely on some very positive values, and you can’t deny that the Church had a hand in that development.

After all, not everyone involved with the institution was corrupt and abusive (in fact, such villains were the minority). A significant percentage of local priests, monks and nuns were decent, caring people, trying to help the people of their diocese. However many and evil the inquisitors were, the number of kind and decent clergy was higher, and they had their effects.

Europe’s error was that they didn’t just reject the Church; many of them rejected everything that was associated with it. The virtues that the Church taught, however poorly, had given Europe a moral core. Those virtues should have been preserved.

The New Enlightenment

Europeans of the 17th and 18th centuries removed themselves from the mental bondage of the Church, much as the current people of the West are starting to remove themselves from the mental bondage of the state. And this got me to thinking…

Are there things that we, in our disgust for the state, might foolishly throw away, like many Europeans did with their cultural virtues?

Honesty, I couldn’t think of much.

A lot of us, from the Tannehills to Murray Rothbard to myself and many others, have written about justice in the absence of state force. That’s pretty well covered.

Roads and fire protection are simple too, and they’ve been covered as well.

The one thing that I could think of beyond these is a Bill of Rights.

A Great Concept, an Inadequate Term

A lot of people think that a Bill of Rights is a statement from a government, outlining what rights they give the people. But in the better cases – such as the US Bill of Rights – that is false. A good Bill of Rights is a set of restrictive statements, detailing what the people do not permit the government to do.

Now, we all know that our US Bill of Rights is broken every day, but the principle is a good one, and the concept itself can be a useful thing.

So, I propose a Free Man’s Bill of Rights. Not a statement of rights that we expect someone to give us, but a set of rights that we will defend. In other words (take notice):

These are rights that we demand and will defend.

* * * * *

The Rights of Free Men and Women

We hold these as inherent and inalienable human rights:

  1. We are free to do whatever we wish, so long as we extend this same right to others.
  2. Every individual stands equal to any other person or group. We accept no person or group as inherently superior.
  3. No person or group has a right to aggress against us.
  4. We hold the right to defend against aggression.
  5. Our property is our own, and our will regarding it ought not to be opposed. Any person or group that attempts to counter our will regarding our property is an aggressor.
  6. Our sole obligation to others is to do no harm. Cooperation, compassion, and kindness are positive goods that we choose to bring into the world, but so long as we harm no one, we have committed no offense.
  7. We claim the freedom to trade, to express ourselves as we wish, to move and think as we wish, and to be free of surveillance.

We will defend these rights, both for ourselves and for others.

* * * * *

Please discuss.

Paul Rosenberg

[Editor’s Note: Paul Rosenberg is the outside-the-Matrix author of, a site dedicated to economic freedom, personal independence and privacy. He is also the author of The Great Calendar, a report that breaks down our complex world into an easy-to-understand model. Click here to get your free copy.]

Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
7 years ago

What the author attempts to describe in his “rights of free men and women” is the proper behavior of men and women at Liberty under common law.

“At liberty under common law, with a strict adherence to natural law, an individual may do with his actions, possessions, and persons, anything he may see fit, without the consent or approval of any other individual, government, or human power. [Note]”

“The laws of nature only constrain him insofar as he may not create damage, violate the liberty or possessions of other, or create an obvious danger. This is known as living within the common law of the land. [Note]”

Common law is fundamentally different from statutuory law. It only recognizes injury, damage, or the immenent threat thereof. Common law does not recognize “malum prohibitum”. A few maxims of common law:

A man cannot give any thing, power or authority he does not have
No one has the right to force an obligation on another with impunity
The people, as individuals, in America are sovereign
In America the government is the servant of the sovereign people
Truth is paramount and the objective of the rules of law
Might does not make right
Thou shall not steal
Thou shall not bear false witness
A person is innocent until proven guilty
All presumptions of law are rebuttable
Written law cannot lawfully or morally violate rights of a free man
Force, perjury, or subornation of perjury, voids all

We will not recover Liberty until we understand the need to abandon the legislative jurisdiction of the State … any State.

We must withdraw our consent to be governed.