(This is my ongoing series presenting pieces that I am formulating into my own constitution for any future country [including LL]. The wording is not set and is open to changes/additions/subtractions. Posting about it is just to stimulate debate, as should any good creator of a constitution.)
Guns Any kind of guns are legal to own for citizens over 18-years-old. The only exception to this is explosive, shrapnel producing ammunition/grenades that can hurt indiscriminately, compared to a standard gun that generally destroys only what it is purposely aimed at. A criminal conviction for violence using a weapon, kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape, and/or murder will cause a citizen to lose this right permanently and forfeits any guns the citizen already owns.
Suppressors are legal for citizens to own, and recommended as a neighborly courtesy to reduce noise pollution. (Bold = Legal)
This is similar to time-tested methods other countries use. (Italics = Explanatory)
Weapons Of Indiscriminate Destruction (WID) Any explosive, shrapnel producing weapon intended to indiscriminately kill or seriously injure anyone in the vicinity is banned. The materials for making explosives must be tracked and/or regulated similar to how other countries currently do to prevent such a device from being made. (Bold = Legal)
A pepper ball is an example of something that is not a WID; even though it sprays out pepper liquid indiscriminately on contact, the liquid does not kill or seriously injure. (Italics = Explanatory)
Equality With The Police Citizens have the right to equality of armament/technology with police, including all crowd dispersal, non-lethal, drone and electromagnetic technology. (Bold = Legal)
This country will not defeat crime by having superior technology than the criminals. Crime will be defeated by having the majority of citizens strongly backing the majority of the laws and willing to support law enforcement. (Italics = Explanatory)
As far as automated license plate readers, it seems like a natural progression of technology that couldn’t be stopped, even if we wanted to. It seems obvious that there will eventually be cameras everywhere and that nearly everything will be recorded all the time and that AI will analyze the video. I think the key to societies not being destroyed by this is to focus the police on crime and not harassment of normal citizens. And it would help to not have idiotic laws on the books which the cameras will show people breaking routinely.
A lot of people use “jaywalking” as the example that cameras are going to capture and then ticket a person for. Well, jaywalking being illegal is an idiotic use of a law, and should go away asap.
So my conclusions about ALPR’s and about public cameras used by police is that as long as their use is focused on crime, then society will be better for it. In jurisdictions where they are allowed to be used for gaining fine income for petty infractions, then those areas will be viewed rightly as dystopias. (For LL, my thinking is that fine income must go to a different dept of govt other than the dept imposing the fine)
Stingrays are a different thing entirely. I had not heard of them, so I had to research and I include a good link below if anyone wants to read about them. The police using stingrays knew it was illegal to use them in the first place, so it’s not really much use talking about them as they are obviously against the fourth amendment “protection against unreasonable searches”. Lessons learned for future societies are that “freedom of information requests” should not be voluntary for the agency, it should be mandatory with immediate termination for the refusing employees/officials, with possible criminal charges. And also that the broad power of NDA contracts needs to be reigned in to prevent mass secrecy of illegal acts.
These NDA’s that the government is a party to are absolutely terrible. I don’t know how they can be considered a legal contract. We need to put in place a specific clause in the constitution that states “that contracts which violate this constitution are null and void and have no force of law” also I would contend that whoever drafts such a contract and attempts to consummate such a contract is guilty of whatever law the contract is attempting to bring into force.
Yeah good idea! I will start working on that piece. It should work for the Stingray issue because the NDA might cover that technology specifically.
But a lot of secrecy agreements are broad and cover the whole term of employment. I want to find a way to destroy these broad secrecy agreements because it puts the employee in a fearful position where they are afraid to talk about anything. They aren’t a lawyer and they can’t even consult a lawyer without breaking their secrecy agreement, so they don’t have legal council or really any support.
Maybe we should just have a list of restrictions on NDAs. It has to be for a specific amount of time. If we are going with govt secrecy is capped at 5 years, then NDA secrecy should be capped at 5 years.
I asked AI for reasons for NDAs to exist and what it said is below. Maybe we can use this list to create NDA rules to only allow for these reasons…?
(AI)
Core Protection Reasons
NDAs safeguard trade secrets, customer lists, marketing strategies, product designs, and business processes from unauthorized disclosure or use by competitors.
They prevent former employees or partners from exploiting this information post-relationship, maintaining the business’s market advantage.
NDAs also classify what counts as confidential, reducing disputes over information handling.
Key Business Scenarios
Employee Onboarding: Ensures staff don’t share internal procedures, client data, or innovations during or after employment.
Vendor and Consultant Engagements: Protects specs, financials, or methods shared during service contracts.
Partnerships and Proposals: Allows safe sharing of ideas with potential investors, clients, or joint venture partners before formal deals.
Mergers & Acquisitions: Covers extensive data exchanges without risking leaks to rivals.
Product Development: Shields inventions from public disclosure that could invalidate patents.​
Additional Benefits
NDAs provide enforceable contracts for remedies like injunctions or damages if breached, deterring violations.
They build trust in relationships by clarifying expectations and showing proactive secrecy efforts, often required by trade secret laws.
In regulated fields like healthcare or finance, they reinforce duties to protect client data under laws like HIPAA.
Yeah NDA’s should be looked at as necessary tool but not abused. I firmly believe that governments cannot be a party to an NDA at all and that for an NDA to be contractually valid a court or a competent third party must approve of it before it can be valid.
I thought your position was that you were okay with a 5 year period of govt secrecy; I doubt that any secrecy is possible without NDA contracts. I’m still on the fence even with a 5 year period.
I like your idea of a 3rd party validating the NDA. Does this mean that the 3rd party gets disclosure on the secrets? Or just that they are validating the contract terms? Is it even possible for them to officiate over the contract without knowing the secrets?
For govt secrets the 3rd party is the Supreme Court and in terms of the NDA contracts themselves the 3rd party would be acting as an arbiter verifying that the contract is not onerous, misleading, includes any coercive language and has wording that includes things like whistleblower protections, becomes void if the contracting party violates any law and that the consignee has a duty to disclose any information in connection to the law that was violated to the arbiter and to the court of competent jurisdiction. There may be other points I would think that would need to be added by people who are experts in this area but the key is oversight in regards to the administration of NDA’s they do serve a purpose but they way they are currently used is extremely abusive though.
I am also very glad to see that the formation of the Supreme Court in judiciary law is going to be read into Congress on the 3rd and will be voted on shortly thereafter. To me it really shows that Liberland is making progress in ensuring justice will be properly administered.