What would a British Libertarian Party, that won power, od about Mass State Welfare?

David Davis

Good article by Simon Heffer (for Prime Minister even though he’s an atheist, and Boris Johnson for Chancellor) in today’s Torygraph.


One response to “What would a British Libertarian Party, that won power, od about Mass State Welfare?

  1. This is a _much_ better, and more libertarian alternative.

    Sorry about the formatting — every system seems to do it differently.

    Teenagers carry knives for self-protection. Most libertarians would concede the right to concealed carry of firearms. It has been said that the origins of English good manners lay in the preactice of duelling…

    The Secretary of Amnesty International has just called on all governments to implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was of course written before its adoption by the United Nations.

    Amnesty has 2.5 million members worldwide campaigning for Human Rights. I’m one…



    AGORA5.TXT: Fifth Revision: Discussion Document Revised on 12 December [2007]

    ——————- * * * * * —————


    ——————- * * * * * —————

    A Liberal Democratic Representative Open Society


    In Classical Greece, the Agora was the public place where free
    citizens met spontaneously to transact public business, to trade, and to
    exchange news, views and information. Increasingly, our world is becoming
    an Agora (or a series of interrelated Agoras across different
    cross-sections of society)).

    Liberals, individualists, democratic socialists, social democrats,
    free-marketeers, classical liberals, conservatives, anarchists and others
    of no party may all find some merit in these ideas. They outline entirely
    feasible arrangements for an Open Society affording variety and freedom of
    choice, as well as more nearly spontaneous orders in political services.
    These would be social, but not statist. Democratic Agorism can operate in
    whole or in part, and in any country.

    Democratic Agorism is very practical (and eminently practicable). All
    elements of each of the proposals are presently in use somewhere, and can
    therefore be studied, evaluated, compared, criticised and discussed. The
    purpose of Democratic Agorism is to make available the best opportunities
    for citizens qua electors with differing preferences to choose, support
    and benefit from representation and programmes which most nearly fulfil
    their requirements and wishes. As well, people will enjoy increased
    freedom to make their own arrangements for a better life with the funds
    which are made available.

    (These proposals should — I hope! — appeal to everyone, except
    perhaps for those seeking power over other people, or those wanting a
    highly-stratified ‘verticalist’ society where a few are rich beyond dreams of
    avarice, whilst the many suffer from poverty and the denial of access to

    American writer Jerry Pournelle in his essay ‘The World As It
    Could Be Made’, in Dr. Robert Prehoda’s “Your Next Fifty Years” [1980],
    has pointed out that some people deliberately opt for poverty (for other
    people), because they dislike seeing other people living as free,
    independent, self-confident individuals).


    How can we provide maximal individual freedom (both positive _and_
    negative: freedom-to-act as well as freedom-from-coercion) to each and
    every individual, so that we may live our lives more nearly as we wish?
    And how do we enable ourselves to enjoy access to the widest range of

    How can we ensure that — in the rapidly-transforming world economy —
    people can choose (and look forward to) a future human and economic environment which is the best we can achieve?

    And how can we make sure that everyone has a real incentive to choose
    the best systems providing opportunities for maximal economic growth?
    Insofar as economic systems are ‘Wertfrei’ (value-free) abstract games, as
    the economists tell us, people have the right to choose the most
    favourable ‘game’, and to receive full payment for their consent to the
    game’s taking place. Too often, some neoconservatives and others take the
    _particular_ game (and its income and property distributions) for
    granted, as a — somehow — given ‘background’. Not so. As Robert Nozick
    points out, the better-off tend to be the descendants of the beneficiaries
    of past injustices, while the less-well-off tend to be the descendants of
    their predecessors’ victims. Justly-due restitution is not
    ‘confiscation’, nor is it ‘redistribution’ either.

    The monopoly supply of “public” services by the State, which (in
    democratic theory and principle at least) we as the electorate “hire” to
    improve society by solving various problems for us — and the consequent
    disputes over which services are to be supplied, by whom, under whose
    control, by which criteria, how and in what quantity, and at what cost —
    is problematic.

    One purpose of these proposals is to outline the possibilities and
    advantages of simultaneously-available, pluralistic, more nearly
    market-like arrangements, which will expand and enhance the range and
    quality of social services. And this should happen in ways which are
    consistent with the best features of representative democracy and the
    better, more responsive forms of non-profit voluntary groups and
    for-profit commercial enterprises. The implementation of these systems
    can be realised gradually, and will be easier for people to put into
    practice, and adjust to, than many proposed transitions to more fully free

    Democratic Agorism owes much of its inspiration to the late Agorist
    theoretician Robert LeFevre and to the late Karl Popper. To Robert
    LeFevre it owes the insight that there is no basis for property rights
    which does not entail the possible initiation of aggression to assert
    those rights — which aggression is morally forbidden to consistent
    individualist anarchists, or indeed anyone morally or practically opposed
    to the initiating of aggression.

    I see no viable alternative to Milton Friedman’s view, expressed in
    “Capitalism and Freedom”: “Just what constitutes property and what rights
    the ownership of property confers are complex social creations rather than
    self-evident propositions.”

    To Karl Popper is owed his analysis of the achievement of
    intellectual, moral and practical advance by means of the Open Society of
    free and democratic institutions. ‘Democracy’ to Popper means the ability
    to change the governing order without violence; and — to this end —
    for people to be free to hypothesize, research, discuss and advance
    proposals for improving the ways people live.

    Any free society must ultimately depend on the broad assent of its
    citizens, which can only be practically demonstrated by democratic
    arrangememts. Even in an anarchy, people might prefer to have a vote on
    the system they live within…

    Democratic Agorism proposes a fundamental transformation of the nature
    of the State, into a form of Property Company. The process is fairly painless.

    The State will own the underlying Strata Title of its present territory.

    The citizens will own the State itself in equal shares.

    They elect a Board of Directors to manage the Company.

    Taxes become User Fees; Laws become Terms and Conditions of Use.

    Revenues from User Fees will be returned to the citizen-owners in equal shares

    This process effectely “marketizes” the State.

    The essential elements of Democratic Agorism are modular and synergistic:

    They include:

    [A] A contractually-based day-by-day electoral system – Vectored Politics
    [B] Full-Liability Personal Indemnity Insurance, enabling full restitution.
    [C] Personal Radio Alarms: for event-driven and customer-driven policing
    [D] A Restitutive Legal System, with online ‘courts’ and arbitration.
    [E] Good Basic Income Provision for all — independent incomes for all.
    [F] Networked information services and library facilities
    [G] National Health Insurance chargecard and online diagnostic facilities
    [H] Online education and skills-development facilities
    [I] Tradenet buy/sell/swap/finance/work transaction services
    [J] Packaged ‘political’ services provided via elected representatives

    It has been estimated (David Friedman’s Law, in his ‘The Machinery of
    Freedom’, 2nd edition) that state services typically produce about one half
    the value to consumers of voluntary (non-profit or for-profit) provision, at
    up to twice the cost. He also espouses Robert LeFevre’s Agorist ideas:

    “My own preference is for the sort of economic institutions which
    have been named, I think by Robert LeFevre, agoric. Under agoric
    institutions almost everyone is self-employed. Instead of corporations,
    there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not by
    authority. Each sells, not his time, but what his time produces. As a
    freelance writer (one of my occupations), I am part of an agoric economic
    order.” [1st ed. p. 199, [1973] and [1978]].

    A two- to four-fold misallocation rate may be an over-estimate;
    still, the costs of misallocated resources, conflict, inflation, excessive
    regulation, waste, bureaucracy, maltreatment and lost opportunities are
    not always amenable to precise estimation, but they have certainly lowered
    living standards for most people. The problem to be solved is that of
    making funds available for different purposes for people to make good use
    of, by their own lights, with the fullest possible informed consent of
    those participating in generating the funds..


    Rather than having periodic general elections, with very limited
    choice as to candidates, each elector is at any time free to choose any
    person of his or her preference (who must of course be willing so to act),
    to be his or her elected representative, always on a revokeable basis.
    Each day is a possible ‘Election Day’ for each elector and each

    Representatives can then delegate their work-load as they see fit, to
    those they have confidence in. In this age of easy communications, there
    need be no restriction on the total number of elected representatives
    meeting in Assembly by means of electronic and tele- conferencing. The
    emphasis shifts from ‘winners and losers’ to ‘market shares.’

    The relationship between elector and representative is a standard
    civil-law contractual one (offer -> acceptance -> performance (->
    payment)). Representatives may form mutual-interest groups, which might
    in some respects approximate the present political coalitions. New
    patterns of support will emerge. They will not be beholden to political
    parties. Elections will cease to be periodic all-or-nothing affairs, and
    will reflect and accommodate gradual shifts in opinion and support, as
    electors change and develop their preferences between representatives –
    and their policies – over time.

    (A variant of modern public-key/private-key security cryptosystems
    can easily be arranged, to ensure a secret ballot for those preferring
    such an arrangement. It should be pointed out that most of the present
    ‘secret-ballot’ electoral systems are only as ‘secret’ as the authorities
    running them want them to be).

    The legislative functions of the elected assembly will be carried out
    by means of the representatives voting on measures, each casting that
    number of votes corresponding to the sum of contracting electors they
    represent at the time of the vote. Public laws would require the assent
    of a real majority — preferably at least 50% of the electorate’s votes
    (after subtracting ‘votes-against’ from ‘votes-for’). I expect this to
    result in many fewer — and clearer — statute laws.

    It should be worthwhile to introduce ‘sunset’ review provisions for
    existing legislation, (as distinct from the body of civil law), so that
    pre-existing legislation (much of which is dated, inappropriate, corrupt
    in origin, harmful or poorly-thought-out) will be subject to review and
    re-enactment or repeal.

    A Written Constitution, setting out the basic principles of universal
    human rights — to facilitate formal and legal enforceability of those
    rights by means of accessible _trial by jury_ — is both educational and
    advantageous for liberty, with entrenching clauses barring attacks on key
    individual rights and liberties, and forbidding cruel or unusual
    punishments, and so on. Every country in the world _nominally_
    subscribes to these principles already, in the 1947 Universal Declaration
    of Human Rights:

    http://www.hri.org/docs/UDHR48.html (UDHR Attached)

    It is usually easier to convince people (and governments) that they
    should _respect_ what they’ve already _actually assented to_.

    Representatives may go on to appoint an Executive to deal with
    defence matters, external affairs and so on. There may also be a second
    (non-spending) oversight and revision chamber, or Senate, with
    representatives especially chosen for their wisdom, knowledge, character,
    standing and so on – as electors and their representatives may wish.

    For the honest and ethical political representatives, there are many
    advantages to be had from Democratic Agorism, and few disadvantages. Each
    can work to build up their electoral constituency (‘market share’), and to
    offer the most attractive and worthwhile programmes, to ensure ongoing
    support and revenue. Each can look forward to promoting their preferred
    objectives. Each can have some security from the domination of party,
    leader or faction. Every shade of opinion can be proportionally

    For the elector, the available opportunities will be very considerably
    improved over the present unresponsive legislatures and government
    monopolies. There will be a whole new series of market-places, offering
    packaged choices of services with strong incentives to be efficient and
    attractive. Programmes compete for electoral support on a basis which
    facilitated comparison for quality and value over time. The existence of
    a variety of simultaneously available alternatives will considerably
    enhance individual freedoms and reduce social conflicts arising from
    monopoly provision.

    It should be noted that Democratic Agorism can be built up gradually
    (or even covertly, or clandestinely) in non-democratic societies, so as to
    supplant and replace undemocratic systems by more representative – hence
    more legitimate – fully democratic ones.

    And Democratic Agorism provides very useful ‘benchmarks’ against which
    any existing social arrangements and situations may be appraised. “What
    would be happening in this situation within the parameters of Democratic


    The maintenance and furtherance of individual liberties, and the
    prevention of criminal acts (violence, coercion, malicious damage and the
    deliberate infliction of harm), and provision of full compensation or
    restitution for anyone who has suffered loss or injury, are the moral and
    logical functions of a rational and humane justice system which is founded
    on principles of delegated self-defence and equality of protection within
    the Rule of Law.

    Most people who have suffered from crime would rather receive full and
    prompt compensation, than only the remote and uncertain possibility that
    the actual malefactor might be caught and perhaps punished. In the past,
    the problem has been that offenders have been unable to compensate their
    victims adequately. It is time to return the protection of the law from
    the abstraction of “state” to the reality of persons.

    Consequently, if each person and association is required to hold
    public liability insurance (reinsured for complete reliability), full
    compensation could always be made available to recompense anyone who has
    suffered loss or who has been harmed. An arrangement similar to the Motor
    Agents Bureau Agreement in the UK would also operate, to ensure
    compensation from a ‘pooled’ fund under all circumstances (i.e. if the
    offender cannot be immediately found).

    This insurance would be very inexpensive for people who do not harm
    other people.

    (Further, if each citizen is offered and provided with a miniaturized
    _user-activated_ radio emergency ‘panic’ search-and-rescue alarm,
    preset to transmit a uniquely-coded personalized alarm signal which
    could be triangulated for exact source position location and
    identification, then rapid-response medical, legal, police and rescue
    services could be made immediately available on demand. This would
    also help greatly to deter malefactors, improve peoples’ sense of
    safety, reduce the costs of crime, and assist the prompt arrest of the
    actual offenders).

    The basic principles and procedures of English Common Law _can_
    (among other systems of law) provide a basis for sensible adjudication
    services, provided that there are much better administrative arrangements
    to assure the ready availability of arbitration in civil courts at _no
    cost_ to the participants.

    However, as Hayek and others have pointed out, the English Common
    Law needs extensive revision to correct the unfortunate results of judges
    over the centuries having been drawn from a social class made up of
    creditors rather than debtors, landlords rather than tenants, masters
    rather than servants, vendors rather than customers. It might be added,
    that there has been a warping of the law caused by the ascendancy in the
    courts of those with deep pockets and the option of patience resulting in
    case-by-case decisions favouring them.

    In a restitutive paradigm, the costs of crime would be more accurately
    appraised and obvious; insurers and others would have incentives to
    restrain the incidence of – and thus reduce the costs of – infractions.
    In all but the most violent and destructive cases, ‘House Arrest’ should
    provide sufficient ultimate ‘damage limitation.’

    Personal security and property protection costs, including national
    defence provision, can be funded by a ‘ring-fenced’ pro-rata tax on all
    personal property and wealth owned, so that protection can be more nearly
    fairly priced according to the worth of the holdings which are being
    protected. In the UK this might approximate 1% of the value of all
    property holdings per annum. Policing services may be pluralistic —
    those performing policing functions should have no special privileges.


    Modern governments take up to 50% of GDP in costs and taxes. These
    government revenues will be redistributed in equal shares to all electors
    (a ‘social dividend’ or ‘Basic Income’); and a share therof could be
    redirected by them to their representatives as their electors wish.
    Representatives will thus receive funds in direct proportion to the
    numbers of electors supporting them, enabling them to finance the
    programmes they undertake to provide for their electors and others.

    Or the elector may elect to receive the funds intact.

    Each elector will likely choose the representative whose range of
    programmes and legislative stance best meets their preferences for
    representation, and for possible provision of personal social services
    (health, education, additional income etc.: the present “public”
    services). To ease the transition, and to allow reconsideration and
    amendment as and if problems are found, the funds may be transferred from
    government to electors gradually, over – say – a three-year period.

    Representatives may offer various mixes of “local” and “national”
    services. Some representatives will offer services directed more to
    helping the disadvantaged, while others would be directed more towards
    enhancing the life-chances of the elector.

    In the UK at present (1997), under these arrangements, around seven
    thousand UK pounds per elector per annum is available from an equal-shares
    reapportionment of total tax revenues, and their return to the elector,
    with another fifteen hundred UK pounds available for each child. This
    should be more than sufficient to cover the great majority of electors’
    situations. It would provide a family income of seventeen thousand UK
    pounds per annum for a mother, father and two children, before any
    additional income is earned. This amount should also constitute the
    Personal Income Tax Allowance.

    A flat-rate yearly risk-sharing national medical-expenses insurance
    premium of around four hundred UK pounds should be sufficient to cover all
    medical expenses (including disability and geriatric care expenses), by
    funding a risk-sharing Universal Health Insurance chargecard for each
    citizen, which is used to settle voluntary-sector bona fide treatment
    charges for bona fide illnesses (thus enabling funds to ‘follow the
    patient’). De-cartelized medicine is much less costly.


    Each elector’s household will be provided with an easy-to-use on-line
    computer with keyboard or voice input – a terminal connecting to their TV set
    (or as they wish), to enable access to a wide variety of services and facilities.
    Network connections will be via the public telephone system (PSTN) at no
    charge, or via a national hard-wired or fibre-optical data highway, with
    data-radio facilities provided where there is no existing wired
    connection. (Handicapped people unable to use the equipment properly can
    of course be helped to do so, by their friends and relatives,
    representatives, healthcare professionals and volunteers, neighbours and
    others). Voice input is now readily available for those preferring it.

    Network services will include:- electronic mail; news; selecting and
    appointing democratic representatives; conflict investigation, resolution
    and legal ajudication services and arbitration facilities; travel
    facilities; medical diagnosis and treatment outcome information services;
    educational facilities; employment and trading opportunities; consumer
    information and advice; housing opportunities; library and information
    resources; social events and community facilities; financial services; and
    many other resources.


    It is now technically and economically possible to provide each and
    every citizen with a uniquely coded personal miniature radio ‘panic’
    alarm. When activated _by the citizen_ in an emergency situation, the
    unit transmits a coded signal which identifies the citizen and their
    location, and summons immediate assistance to those GPS coordinates. This
    can be medical, policing, fire brigade or other disaster assistance. The
    signal can be instantly triangulated to pinpoint its source, and Global
    Positioning Coordinates provided, so that emergency rescue service
    can be provided by the fastest available route. This would substantially
    reduce the incidence of crime, and reduce its cost to individuals.


    The sought-for advantages of the systems proposed here include:

    [ 1] Improved responsiveness & responsibility of those elected or appointed
    [ 2] Reduced deficit spending, less inflationary money-printing & borrowing
    [ 3] Funds go to those programmes which those paying actually approve of
    [ 4] Reduced forward commitment of future revenue resources
    [ 5] Channelling of chosen kinds of help to those chosen to be helped
    [ 6] Social acquisitions by persons and groups rather than nationalisation
    [ 7] More variety, better value-for-money, less “red-tape”, wasted resources
    [ 8] New employment opportunities and service industries
    [ 9] Better allocations as between local and national services
    [10] Incremental change rather than “U-turns”, with better adaptation
    [11] More nearly market-like, with multiple simultaneous choices
    [12] Smaller, less monolithic administrative bureaucracies
    [13] Better opportunities for involvement for those wanting to participate
    [14] Less bitter rivalry when all “sides” can win; not a zero-sum situation
    [15] Maybe a political currency for spending in the political marketplace
    [16] Resolution of Kenneth Arrow’s voting Impossibility Theorem
    [17] Resolution of Condorcet’s voting Paradox
    [18] Encouragement of individualism & responsible voluntaryist co-operation
    [19] Encouragement of new thinking in policy formulation and presentation.


    From longer-term free-society perspectives, these ideas offer good
    prospects for building up a broad range of free and independent groups and
    social institutions providing personal and welfare services, each largely
    funded by its own supporters. Representatives would progress by
    fulfilling their electors’ requirements. The struggle for political
    advantage or domination would be replaced by more constructive activity
    more nearly voluntarily-based. Rather than the usual futile or
    domineering zero-sum and negative-sum political struggles, just about
    everyone could win.

    There would be more participation in worthwhile ongoing activities,
    and better understanding of the virtues and advantages of a more fully
    free society. Representatives would be more accountable, and electors
    would have incentives to be responsible. The redistributive elements of
    revenue-sharing and apportionment would become more obvious and more
    nearly subject to rational and humane considerations. Poorer people
    frequently bear a disproportionate burden of ‘social costs.’

    ( This presentation is an outline of some ideas for a more fully free
    liberal and democratic free society; it may also help provide a better
    understanding of freely-chosen plural social welfare provision. Written
    comment is always welcome. -TH Bristol, England, 12 December [2007] ).

    All Best Wishes

    / /\ \

    Tony Hollick, LightSmith

    http://www.STARGATE.uk.net (Agora Home Page, Rainbow Bridge Foundation)
    http://www.aclu.org (American Civil Liberties Union)
    http://www.amnesty.org (Amnesty International)

    ——————- * * * * * —————

    ! http://www.NSA.gov (NSA)| * Anduril@STARGATE.uk.net |
    – ————————–* * * *————————– –
    | Rainbow Bridge Foundation * * Centre for Liberal Studies |
    – ————————–* * * *————————– –
    | 4 Grayling House, Canford Rd: * Bristol BS9 3NU Tel: 9504914 |

    “These are the Warriors who have the power to create Paradise.”


    ——————- * * * * * —————

    ——————- * * * * * —————
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    ——————- * * * * * —————

    NEW YORK 10 December 1948




    G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).

    On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted
    and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of
    which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the
    Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the
    Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and
    expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions,
    without distinction based on the political status of countries or

    Final Authorized Text

    ——————- * * * * * —————
    ——————- * * * * * —————


    Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable
    rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
    justice and peace in the world,

    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous
    acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world
    in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom
    from fear and want has beep proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common


    Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a

    last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights
    should be protected by the rule of law,

    Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations
    between nations,

    Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed thei
    faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
    person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote

    social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

    Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation wit
    the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of
    human rights and fundamental freedoms,

    Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greates
    importance for the full realization of this pledge,

    Now, Therefore, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims

    THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievem
    for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every
    organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by

    teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by

    progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal
    and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member
    States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their

    Article 1

    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights
    They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act
    towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    Article 2

    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth
    in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as
    race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
    opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
    status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis
    of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the
    country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be
    independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other
    limitation of sovereignty.

    Article 3

    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Article 4

    No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the
    slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

    Article 5

    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
    degrading treatment or punishment.

    Article 6

    Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person
    before the law.

    Article 7

    All are equal before the law and are entitled without any
    discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled
    to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of
    this Declaration and against any incitement to such

    Article 8

    Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent
    national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights
    granted him by the constitution or by law.

    Article 9

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or

    Article 10

    Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public
    hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
    determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal
    charge against him.

    Article 11

    (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be
    presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a
    public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary
    for his defence.

    (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account
    of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal
    offence, under national or international law, at the time when
    it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than
    the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was

    Article 12

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
    privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon
    his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
    protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    Article 13

    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence
    within the borders of each state.

    (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his
    own, and to return to his country.

    Article 14

    (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other
    countries asylum from persecution.

    (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions
    genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts
    contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

    Article 15

    (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor
    denied the right to change his nationality.

    Article 16

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to
    race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to
    found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to
    marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent
    of the intending spouses.

    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
    and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    Article 17

    (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
    association with others.

    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    Article 18

    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
    religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
    belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others
    and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
    teaching, practice, worship and observance.

    Article 19

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
    this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
    interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
    ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    Article 20

    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and

    (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

    Article 21

    (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of
    his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

    (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in
    his country.

    (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority
    of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and
    genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal
    suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free
    voting procedures.

    Article 22

    Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social
    security and is entitled to realization, through national
    effort and international co-operation and in accordance with
    the organization and resources of each State, of the economic,
    social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and
    the free development of his personality.

    Article 23

    (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of
    employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to
    protection against unemployment.

    (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to
    equal pay for equal work.

    (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
    remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence
    worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by
    other means of social protection.

    (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for
    the protection of his interests.

    Article 24

    Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable
    limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

    Article 25

    (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
    the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
    including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
    necessary social services, and the right to security in the
    event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age
    or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his

    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and
    assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock,
    shall enjoy the same social protection.

    Article 26

    (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be
    free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.
    Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and
    professional education shall be made generally available and
    higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the
    basis of merit.

    (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the
    human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human
    rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding,
    tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious
    groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations
    for the maintenance of peace.

    (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education
    that shall be given to their children.

    Article 27

    (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the
    cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share
    in scientific advancement and its benefits.

    (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and
    material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or
    artistic production of which he is the author.

    Article 28

    Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in
    which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can
    be fully realized.

    Article 29

    (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the
    free and full development of his personality is possible.

    (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall
    be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law
    solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect
    for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just
    requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare
    in a democratic society.

    (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised
    contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

    Article 30

    Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for
    any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity
    or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the
    rights and freedoms set forth herein.

    ——————- * * * * * —————

    From the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
    Wednesday, 27 September [1995]
    Original Source: gopher://gopher.undp.org:70/00/unearth/rights