The Universal Principles of Liberty

by Stephan Kinsella on August 14, 2025

Background/Other

Press/Commentary

Kinsella, “Announcing the Universal Principles of Liberty”
- “Announcing The Universal Principles of Liberty,” Free Life [Libertarian Alliance, UK] (25 Aug 2025)
KOL473 | The Universal Principles of Liberty, with Mark Maresca of The White Pillbox
Announcement of Future Plans for the Principles (forthcoming Oct. 2025)

Origins of the Projects

For more detail, see Announcing the Universal Principles of Liberty.

Last year I was contacted by one “Freemax” about drafting a document that could serve as the basis for a new, free country. Not a constitution or similar statist document, as had been attempted with other projects such as Liberland, but a systematic statement of the basic principles of libertarianism, sometimes called anarcho-capitalism and voluntarism. We enlisted fellow attorneys and libertarian legal scholars Alessandro Fusillo, ¹ David Dürr, ² and Patrick C. Tinsley ³ to consult on this project. Hans-Hermann Hoppe served as adviser and “Godfather” to the project.

I first drafted a concise statement of libertarian principles, “The Fundamental Principles of Justice.” It was intended to include only essential principles and exclude those not fully settled among libertarians, such as abortion. Further principles and applications were to be left for secondary or supplemental statements of principles, agreements and covenants, and development of concrete law (legal precepts) by a decentralized legal system, with reference to the work of libertarian scholars and past legal systems such as the Roman law, the Anglo-American common law, and modern civil law.

This served as the basis for “The Universal Principles of Liberty,” a collaborative effort authored by all of us, which has now been published and inscribed on the Blockchain here (Thurs., Aug 14, 2025). It is reproduced below.

More details about the project will be forthcoming, and I plan to provide a detailed Commentary on the Principles as well as proposed Supplemental Principles. Stay tuned…

❧

[Published Thurs., Aug 14, 2025; TheUniversalPrinciplesofLiberty.com]

The Universal Principles of Liberty

The foundations of ethical order, justice, and peace

PREAMBLE

In recognition of the inherent dignity, liberty, and moral self-sovereignty of every Person, and affirming that peace, prosperity, and human flourishing arise where each respects the equal liberty of others — we declare these Universal Principles of Liberty (“Principles”).

Their purpose is to foster conflict-free interaction. These maxims flow from reason, experience, and ethics; they are neither decreed by any state nor imposed by majority will. Adoption is voluntary, any person may adopt the Principles by any clear act of consent and enforcement rests on the free choice of individuals and communities to live by, and to arbitrate disputes under these Principles.

SCOPE AND HIERARCHY

Primacy
These Principles form the supreme meta-normative baseline for all Adopters.

Secondary Rules
Adopters may establish charters, covenants, by-laws, customs, private codes, or other private law systems based on these Principles (“Secondary Codes and Laws”). Such rules may elaborate procedures or address matters not covered here, but may not contravene, nullify, or abridge these Principles.

Conflicts
Where a secondary rule or practice conflicts with these Principles, these Principles prevail. Disputes over such incompatibilities shall be resolved by impartial arbitration.

Interpretation
If these Principles are silent or unclear, arbiters may consult:

Relevant secondary codes, customary practice, and generally recognized legal principles;
Well-established bodies of private law, such as Roman law, the Anglo-American common-law tradition, or modern civil codes;
Codifications, restatements, and respected scholarly commentaries—especially from libertarian thinkers—provided they are consistent with these Principles.

ARTICLE I — TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Adopter — Any Person that adopts these Principles.
Person (Rights-Bearer) — Any sentient being whose inherent capacity for moral agency grounds a presumption of self-ownership and reciprocal obligations. These Principles intentionally refrain from prescribing when personhood begins or ends; such determinations are to be based on scientific, philosophical, or spiritual inquiry and, where necessary, impartial arbitration. Interpretive Notice — The term Person does not extend to collectivised or fictitious legal persons—such as corporations, associations, or other aggregations—which may hold derivative rights only through the mandate of Persons as defined above.
Resource — A scarce, rivalrous, means of action that a Person can control to achieve an end. A Person’s Body is a Resource, as can be things external to any Person’s Body (“External Resources”). Information, ideas, patterns, and knowledge—being non-rivalrous—are not Resources. External Resources may be owned by individuals or jointly by groups of Persons through contract or joint appropriation. Group ownership does not grant any rights greater than those an individual Person may hold.
Right (Ownership) — A Person’s exclusive authority to control a Resource and to exclude others from its use unless consented to by its owner. All rights are property rights.
Consent — Permission or license granted by a Resource’s owner to another to use it or, in the case of External Resources, to transfer its title. The granting, or denial, of consent may be communicated expressly or implicitly, depending on circumstances, with a presumption that the most recent such communication prevails. Consent may be implied or presumed in certain circumstances, such as Negotiorum Gestio, in which a Person, the manager, acts to manage the affairs of and protect the interests of another, the owner, in the reasonable belief that the owner would approve of the action if made aware of the circumstances.
Aggression — The use, theft of, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another Person’s Resource without the owner’s consent, including fraudulent takings of the Resources; or the credible threat thereof.
Guardianship — A fiduciary stewardship in which a competent Person acts on behalf of another Person who lacks present capacity for moral agency. Guardianship may arise from natural relationships (e.g., parent-child, close family ties with disabled persons), contractual arrangements, or community customs. Guardians are bound by these Principles, must act in the incapacitated Person’s best interest, and are subject to review by impartial arbitration upon reasonable challenge.
Device of Mass Destruction (DMD) — Any device, system, agent, instrument, or technology whose ordinary functioning cannot discriminate between aggressor and bystander and whose scope of damage is foreseeably mass-lethal.
Law — Laws are enforceable rules that recognize ownership rights in Resources and that authorize force to protect ownership rights in Resources. Any law that is incompatible with these Principles is unjust and void. Select examples of unjust laws are provided in Article V.
Contract — A unilateral, bilateral or multilateral title-transfer arrangement—present or future—whereby the relevant External Resource owner or owners consensually grant ownership or license to use specified External Resources to others.

ARTICLE II — PRINCIPLES

Non-Aggression Principle — Aggression against another Person’s Resource is unjust, irrespective of the actor’s status or scale. Aggression includes individual action as well as joint action, in which case participants in joint action may be liable for acts of the others, depending on the relationship between the actors and their causal connection to the Aggression.
Self-Ownership — Every Person is the original and presumptive owner of their Body. Incapacity—temporary or permanent—does not nullify Self-Ownership. Self-Ownership may be forfeited, in whole or in part, as a consequence of committing Aggression, subject to principles of self-defense and proportionality.
Original Appropriation (Homesteading) — Unowned External Resources become justly owned by the first Person (or association) who clearly demarcates, occupies, or productively transforms them, thereby establishing an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between the Person and the External Resource. Such ownership is retained until it is transferred by Contract, transferred for purposes of rectification, or abandoned. Abandonment may be determined by sufficient indications of intent such as long-standing inactivity, explicit communications, or failure to object to or prevent open and notorious adverse possession by another, which may mature into ownership absent timely challenge.
Voluntary Exchange (Contractual Title Transfer) — A Person may acquire ownership of an External Resource by means of a Contractual title transfer from the previous owner. Such contractual title transfers may be partial or complete, conditional or unconditional, temporary or permanent, or immediate and contemporaneous or future-based, as the case may be and as specified by contractual terms of understanding between the relevant parties. Mere promises may give rise to moral obligations but do not result in legally binding obligations; contracts are consensual title transfers based on the owner’s property rights in owned External Resources, which remain with the owner until transferred by Contract, transferred for purposes of rectification, or abandoned.
Rectification — A proven aggressor owes the victim compensation proportionate to the harm caused. This may include transferring title to Resources. In assessing compensation, consideration shall be given to the extent of the damage, including the victim’s subjective loss; the aggressor’s degree of intent and underlying motives; and, pursuant to §10, the type and degree of punishment the victim could, in principle, impose on the aggressor.

ARTICLE III — SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS

Inalienability of the Person — Contracts purporting to alienate ultimate control over a Person’s own Body, such as voluntary slavery contracts, are unenforceable.
Proportionality and Self-Defense — Defensive force in response to Aggression is justified, and is not itself Aggression, when reasonably necessary and proportionate to the threat, whether used immediately or after the fact. Where possible, self-help should be avoided pursuant to §11.
Devices of Mass Destruction (DMD) — Possessing, developing, or deploying a DMD constitutes a presumptive standing threat when it foreseeably endangers innocent parties through indiscriminate or catastrophic effects. This presumption may be rebutted only by proving, to the satisfaction of all affected parties or a neutral arbiter, that robust safeguards eliminate substantial risk of wrongful harm. Where unrebutted, proportionate action—preceded, where practicable, by notice, dialogue, and arbitration—to neutralise the danger is justified; exigent circumstances may warrant immediate intervention.
Presumptions of Title — The possessor of an External Resource is presumed to be the owner, which presumption may be overcome by evidence of superior title, including evidence of contractual transfer, rectification for Aggression, or abandonment. For property title disputes, the party proving the better claim to the External Resource prevails, taking any relevant presumptions and burdens and standards of proof into account.
Evidentiary Standards and Procedures: Punishment.
An Aggressor may, in principle, forfeit certain rights as a consequence of Aggression. The nature and extent of any remedy — whether compensatory, punitive, or protective — shall be determined according to community rules consistent with these Principles. Severe remedies require a heightened evidentiary standard, such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimous verdicts, double jeopardy protection, and jury authority over both law and fact. In cases of lethal Aggression, the right to forgive or settle rests with the victim’s closest relations or as decided by impartial arbitration; where multiple victims are involved, arbitration may govern the conditions for forgiveness. Repeated or grave Aggression may establish an Aggressor as a standing threat, justifying proportionate defensive measures.

ARTICLE IV — DECENTRALISED LEGAL ORDER

Aspirational Goals; Conflict-Avoidance & Compromise — Adopters of these Principles pledge to negotiate in good-faith, compromise where possible, and, when feasible, submit disputes to neutral arbitration rather than resort to force, thereby advancing conflict-free interaction. Self-help is to be avoided where possible, as is vigilante justice, acting as a judge in one’s own case, or acting as an outlaw. All Persons adopting these Principles and seeking to benefit therefrom ought to aspire to comply with these Principles and to support the legal order of a free society attempting to implement and apply these Principles. The production of security may be entrusted to entrepreneurs or organized militias provided that such security contractors are bound by these Principles.
Competitive Arbitration — No institution enjoys a coercive monopoly over law or enforcement. Individuals are free to select competing arbitral providers and protection agencies. Arbitration bodies and courts, with the consent of their clients, may agree on the establishment of courts of appeal and appellate courts to solve disputes between arbitral providers and protection agencies.
Customary Evolution of Law — Communities may develop and promulgate Secondary Codes and Laws including registries, procedural norms, and evidentiary rules consistent with these Principles.

ARTICLE V — SELECT UNJUST LAWS

The laws listed below are examples of positive laws, past or present, that are incompatible with these Principles and therefore unjust. This list is illustrative, not exhaustive: any law contrary to these Principles is unjust, whether or not named here. Inclusion of certain laws does not imply that others, similarly incompatible, may be enforced.

Taxation — The nonconsensual taking of Resources, usually for purposes of financing the institutions of governance; community needs should be met through voluntary means and free-market solutions.
Eminent Domain — Any seizure, regulation, or impairment of the use of Resources, whether compensated or not.
Bans on Consumption or Use of Substances — Prohibitions on alcohol, narcotics, or any other consumable substances.
Forced Labor — Conscription, slavery, or any mandatory service imposed on the innocent.
Prohibition on Defensive Arms — General bans on the possession of weapons for lawful self-defense, except for DMD.
Monopoly over Money — Central banking, legal tender laws, currency controls, or restrictions on the ownership, possession, or use of gold, cryptocurrency, or any other forms of money.
Intellectual Property — Copyright, patent, or similar laws, as ideas are not rivalrous resources. Note: Creativity and innovation may only be protected and rewarded through non-Aggressive arrangements.
Reputation as Property Fallacy — Defamation, trademark, or similar laws treating reputation as independently ownable Resources. Note: Reputation exists only in the minds of others and cannot be owned, though it can be defended through peaceful means.
Unchosen Obligations — The imposition of any positive obligations or welfare rights not voluntarily accepted or resulting from voluntary action.
Censorship — Any law that censors, penalizes, or compels expression based on its content is unjust. Note: If speech constitutes a causal part of an act of aggression, the speaker is liable.