All Proposals

Financial crime monitoring and terrorism prevention are used to justify breaking encryption, letter secrecy, and opinion surveillance. Every interception capability built for a trustworthy authority becomes available to a future authority that is not. The chilling effect is a collective harm: populations that self-censor degrade the epistemic commons. At the same time, surveillance-free financial channels fund real violence. Equiplurism's structural constraints: Any data access must be judicially authorized, time-limited, publicly logged (with delay), and legally contestable. Scope creep is a structural violation — not a policy error. A surveillance regime that demonstrably reduces legitimate political speech has exceeded its mandate. What this does not resolve: Whether judicial authorization is sufficient given that courts can also be captured. At what detection accuracy threshold surveillance becomes acceptable. Whether end-to-end encrypted communications should be legally permissible at all. Propose your position below.

The abortion question is the hardest test case for any framework that takes individual rights seriously. Two values the framework protects come into direct conflict: bodily sovereignty and the conditions for future generations to exist. Thomson (1971) made the strongest philosophical case for bodily autonomy as absolute. The demographic collapse version of the counterargument does not argue about personhood — it argues that a population facing extinction has a collective interest in reproduction that may override individual choice. Equiplurism's structural position: Bodily sovereignty is an Axiom-level protection. No majority vote, emergency declaration, or demographic argument can override it within the framework. Cultures can create conditions that make reproduction more attractive. They cannot compel the decisions themselves. "Cultural survival" does not grant a culture rights over individual bodies. What this does not resolve: At what point, if any, does a genuinely species-level extinction risk change the calculus? Who has standing to declare that threshold has been reached? Propose your position below.

No one consents to being born into a culture, a nation, a language, a religion, or a legal system. Some of these become genuinely chosen over time. Others remain external impositions the individual never accepted. The question is what obligations, if any, flow from unchosen membership. Does being born into a society create a debt to that society? Equiplurism's structural position: Identity is self-declared and self-revised. No administrative body can assign or revoke it. Civic obligations (tax, legal compliance) derive from residence and benefit — not from cultural or ethnic membership. Cultural communities may govern their members. Membership must be genuinely voluntary and genuinely exitable. What this does not resolve: How to handle conflicts between a person's self-declared identity and a community's definition of its own membership. Propose your position below.