What have you got against smoking and tequila!? 😉
Let's take the visit to the authoritarian hedonists property as an example. What if I don't agree that they have the right to that property? Or in the idea that I may be forced to smoke or drink by anyone? That anyone may "have a right to establish such rules" is not a given and I may enter the property without that knowledge. It would be very tedious indeed to have to review the terms for any movement from this location to that on the earth, and it would be unethical to not present those terms if they are under debate.
I see a constitution as a move towards sensibleness in these kinds of arrangements. But then again, it will only take one dramatic incident on this lunatic's property for the word to get out about them (assuming the visitor survives the event). So there's that too.
I see your points. But I will highlight that a personal code is no contract as a contract must have at least two signatories. Otherwise I think it is better understood as an oath made to the rest of humanity, as the rest of humanity had no chance to review it. In a sense it becomes quite useless except in these regards:
- you can produce it immediately and so don't have to have long conversations about it
- your "personal style" can be publicly available and so people will know in advance where they stand with you, and so make their plans accordingly.
However without any convention on these oaths they are possibly so much mumbo-jumbo, open to various interpretation and misunderstanding. I'd be interested to find out a way to at least stick to some definitions, i.e. I can understand what you mean when you say X, if not a shared constitution.
I have the sense that you keep wishing to end the conversation but I have other intentions friend 😜
EDIT
However, being a party to an agreement and violating it, and THEN changing the rules you agree to so that you wouldn't be punishable is an ex post facto modification, which shouldn't be upheld by just courts.
Like you editing that post after I replied? Lol, seriously though, that could happen too.
Perhaps law does not need a constitutional basis on which to operate but it does need some basis. I agree that it's a possible model, what basis would you see to justify it?