A story of political equivalence in logical order 

[The current version: http://j.mp/ius-inter-personae]

[The version 6750:]

Ius inter personae

The story of political equivalence in logical (not necessarily historical) order:

1. us vs. them

1.1. partition of a set of humans into 2 parts (members of a society of humans vs. not members)

1.1.0. humans are members or not members of a given society of humans

1.1.1. we as members of our society (e.g. our group or tribe) are equivalent to each other
(based on that http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/partition-is-necessary-and-sufficient-for-equivalence )
- http://upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Leges/twelve_Girard.html Tabula IX (in English: http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ –> Lingua Anglica –> Twelve Tables, Table IX)
- “Gemeinschaft” Tönnies,1887 http://www.zotero.org/mazsa/items/39498383
- http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/dawes-messick-2000
- http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/beyond-geography

1.1.1.1. they (the not members) are equivalent to each other and they are less than we are
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity_bias

2. cuius regio eius religio (1555.09.25)

2.1. partition of a set of humans into more than 2 parts
- http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/two-kinds-of-people :)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio

2.1.0. humans are members of one of the societies of humans

2.1.1. members of a society in a regio are equivalent to each other
members of a part of the partition of humans, i.e. humans in a regio, are equivalent to each other
(based on that http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/partition-is-necessary-and-sufficient-for-equivalence )
- “Gesellschaft” Tönnies,1887

2.1.1.1 they, regio by regio, are equivalent to each other and they can be ranked, regio by regio

3. cuius regio eius religio (1555) + ius inter gentes (1532)

parts of the partition of humans, i.e. states, are agents
- http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/avatar-a-hero-for-navis-half-a-millenium-ago

3.1. states as agents and humans as members of states as agents are partitioned

3.1.0. humans are members of one of the states

3.1.1. inter-state order (1648.10.24)
(states are members of the inter-state order: they are “inter-states”)
(based on 3.1. and http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/partition-is-necessary-and-sufficient-for-equivalence )
a set of states as agents are equivalent to each other
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia
all states as agents are equivalent to each other (1960.12.14)
- http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/declaration.htm

3.1.1.1. nationalism
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

3.1.2. humans as members of states as agents are equivalent to each other

3.1.00. Partitioned (and equivalent) are:
- states as agents,
- humans as members of states as agents
- – e.g. humans as members of state1 as an agent, and
- – humans as members of state2 as an agent, …

3.2. [declared] persons are declared by the states as agents or by humans as members of states as agents and able to speak with one voice by means of the states as agents
- Cf. (declaration) Hobbes (1651): Leviathan, Chapter XXII http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#2HCH0022
- Cf. (one voice by the states as agents) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruption_of_1843
- (Cf. http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/axiom/ca4 )

4. cuius regio eius religio (1555) + ius inter gentes (1532) + ius gentium (160)

humans are agents
(humans are agents not based on a hypothetical ius inter homines but on ius inter gentes + ius gentium)
- http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/jus-naturale-jus-gentium-jus-civile

4.1. humans as members of states and humans as agents are partitioned

4.1.0. humans are members of humanity

4.1.1. (3.1.1.)

4.1.2. (3.1.2.)

4.1.3. human rights (1776.07.04)
humans as agents are equivalent to each other (while humans as members of states as agents are equivalent to each other based on 3.1.2.)
(the equivalence of humans is not based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule but on the partition of states as agents and humans as agents)
theorethical scope: an inter-state (the United States)
- http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
practical scope: an inter-state (the United States, 1789.03.04)
- http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
theorethical scope: global (1948.12.10)
- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
practical scope: global: (not yet)

4.1.3.1. cosmopolitanism
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism

4.1.00. Partitioned (and equivalent) are:
- states as agents,
- humans as members of persons as agents
- – e.g. humans as members of state1 as an agent,
- – humans as members of state2 as an agent, …, and
- humans as agents.

4.2. [declared] persons are declared by agents (e.g. states or humans) as agents or by humans as members of states as agents and able to speak with one voice by agents as agents

5. cuius regio eius religio (1555) + ius inter gentes (1532) + ius gentium (160) + ius inter personae (2008.08.27)

- http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/constitution
states are persons
(based on 3. and 3.1.1. and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/axiom/ca3 )
humans are persons
(based on 4. and 4.1.3. and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/axiom/ca3 )
[there can be other "social" persons as well based on http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/axiom/ca3 ]
declared persons based on http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/axiom/ca4 are persons

5.0.1. persons can be persons as agents
e.g. states can be states as agents (cf. 3. and 5.), humans can be humans as agents (cf. 4. and 5.)

5.0.2. persons (optionally: as something/somebody) can be persons as persons
(based on http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/preamble/cp4 and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/declaration/cd2 )
e.g. declared persons can be declared by persons as persons and can be able to speak with one voice by persons as persons

5.1.0. persons can be members of persons
(based on http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/preamble/cp2 and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/statement/cs2 and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/declaration/cd2 )
e.g. persons can be members of persons as agents (based on 3 and 3.1.0. and 5.)
e.g. persons as persons can be members of persons as persons (based on 5.0.2. and 5.1.0)

5.1.0.1. members of persons as persons are persons as persons
(based on 5.1.0. and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/preamble/cp4 and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/declaration/cd2 )
e.g. members of states as persons are persons (e.g. humans) as persons

5.1.1. (3.1.1.)

5.1.2. (3.1.2.)

5.1.3. (4.1.3.)

5.1.4. persons as persons are equivalent to each other
(based on http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/statement/cs4 and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/declaration/cd2 )
specifically, states as persons and humans as persons and declared persons as persons are equivalent to each other
e.g. persons as persons and its members are equivalent (based on 5.1.0.1. and 5.1.4.)
- “Personschaft” or “Personenschaft” (vs. “Gesellschaft” vs. “Gemeinschaft” of Tönnies,1887)

5.1.00. Partitioned (and equivalent) are:
- persons as agents
- – e.g. states as agents, and
- – humans as agents, and
- persons as members of persons as agents
- – e.g. humans as members of state1 as an agent,
- – humans as members of state2 as an agent, …, and
- persons (e.g. states and humans and declared persons) as persons.
(based on 3.1.1. and 3.1.2 and 4.1.3 and 5.1.4. and http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/partition-is-necessary-and-sufficient-for-equivalence )