First, The People Restored is a group with a very excellent statement of principles. In fact, I heartily endorse all the principles in the preamble to their agreement. The are strongly worded, and I think many other organizations would benefit from adopting their principles and even their specific wording of those principles.
A few examples are:
- "We see natural rights as immutable and protect them in our community."
- "We live lives according to objective morality and we acknowledge our dependence on that Creator. We speak openly of faith."
- "we believe that restrictions, regulations, and taxation on markets should be minimized and removed where possible."
- "We believe that the traditional family—father, mother, son, and daughter—is the fountainhead from which community, commerce, and civilization spring."
- "In our community, a family household is seen as a member unit."
There are many other great principle in the preamble, which I live by, and none which I object to. So why would I not want to join with them? Well, the devil is in the details, or the implementation.
The most obvious objection I have to their implementation is their monocorporate fascination with Goldbacks and the company which produces this private currency. Their selling spiel includes the assertion that all members agree to be partially paid in Goldbacks, and they assert that this provides a protection against a government imposition of some future currency we might object to.
I find this requirement personally objectionable, because I believe in the freedoms they espouse in their preamble. It would be foolish of me to tie myself to one particular corporation who could go out of business at any time, and render my ability to keep the agreement null and void. It would be more in line with conservative values, and free-market economics, to require partial payment in gold or silver, which could be standardized coins issued by a government or a private organization. Those who buy and sell gold and silver coins already deal in both types. Goldbacks could also be a recognized alternative under such a rule. Such a rule also has the advantage of agreeing with the constitution when it specifically names gold and silver as legal tender, and with current Utah law, which recognizes gold and silver as legal tender, and exempts them from sales taxes. Unfortunately, Goldbacks are not exempted from sales tax, because they do not contain at least 50% gold or silver.
But furthermore, if one actually reads their full membership agreement, the requirement to use Goldbacks is not actually there. In this way, their marketing is in conflict with the actually agreement. The only thing regarding currency in the agreement is the phrase in section 3 (Principles and Requirements of the Community): "Accepting, at least partially, approved local currency as a payment for services." There is no definition of what "approved local currency" actually means, and no advocacy for the use of precious metals as currency. Since the contract gives all power to the three board members to make any and all changes to the contract, without any approval by the members, the definition of "approved local currency", which seems to currently be Goldbacks, if we believe the marketing, could be changed at any time at the whim of the board members. If we accept what they say on their website, "All of our members accept and use Goldbacks," then we must also accept that if they change their minds and say that all of our members must accept and use a CBDC, then they can do that at any time without changing the contract (which would at least require notification to the membership). There are no limits in the contract stopping them from doing that, nor any limitations on what they say their "approved local currency" could be.
Personally, I do not think the same people who wrote the preamble would change their "approved local currency" to a government mandated CBDC. But I do find it disingenuous that they would so strongly and prominently state that members are required to use Goldbacks, when the contract does not actually require that. And while I don't believe they would do such a thing, nothing in the contract actually prevents them from doing such a thing, and accepting their assertion that members are required to use Goldbacks sets a dangerous precedent for interpreting the contract in exactly such a manner.
While that is my biggest personal objection to their membership contract, I also found a couple other disturbing clauses when I read through the entire contract. I don't think that anyone should sign a contract without actually reading the entire document, and I'm surprised that other people would not notice and object to these clauses.
In section 12 (Privacy), we find this clause:
"All Members agree that the Community is not obligated to keep any Members’ conduct confidential from appropriate or compelled government reviews and that the Community may respond as appropriate or necessary to government inquiries or demands."
I am disturbed that an organization which claims to regard privacy highly would so easily abandon that privacy to government in their fine print. This clause contradicts their own principle (quoted from section 3): "Respect privacy and data privacy of Members in the Community, only utilizing data obtained in business as necessary for the business purposes."
In section 13 (Indemnification and Release), we find this clause:
"each Member agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Community and its other Members from conduct or wrongdoing (including without limitation negligence, reckless behavior, willful misconduct, criminal actions, actions that breach agreements, or actions that otherwise violate the law) of the Member that harms or causes liability to accrue to the Community or its other Members"
I don't think merely "disturbing" is enough to describe this clause. Do we really want to hold the community harmless against criminal action, breach of contract, and other actions which violate the law? Not only do I not want to do that, they don't want me to either. Later in the same section is this clause:
"Each Member releases the Community of any legal or other liability, and each Member agrees to not pursue claims or actions against other Members unless such claims or actions arise from breach of contract between the Members, willful or intentional misconduct, or criminal conduct."
So which is it? The contract requires me to hold members harmless for criminal actions and breach of agreements, and also, it explicitly allows me to pursue actions against other members for criminal actions and breach of contract. This is an explicitly self-contradictory contract.
And that is beside the fact (which could possibly be excused as standardized boilerplate legalistic nonsense), that it contradicts their own statements of principles and requirement for members (quoted from section 3 again): "Being honest and acting with integrity in dealings with others, both within the community and without."
This leads me to distrust, to at least a small extent, that the leaders of this organization are living up to the noble principles declared in the preamble. Of course none of us are perfect, and we all sometimes fail to live up to the highest principles we aspire to. But, this organization has a contract which does not live up the principles it sets forth in its own preamble. It violates those principles in the actual statement of the contract, and in their published methods of implementing the contract. And because I agree with its principles, I cannot in good conscience sign such a contract.
