2016-December-04 05:47:33 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Click here for my public PGP key   Google Translate   Wikipedia Comparison of Language Translator programs   I use Firefox browser & add-on called "Google Translator for Firefox"

“The 'Greatest Generation' is the one that ABOLISHED the USA military draft.”
~Dennis Wilson, Arizona writer

Donations? Hell, NO!*

Because robo-spammers outnumber real people by 20 to 1, you MUST register to post AND your membership MUST be approved.
SEND EMAIL with YOUR comments or a posting to Admin (at) to prove that you are NOT an automaton.
Sure. It is a bother. But you only have to do it once to become a member. And you don't have to wade thru the spam.
   Home   Help Search Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: What *IS* a “Political Statement”? Why is One Needed? Who would Use It?  (Read 5790 times)
Creator of this site
Forum/Blog Owner
Posts: 1316

Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.

WWW Email
« on: 2011-November-19 11:32:50 AM »

What *IS* a “Political Statement”? Why is One Needed? Who would Use It?
+ Disqus Comments
Links to this page...:  ‘ ’  “ ”  ' '  " "

Deutsch ..:
English  ...:  -- Last Update: 2016-09-04
Español ...:  -- Last Update: 2014-08-30
Français ..:

Publication history:

What *IS* a “Political Statement”?
Why is One Needed?
Who would Use It?

Where does the Covenant of Unanimous Consent fit
in the context of history and today’s world?

by Dennis Lee Wilson

What IS a Political Statement?

In philosophy, the study of politics is the study of interpersonal relationships, i.e. the study of how people interact with each other[1]. A particular political system will be a result of—a reflection of and guided by—a particular code of ethics or morality. A dominant form of morality (usually held implicitly) is selflessness and altruism and that leads to a political system with some form of authoritarianism--which is needed to enforce the underlying morality. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a Political Statement based upon, explicitly guided by and a reflection of the ethical/moral principle contained in the Non-Aggression Principle.

In the context of this article, a Political Statement takes the form of written rules—reflecting a particular ethics and morality—by which a group of people agree or are expected to conduct their relations with each other. Those who do NOT “agree” are usually ignored, ostracized or persecuted. In the Covenant of Unanimous Consent they are simply warned what to expect if they violate the Precepts of the Covenant.

For comparison, some other notable political statements (and their links[6]) include:

Exodus 24:12,13: Moses’ Ten Commandments
          (The last five commandments relate to interpersonal relationships.)
1100: The Charter of Liberties
1215: The Magna Carta
1320: The Declaration of Arbroath*
1777: The USA Articles of Confederation
1787: The USA Constitution
1776-1956: Constitutions of each of the 50 States
1861: The Confederate States Constitution

ALL of the above political statements, except Moses, suffer the failings noted in the first sentence of the Covenant and also noted in the article A Written Constitution: Protecting the State from the People[2]. They (those forms of political Governance) rely upon “other”, delegated people for enforcement--and that is their Achilles’ Heel.

The Covenant of Unanimous Consent reintroduces the idea of personal responsibility instead of relying upon “other”, delegated people (government) to “make”, care for and enforce sensible and rational laws.

1986: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Why is a Political Statement Needed?

Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle[3] are moral/ethical principles.

The basic or minimum requirement for peaceful interpersonal relationships[1] is understanding and adhering to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), a very simple MORAL/ethical concept that is even readily understood by most children.

But sometimes moral statements are not sufficiently explicit or not easily applied to particular situations. Because of varying education levels (there will ALWAYS BE children coming into adulthood), understanding the full consequences of moral statements and/or applying them consistently can become problematic. In larger groups of people, applying moral statements consistently becomes increasingly problematic--especially when an arrogant band of modern-day hermeneuticians, deconstructionists, nihilists, relativists, and solipsists specialize in deliberately distorting and delight in twisting the meaning[4] of even something as simple and rational as the Non-Aggression Principle.

Minimum requirements for living peacefully amongst other people do NOT require a person to be “fully rational” nor to understand what moral/ethical principles ARE, nor even to understand what principles are! Education levels vary enormously as do levels of rationality!

A characteristic of Political Statements—and a reason why they exist—is that they are more explicit than moral statements and consequently, are less vulnerable to innocent and/or malevolent “interpretations” and deliberate distortions and twisting.

That important point is worth repeating:

  • Rules of Conduct, such as a Political Statement or the last five of Moses’ Commandments, are MORE SPECIFIC AND CONCISE and considerably LESS ABSTRACT than moral principles, and are therefore less subject to misinterpretation and less liable to deliberate manipulation.

The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a five point (Precepts) Political Statement of interpersonal relationships based on and explicitly derived from the single moral principle in the Non-Aggression Principle.

As can be seen in the essays, articles and discussions in Footnote[5], The Covenant of Unanimous Consent reflects a very explicit, sovereign individual oriented morality.

Who would Use It?

The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is
a Political Statement
based upon, and explicitly derived from
the ethical/moral principle contained in
the Non-Aggression Principle.

The Covenant fulfills the promise of
Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

It can be used by
Agorist, Anarcho-capitalist, Anarchist and Survivalist Communities;
Objectivist “Galt” Gulches and similar Societies; Redoubts;
Family/Community Farms; Free State Groups; Phyles[7];
Private Commerce Zones such as Atlantic Station in Atlanta, Georgia[8];
Private Apartment Buildings; Home Associations; Restricted or Gated Communities;
Supersedure Zones; Sea Steads[9];
Temporary and Permanent Autonomous Zones; “Cities of Refuge”[10];
 Independent Economic Territories; ZEDEs;
Friendships; Marriages; Polyamorous, Polygamous, Polyandrous groups
Voluntary Groups of any size--two people or more.

John C Carleton summed it up nicely this way:

Self Organizing Collectives. Done by the humans in a local area, (not the sub corporation of government), voluntarily entered into with no force or group think, with absolute right to tell every one else to go to hell if the group becomes corrupted, without being sanctioned, jailed, beat up, raped, murdered, fined.


[1] See What *IS* The Bare Minimum...? for more details:

[2] A Written Constitution: Protecting the State from the People

[3] Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle

[4] Even something as simple and concise as the NAP can be a target for distortion. See In Defense of Non-Aggression
by David Gordon at for details.


[6] Links to historical political statements:

[7] Doug Casey on Phyles

[8] Jefferey Tucker on Atlantic Station

[9] The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is in the Unamendable part of Seastead’s Constitution of Las Portadas. However, it is only mentioned once and does not appear to be central to the Constitution.
  • Paragraph 8: The guiding principles for all interpersonal relationships and private or business activities underwritten by Las Portadas and those undertaken by Las Portadas and all businesses and individuals associated therewith shall be those that are outlined in The Covenant of Unanimous Consent and detailed in Instead of Politics (Civilization 101) and Los Principios de Civilización.

[10] I recently read Cities Of Refuge: Why Are People Creating Hundreds Of Places Of Refuge All Over America? (see link below) and concluded that it was a prime candidate for The Bare Minimum. The Refuge article recommends everything a post-collapse community needs except a “covenant” or “Rules of Conduct” for people to live together peacefully and productively. I am continuously amazed at how otherwise intelligent people just blatantly ignore such an obvious issue. Perhaps they mean to run these Refuges like ships--i.e. with a tyrannical Captain.

The article is quite interesting (it echos the pattern of European history during and after the Roman Empire collapse that I documented in  Living for 1000 Years - The “Dark” Ages? at ) and I WAS going to promote the Covenant via The Bare Minimum until I started down the comments looking for an appropriate place to post. I was absolutely appalled at the overwhelming amount of DOGMATIC religious venom--such that I was unable to bring myself to leave ANY comment.

The “Cities Of Refuge” article is still worth a read. Here is the link:

2011-11-19, 11:32:50
Revision history:
2015-07-06 Added link to Seastead’s Constitution of Las Portadas
2015-06-24 Added Phyles and link to Doug Casey article about them.
2013-02-05 Revised the “What is” and added “Why needed” - dlw
2013-02-14 Added “Who uses” - dlw
2013-04-25 Added link to article defending NAP - dlw
2013-05-21 Added link and article: A Written Constitution: Protecting the State from the People - dlw
2013-09-15 Added Spanish translation. Last Update: 2014-08-30
2015-04-25 Added links to historical political statements - dlw
2016-01-01 Added link to Atlantic Station - dlw
2016-03-03 Added Cities of Refuge and Disqus Comments
2016-09-22 Added John C Carleton summary

This article was originally published on Mr. Wilson’s website at

Creative Commons

Attribution, Share Alike

Permission to redistribute this article, or any portion of it, is herewith granted by the author—provided that appropriate credit is given as per Creative Commons, Attribute, Share Alike.

Click here for Disqus Comments

Get something tangible for your money, something you like and can use.
Visit my Artemis Zuna Trading Post

If you find something you like, buy it.
If you DON’T find something you want, sent me an email at

My Artemis Zuna Trading Post now offers Bitcoin graphics on shirts, cups, posters, wall peels, license plates and numerous other items.

*-Coming soon-* accept Bitcoins for payments *-Coming soon-*

« Last Edit: 2016-September-22 12:33:41 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Creator of this site
Forum/Blog Owner
Posts: 1316

Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.

WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: 2013-May-21 10:53:02 PM »

A Written Constitution: Protecting the State from the People

A Written Constitution: Protecting the State from the People
Friday, October 12, 2012-- by Jonathan Goodwin AKA The Bionic Mosquito

This will be the final installment of my review of Fritz Kern’s Kingship and Law.  In the final section of his second chapter, he reviews the impact of a written constitution into the relationship of state, people and law.

  • In modern usage we mean by the term “Constitution” that part of the general legal order of a State which controls the powers of government and the mutual relations between the government and the subjects.

Was there such a thing as a “constitution” in the Middle Ages?

  • The monarch was subject not to a specific constitutional check, but to the law in general, which is all-powerful and almost boundless in its lack of definition; he is limited by this law and bound to this law.

What we have seen of the concept of mediaeval law was described in my previous post:  the law was above both king and people.  Both were subordinate to it, and all (king and people) were bound to define it and protect it – each to his own understanding of “good” and old.”  Each person had veto power!

Such an environment, while somewhat unstable for the people, was even more so for the king.  He was only one man – a man with some form of kin-right or birth-right, eventually coming to be sanctified by the church, but still he was one man; and equally bound by and to the same law as all other men.  He was “controlled” by the law, not controller of it:

  • From the point of view of constitutional machinery, the control exercised in this way by the law will presumably be very incomplete and insecure – the very breadth of the mediaeval idea of law allows us to guess this.  But in theory there resulted a complete control of the monarch, a subjection to law so thorough that political considerations and reason of State were excluded and out of the question.

That the monarch faced the same insecurity and instability in the law as did the people was the most remarkable check on any potential abuse.  As opposed to modern, constitutionally defined states where it evolves that it is only the people that have to fear the law, in the mediaeval time all were equally subject to and therefore controlled by the law.

For this reason the modern state feels free to create laws that run roughshod over private rights.  No list need be created to demonstrate this reality of every modern state.  Not in the Middle Ages:  “Nieman ist so here, so daz reht zware,” or “No one is so much lord that he may coerce the law.”

  • But in the Middle Ages, with their purely conservative idea of law, with their rejection of politics, their fusion of law and morals, and of ideal and positive law, could not recognize at all any law of the State which modified or destroyed these private rights.

The limitations thus placed on the mediaeval prince were, in theory, much greater than limitations placed on any constitutionally-enabled monarch or president:

  • For the latter can establish new law in conjunction with the other supreme constitutional organs, but the mediaeval monarch existed for the purpose of applying and protecting the good old law in the strictest imaginable sense.

No one was “legislating” in the sense we understand that term today.

  • The mediaeval State, as a mere institution for the preservation of the law, is not allowed to interfere for the benefit of the community with private rights.

    The State itself had no rights….  It can, for example, raise no taxes, for according to the mediaeval view, taxation is a sequestration of property.

It was the preservation of this good, old law that guaranteed the ruler security in his position and dominion.

Eventually, through influence of the re-discovery of Roman law, through the introduction of oath taking in front of the bishop on the occasion of the new crown, the ideas behind mediaeval law slowly gave way.  In its wake arose absolutist states, ruthlessly encroaching on private rights.  This encroachment is what brought forward the idea of a written constitution – one designed to keep the state in check.

The mediaeval system, in theory, sounds fine – significantly better than the “theory” behind modern, constitutionally-enabled states.  The author, though sees the flaws of the mediaeval system in the execution – “the technical execution is defective.”

I keep in mind that this book was written in 1914.  The author did not have the luxury of seeing how defective the “technical execution” of constitutionally-enabled law would become.  Given the choice of one theory vs. the other, and each to come with some difficulty in execution, it would seem the mediaeval idea would result in a better condition for the people.  The time in which the author wrote this book can explain why he held the following belief about the security one held in a constitutionally-enabled state:

  • Today, the subject knows only two securities….  The one is that some rules of morality stand so firm that in the long run they can be abrogated by no State….  The other is participation in the government by popular representatives….

Suffice it to say that neither security survived long after the writing of the book.  Nothing stands in the way of the state and the abuse of morality, and “popular representatives” have created ways to profit from the system of government largesse.  Again, no list of abuses is necessary, I believe.

The written constitution has placed the state above the law – the state self-defines and self-interprets the constitution; this places the state in a position to decide what is law and what isn’t law. The only hope one has to influence this is to turn a minority into a majority.  Such a concept was unknown to the mediaeval mind – each individual held a form of veto.  No majority was necessary, and minority rights were fully protected – even for the minority of one.

It would seem, for this difference alone, one can conclude that society was not so “dark” in the Middle Ages, and one has only more reason to be saddened as to the place where modern “law” has taken society today.

As mentioned, with this I conclude my look into the book by Fritz Kern.  It was tremendously eye-opening for me, as I had virtually no understanding of the law as it was understood in the Middle Ages.  I anticipate I will look further into this as time goes by.

Posted by bionic mosquito at 1:57 AM
Copyright 2010 - 2013 bionic mosquito
Permission to copy fully granted as long as a link is provided back to this site.


    Daniel v. Wachter October 29, 2012 at 5:33 AM

    Kern's book is available at .

   Puck T. Smith October 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM

    You may also find "The Obviousness of Anarchy" by John Hasnas to be a good read. He also deals with pre-modern law in a very enlightening way.

        bionic mosquito October 29, 2012 at 10:31 AM

        Thank you. I have gone to the link and will spend some time on this in the coming days.

        If you haven't previously seen it, you might see this:

   Geoffrey Transom November 4, 2012 at 12:41 AM

    Even BEFORE considering Spooner's objections (which echo Paine's objections to the English Bill of Rights Act [1688] 2 Sess Will. & Mary 2), codified Constitutions are the political-parasite class' Trojan Horse.

    To furnish a timeline based on the standard 4chan /b/ model (which really ought to be used in academia, since it's so parsimonious)...

    (1) Get the masses to agree that the political classes will be constrained by such-and-so a document;
    (2) declare that the 'judiciary' will arbitrate whether or not a given action violates the new Constitution;
    (3) appoint your own cronies to the Bench, having had them prove their Statist chops over decades;
    (4) ??
    (5) PROFIT!!

    The side benefits are huge - you can give them a "Bill of Rights" which starts out as the MINIMUM set of NON-EXCLUSIVE, NON-EXHAUSTIVE Rights against which .gov may not aggress: less than a DECADE later you're passing the Alien and Sedition Acts, and 232 years later your pet robed geriatrics prepare to declare that (unreliable) drug dogs can sniff your door without violating the 4th Amendment.

    In other words, this "minimal" Bill of Rights goes from being the things against which government absolutely must not aggress, to being the last vestige of rights (and which may be parsed away by letting scum like Scalia decide if such-and-so a search is 'unreasonable'... this from a guy who is an Opus Dei nutbar!).

    Here's the thing ,right. I'm a Freemason (and a Mark Mason, and a member of a Holy Royal Arch Chapter, and a bunch of other things). We have tried to protect the masses from the depredations of the parasitic classes for five hundred years (at least) - but because we are not prepared to lie our asses off in order to get support, we can't get traction. People would rather hear that Obama (or Romney) has the solution to what ails ya.

    Here's the thing though. In the end we win.

   Henry November 4, 2012 at 7:55 PM

    Regarding the ancient ideas of kingship, see:

    Jean Hani--Sacred Royalty--From the Pharaoh to the Most Christian King
« Last Edit: 2013-May-22 12:23:27 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Creator of this site
Forum/Blog Owner
Posts: 1316

Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.

WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: 2016-January-01 05:00:49 PM »

Private Commerce Zones such as Atlantic Station in Atlanta, Georgia
Links to this page:

How Policing Works in a Privatized City
Atlantic Station is a city within a city

    Jeffrey A. Tucker

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

“All the common areas of Atlantic Station including the streets, sidewalks, parks, and alleys are private property.”

Thus reads one line buried in the Rules of Conduct [see below] for Atlantic Station, Atlanta, Georgia: a marvelous city within a city. But it’s this one line that makes the critical difference. It’s why this one-square mile in the heart of this great city has done more to model beauty, prosperity, diversity, and happy living than 50 years of “urban renewal” and other government programs.

The entire community was built on top of the old Atlanta Steel Mill, which opened in 1901 and closed in the 1970s, leaving desolation in its wake. Atlantic Station opened 10 years ago as a visionary entrepreneurial venture — the brainchild of The Jacoby Group, headed by Jim Jacoby — funded mostly with private money (the city helped with tax breaks and some infrastructure funding).

It is not a gated community walled off from the public for only the elite. There is no charge to get in. Everything is public access, and subject to all the laws governing commercial property. The difference between the public and private city, however, is huge.

You can tell when you have entered the space. Whereas many areas of Atlanta struggle, this area in the heart of the city is clean, bright, ebullient, bustling with enterprise and life.

On an evening recently, on the way to the movies in the spectacular theater there, I sat outside on the patio of a Mexican food restaurant and watched adults and children playing games and having fun on the green space that serves as a mini-park in the middle of this urban experiment in capitalism. There were people from all races, classes, and ages. They listened to the live band and sang along.

As I sat there, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the sense of a mini-utopia. It’s like an idealized scene you see in a commercial for soda or some happy vacation getaway. It was one of the most blissful city scenes I’ve ever witnessed.

It was a typical evening, and it was all taking place in a place that was, only twenty years ago, a burned out, low-rent, disaster zone, the kind of place people flee. Now, the migration patterns have changed. Atlantic Station is a place where you want to live and work.

I was walking along and a uniformed police office greeted me good evening. I responded with delight, and we had a nice conversation. She wanted to know if I was enjoying the evening, made a few bar recommendations, we chatted about the weather, and I went on. She was uniformed, yes, and probably armed, but in a non-threatening way. She looked sharp and helpful, as well as official.

Then it struck me: the police in the community are privately employed by main stakeholders in the community, which are the merchants, apartment owners, and other service providers. (The streets are also private but public access.) For this reason, the police themselves have a deep investment in the well-being of the community and the general happiness of the consumers who shop there. They are employees of the free enterprise system. In particular, Atlantic Station owners contract with Chesley Brown for experienced service.

Sometimes in today’s overly-militarized environment, it is easy to forget: policing is a completely legitimate, useful, important profession. They are there to make sure that everyone is keeping the rules and to apprehend the vandals and criminals who break the rules. You might even call them the thin-blue line.

What makes the difference here is the private nature of the contract that employs them. Just as every other employee in this community, they have a direct stake in the value of the space. They are there to serve customers, just as every merchant in this community does.

The more valuable the community, the more valuable their own jobs. They have the incentive to do their job well, which means enhancing the experiences of rule keepers while driving out those who do not keep the rules.

The rules for Atlantic Station are rather strict, more so than I would have thought. There is a curfew for teens. You can’t wear gang-related or obscene clothing. You can’t carry weaponry. You can’t use indecent language. You can’t smoke. You can’t be boisterous. You can’t shout or be vulgar. You can jog, but you can’t just take off running through streets like an animal.

If rules like this were imposed by a city government, people would rightly complain about the violation of rights. So why aren’t these rules violations of rights? Because it is private property and the owners determine them.

More importantly, the point of the rules is not to control people and run their lives; it is to enhance the value of the community for everyone. They can be changed depending on circumstances. They can be imposed strictly or not. It all depends on what’s best for Atlantic Station, and, yes, what’s best for business.

But you know what’s interesting given all the rules? You don’t really feel them. They are not really posted anywhere. You just sense that they exist, and you feel a desire to behave well. The culture of cooperativeness and good behavior is ever present. And the rules have the effect of freeing you from annoying things, not restricting your behavior. It doesn’t feel like an imposition. It feels orderly. The rules are enforced but with gentleness and care.

The first time I entered Atlantic Station was about 18 months ago. I had some sense that something was different about the place, but I hadn’t understood that it was entirely private. I stepped out on the sidewalk and lit up a cigarette. One of these very nice private policeman came up and greeted me and politely asked me to put it out, on grounds that this was against the rules in this private community. I said, you mean by this building? He said, no, for the whole community.

I didn’t resent it. In fact, I was delighted to comply. I even thanked him for being so kind. There were no tickets, no yelling, no moments of intimidation. No one is taking your stuff, threatening to arrest you, or even giving you tickets. You have the right of exit. The rules themselves become part of a larger market for rules.

Another interesting feature is how Atlantic Station has marketed itself. It is not seen as an experiment in capitalist living. All the promotion uses all the usual lefty buzzwords about energy efficiency, sustainability, diversity, renewable this and that, certifications by various green groups, and so on. None of it matters in the slightest. This is about private property. Period. It’s ownership that realizes the ideals, whatever they are.

The lesson I derive from all of this is that institutions matter. You can have the same principles and laws in two places, one enforced publicly and one enforced privately. The code of conduct can be identical, but the results can be completely different.

Where monopolistic, tax-funded enforcement can be cruel, inflexible, and violent, the same enforcement brought about within the matrix of an exchange economy can yield results that are humane, orderly, and beautiful. The right to just walk away makes all the difference.

The implications for policing are perhaps the most interesting, given the current controversy over police abuse. When the police function is part of the market order, the phrase “to serve and protect” takes on substantive meaning. It’s this feature of public vs. private property that is decisive.

There must be many of these communities appearing around the country. Governments at all levels are out of ideas and out of money. When was the last time you heard of some hugely expensive urban renewal program, or massive public housing structure, that was to be built in a major city?

These visions are less and less part of our lives and our future, thankfully. With governments bowing out of the planning business, private enterprise is increasingly moving in with real efforts at restoring community.

Private enterprise is gradually bringing about what governments only promised to do, and it is happening without much fanfare. In fact, I’ve not seen a single headline story about this community, whereas there should be thousands that read something like “Private commerce saves Atlanta!”

Private property and inclusive commerce: it's the magic sauce that makes life beautiful. Come to Atlantic Station and see for yourself.

 Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.


Atlantic Station is Private Property.

In order to provide a safe, secure and pleasant environment, Atlantic Station requests your cooperation in complying with these additional “Rules of Conduct and Respect” which are to be followed by all patrons, employees, tenants, residents and guests.

The District is for shopping, dining, and entertainment. Smoking is not permitted except in designated areas. Please see our Concierge desk for information on designated smoking areas.

Treat others as you like to be treated. Appropriate behavior does not include fighting, harassment, offending others, or provoking confrontations or disruptive conduct of any nature.

A. Act responsibly. Please refrain from…

Shouting, making loud noises, or using indecent language. Loud and boisterous behavior. Playing loud music, as defined by Atlantic Station Management, district officials, security, or the police department. Defacing, damaging, or destroying any property belonging to the district, its patrons, or its tenants. Assembling in a manner which disturbs the public peace.

B. Allow others to shop safely and comfortably

Do not block access to store entrances, street entrances sidewalks, corridors or parking areas. Customers must keep moving in an orderly fashion. Sitting in or loitering around a parked vehicle is not permitted. Walking and jogging for exercise are welcome. However, do not run, skate, or skateboard. Use our benches and chairs for sitting only. Juvenile groups of four (4) or more will be dispersed. Weapons of any kind are not permitted on the property.

C. Curfew

Atlantic Station closes when the retail stores close. After 8:00 P.M., youth under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Individuals between 18 and 21 are not permitted on the property after 11:00 P.M. When the center stores and common areas close, all patrons and guests must be en route to a business or to their vehicle to leave the center. At that time, guests and patrons are welcome to patronize any of the restaurants and businesses that are open. Gathering outdoors after dark is not allowed unless attending an event.  Regal Atlantic Station Stadium 18 has implemented a curfew policy for minors. Moviegoers under the age of 17 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian 21 years or older after 8 p.m., Monday through Sunday. Regal’s policy aligns with Atlantic Station’s existing code of conduct, which states minors must have a parent or legal guardian with them after 8 p.m.

D. Pets and Other Animals

No animals – except for leashed dogs and cats or service animals-are permitted on the property. Owners must clean up after their pets.

E. Please dress appropriately and observe all health codes and local laws

No gang-related attire, obscene or offensive clothing. No clothing worn more than 3 inches below the waistline, including in a manner that exposes undergarments. No clothing or apparel that obscures the face unless worn for cultural, religious reasons or medical conditions. Shirt and shoes are required at all times.

F. Private Property

All the common areas of Atlantic Station including the streets, sidewalks, parks, and alleys are private property. Distributing materials, conducting interviews, soliciting, demonstrating, taking photos, or making video or audio tapes on, or of, the property, or store fronts is not permitted on any portion of the property. Exceptions may be granted by Management for Atlantic Station sponsored/approved activities. Individuals are required to present proper identification when requested by Atlantic Station personnel.

G. Vehicles left in unauthorized areas are subject to parking citation and removal from the property

Atlantic Station is a no cruising zone. All vehicles entering the property must proceed directly to parking in the parking garage or metered parking spaces opposed to circling streets and/or property in vehicle. No loud music/noise. Loud motorcycles or cars are not permitted in the retail district of Atlantic Station or in the garage.

H. Observe all Federal, State and Local Laws. Use of alcoholic beverages is restricted to designated areas

If you have any questions regarding these rules of conduct, please call the management office at 404-733-1221.

« Last Edit: 2016-January-01 05:49:07 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!