An Objectivist Constitution
At some point, either in the somewhat distant future of this country or in secret enclaves hidden throughout it very soon, it will be necessary to write a document defining government and its role in guaranteeing freedom. I would be curious to see suggestions from the people on this website as to how such a document might read.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
My interpretation: the Constitution is only as good as the intent of the people to control themselves. It provides the maximum amount of freedom, but freedom comes with responsibility (see Benjamin Franklin). Many people in today's society don't want the responsibility that comes with freedom, so they vote for their own enslavement. They don't want the risk of making their own fortunes, so they infringe on others.
"All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.
"The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 238 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff."
[from my home page]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_F...
Just one example of a possible flaw: should there be no laws infringing upon the free trade between consenting people of nuclear weapons?
Article V was inserted by America's Founding Fathers to stop a tyrannical government, which anti-federalists feared would happen. As we all know, their fears were well founded.
Right now, 20 states are at various stages of getting a vote through their legislatures to call such a convention. Georgia is closest to being first. Check out the web site http://conventionofstates.com/progress-r....
That said, I think there is one thing that could be added to the US Constitution that would act as a silver bullet to solve most all of the federal overreach coming from DC today. That silver bullet would be a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). If you buy into the notion that money is power, and politicians wield power through their access to the public purse, then limiting that access to a finite number with no additional borrowing/debt would bring the real spending priorities to a head in a hurry while eliminating the billions upon billions in waste, fraud and abuse.
I would prefer to see a world without the Federal Reserve and our money backed by (redeemable for) silver and gold, but in lieu of that, a BBA would hamstring our pols to the funds on hand. If taxes needed to be raised for some spending boondoggle or another, then there would be hell to pay come election time.
The average person has no concept of what $17.3 Triilion is. They have no idea that equates out to $55K worth of debt for every man, woman and child currently exchanging O2 for CO2 in the United States right now. They wouldn't even begin to be able to conceptualize that every taxpayer is on the hook for $150K right now.
When some socialist politician would suggest a raise in welfare payments to deadbeats who refuse to pay their own freight, it would be a helluva lot more meaningful to the taxpaying voter if he/she has to personally feel that sting.
When Obama wants a $1 Trillion stimulus, how much would people (man, woman and child) howl when/if each and every single one of them would have to chip in $3200 personally. I dunno about you guys, but I'm guessing the typical family of 4 would have no interest in seeing their savings raided to the tune of $13K +/- for some supposed "shovel ready" stimulus jobs.
Right now, the spending in DC is far and away the most destructive thing they are doing, in my book. A BBA with teeth would clamp that down in a big way, in my opinion.
Thoughts?
And frankly, I think the one proposal of Levin to have a balanced budget amendment with real teeth is the most likely to be adopted. In Levin's proposed amendment, for example, if Congress doesn't pass a budget on time, there are automatic spending CUTS. That would instantly nullify statists like Harry Reid!
I think strong sunset laws might help, but I can't imagine ANY congressmonkey proposing one.
Members of the Federal Government would have no say at all about what amendments are proposed.
I suggest that you read Levin's book before passing judgment on a very carefully thought out plan.
I've looked at Flat Taxes and Fair Tax proposals and found some flaws in them, too, although I currently tend to support Flat Tax policies... again, if they're well-defined and some of the unintended consequences are brought into consideration before enactment...
http://www.plusaf.com/lessons/flattax.ht... is where I've collected some references and comments.
We should fear the people in Washington DC who continue to amend the Constitution by fiat, e.g., the actions of Barack Obama (Executive), Harry Reid (Legislative) and John Roberts (Judicial).
Thanks to the Tea Party landslide of 2010, legislatures all across flyover country have become far more Republican and, more importantly, much more conservative/libertarian.
Keep in mind that the state's cannot change even a single word of the Constitution. They can only, by a 2/3 vote, send amendments out to all 50 states. Then, 3/4 must agree in order to make an amendment to the Constitution.
This is the only CONSTITUTIONAL way I can see to put a leash on the tyrants of both the Democrat and, sadly, the Republican parties.
The only other options I see are to submit or revolt -- both bad options compared to a peaceful Constitutional Amendment Convention.
Overturn that ruling.
It also contains the CARR - Constitutional Amendment Repeal and Repair
You can also join us on Freedom Connector to help with the wording of the Amendments that we will be proposing. http://connect.freedomworks.org/node/392...
I'll try not to fat-finger the keyboard here :-)
FreedomWorks/Connector another place where great minds meet.
Of course, the Gulch was a voluntary association of homesteaders. Furthermore, residency in the Gulch was by invitation only. Rand did not even sketch out what government the Gulch had, except to say Midas owned the valley and granted temporary or permanent leaseholds, and that the domestic and foreign policies of the Gulch, such as they were, came from the Triumvirs: John Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, and Ragnar Danneskjöld.
My guess always was that those three constituted the Committee of Safety: Francisco as the holder of the richest leasehold, Ragnar as the captain of the "privateer" and the commander of the spy network, and John as the proxy for Midas. I would further guess that Hank Rearden joined the Committee of Safety shortly after his arrival, and Dagny was recruited on-the-fly after Francisco picked her up in New York.
Still, we're not talking about a Committee of Safety. We are talking about a Constitution. I assume the subject is not so much the structure of the government as what sort of powers shall the government have, and not have.
I woiuld start with a strict definition of what the taxing and borrowing powers are intended to support. I would revoke the power "to establish post offices and post roads." And naturally I would not have half the powers one sees in many State constitutions--such as "providing for and maintaining a thorough and efficient system of free public schools."
Terms like "President" or "Mayor" don't apply here. There is no legislature because Galt's Gulch operates strictly according to the principles of English Common Law. Judge Narragansett applies those as an arbiter.
The Triumvirs of Atlantis, in their roles as the Committee of Safety, are simply a voluntary group who use their resouces for the defense of the community in which they live--or in Ragnar's case, for offensive action against the outside world.
Remember: the offensive action to which I refer is primarily Ragnar's privateering activities. Notice I call him a privateer, one who raids enemy shipping on behalf of others, rather than a buccaneer, who raids shipping for his own gain and for no nobler motive. (Does the word "privateer" refer to the captain of a private ship of war or only to the ship itself? I've never found a consistent convention on that point.)
Notice what Ragnar did: "I have seized every loot-carrier that came within range of my guns." He then sold those cargoes either to European freedom fighters, who paid him in gold they robbed from government treasuries, or else to "customers" in the United States. I think we know who the one customer was: Midas Mulligan. That's how the valley obtained certain supplies that no one yet in the valley could make. Ragnar Danneskjöld plundered the shipments of the Bureau of Global Relief and sold some of those cargoes to Midas, who paid him in gold. Which he then turned around and deposited in Midas' bank, to the accounts of Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggart, and others.
That about fits the definition of a privateer, doesn't it?
And to the looters, of course he's a pirate.
A privateer, or privateersman, is a "licensed pirate." Or he is if his license lets him plunder enemy shipping.
So "piracy" is neither good nor evil. It depends on the motive and whose side the "pirate" is on.
The significance in a constitutional government is this: The United States Constitution grants to the Congress the power to issue privateers' licenses. I quote:
"The Congress shall have power...to declare war, to grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules governing capture on land and water."
"Letters of marque and reprisal" are the term in international law for privateering licenses.
Now Ragnar's case is a little special. The Gulch was "not a State of any kind," to quote John Galt. So Ragnar acted on his own cognizance. But if the Gulch had had a constitution, Ragnar would no doubt have had a privateering license
Kings routinely issued letters of marque.
A privateer is no more a pirate than a National Guardsman is a Viking.
Atlantis doesn't even have a seacoast. It is not a legitimate nation, and cannot issue letters of marque.
The issue of secession was settled in 1865, the Declaration of Independence notwithstanding.
Midas owned the Gulch (Midas owned the country and the bank)-the only bank - Federal Reserve
Galt Proxy (someone to vote for the owner of the country and the bank someone you might have to sacrifice- legislature)
Fransisco wealthiest company singular
Ragnar CIA KGB he works offensively not only attacking at sea and air but nearby cities he gets the authority via a license
Reardon regulations and Supreme Court or States rights?
Dagney the person that finally surrendered The people lets not forget she had a temporary status visas. I have debated whether this was in the book or not.
Well, suppose he defected with enough workers to start building a mill in the valley? Suppose, after his experience at the old mill (the riot and all), he had those people double as his own security force? Suppose Francisco noticed that and asked him to join the Committee and serve as a Chief of Homeland Security?
Dagny's contribution would be a transportation system. After she joined the Gulch, she would begin at once to build the railroad she said she could build.
In the case of the US, allowing universal franchise, allowing citizenship based strictly on being born on American soil, and the 17th amendment have served to corrupt the government via the people comprising the elected ranks.
No piece of paper or parchment or the words on it will ever be a strong enough deterrent to those wishing to subvert the ideals embodied in the writing. If the people living under the system of government that defies those ideals allows it's continuance, it will only get worse.
Only when the citizenry stand up and send a resounding NO, to those in power that abuse their positions, will words on a document mean anything. And then the next generation will have to do the same.
I think instead of hoping for some magic writing to change or alter things, this is a time in history to substantiate the old adage that 'Actions mean more than words.'
I tend to believe that's going to be a little late. Though it's drastically important for the future. Much of the genius of the Founders was in their study of Locke and Smith, which at fundamental levels shared many of the same values as an Objectivist.
Couple of additions - Supreme court only has power to decide whether the law was applied correctly as to the wording of the law and to adjudicate disputes between states.
Also that the right to vote is an earned right, not an inherent right.
But those could easily be crafted as amendments to the current constitution.
The founding fathers were just as much afraid of an overbearing national government oppressing the citizens as a foreign threat invading.
shift the problem/solution methodology to one of "ok, it took scores of years to get into this mess; let's back out gradually...." Phase in the necessary changes over APPROPRIATE time spans.... want to get rid of mortgage interest deductions? Lower the deduction 5% a year for 20 years until it's gone. That's probably a lot longer than the average duration of a home mortgage.... anyone who can't adjust to that change in 20 years shouldn't own a house...
Ditto for ALL subsidies for ALL industries... perhaps over a ten-year span?
and so on... Thoughts?
And yes, the US Dollar may, some time in the future cease to be The World's Reserve Currency, but I think that point is less relevant to the concept of backing away from The Abyss gradually and predictably, rather than the typical Congressional solutions of "let's pass this law and everything will be fixed in time for my re-election."
:)
What I wished to point out to you is your criteria for voting rights needs a bit more thought. Many of us producers had a portion of that production confiscated in the name of one government program or another and now that we are in the winter of our life spans we want the expected return or protections. When I was much younger I could see a way out of this mess before it got too bad (by gradual privatization) but by the end of the 80s or early 90s I felt it was too late. Look at the kick in the teeth Bush 43 got for bringing up the subject. Too late.
Side note: You mentioned PID controls. Are you a process control engineer or technician?
I am more like Quentin Daniels than Galt.
I live about an hour south of there, and work 1/2 hour further south in Melbourne at Florida Tech.
Enjoy Bike Week coming up right after the Daytona 500. If you want to come down and chat, call me at 321-749-3437. You pick the evening.
I've worked with computer assisted manufacturing in many forms and in many computer languages in many different environments practically since it was invented. I certainly do not know all there is to know because the field is gigantic, but it's fascinating as anything could possibly be. I was constantly learning and that was all part of the fun. This field, the way I've experienced it, always keeps you on the edge of technology. How DO "they" really make that super thin nearly unbreakable touchscreen glass on a cell phone or tablet? Been there and seen it.
One of my grandsons asked me what I do and I related some of my experiences to him, but in the end I asked if he ever saw the movie "The Matrix". When he said yes, I recalled for him the scene where Neo and the Commissioner were standing on the balcony overlooking the chasm containing the manufacturing sector. The Commissioner told Neo (I'm paraphrasing here) "There are the machines that purify our water, make our food, our clothing, our energy, and many other things. Nobody knows how they work anymore but they keep on working". "Well", I told him," I am one of the 'ancients' that has a knowledge, even if imperfect, of how a good slice of it works. I can program the computers that make computers." He smiled.
Hey, this old guy has probably bored you enough for now and I have other things to do. Catch you later!
While I am currently a professor, that is because my employer plays by Galt's rules, or at least allows me to do so. I have been a minor partner in two small businesses, but I refuse to do so during this administration that took $100 K of my parents' retirement money in the form of GM bonds and offered them $225 in a threatening letter. Being a professor right now is my form of strike.
The right to exercise control (by virtue of a vote) should be earned, and not an inherent right.
I'd say Lincoln was the beginning of the end for the republic, ironically.
2) Since it would require a 2/3 vote of both the house and senate to override, it would protect against singular action by one or a small group of legislators.
In what specific ways was it deficient that it *wasn't* able to stop us from reaching where we are today?
Then again you are correct that I didn't state the specific ways in which it was deficient. Though if you asked me, I think the deficiency lies in the fact that it was written on paper without any kind of free market Competition to enforce the contract if it is breached.
Or, compile an "Objectivist Manifesto", and implement it under the radar in like manner as the policies in the Communist Manifesto are observed to be implemented.
"The right of the people to bear and use arms in defense of self, family, community, state, or nation shall not be infringed."
Abolish the 16th amendment, or modify it to specify payment by the states for legitimate Federal responsibilities.
Abolish the 17th amendment, and return the election of senators to the state legislatures.
Establish term limits for not only Representatives and Senators, but for the Judiciary (probably 12 years, to reduce political influence).
I felt the discussion had gone away from specifics.
I have a couple of articles on my blog:
An Unlimited Constitutional Government
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...
and "Another Example of Unlimited Constitutional Government"
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...
That said, if you read the archives, you will see that we have had this discussion here in the Gulch a couple of times over the last year. Put "Constitution" in the search box and eventually you will this
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/95...
and some others like it.
I launched that one based on my blog post here:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/95...
Those discussions somewhat more fruitful than the grousing here. However, as here, hardly anyone actually had a proposal and the few who did had one pet idea such as a bullet-proof Second Amendment. The subject is complicated and it deserves productive, consistent thought and discussion.
Given the existence of an Objectivist society - just one where Reality, Reason, and Egoism were commonly and broadly accepted, however much most people disagreed or just ignored the actual technical philosophy. (For example, consider the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. We hold ancient Athens in high regard, but it was ruled by ignorant, superstitious farmers who persecuted philosophers. Still, the underlying cultural foundations encouraged those philosophers.) So, too, with a future "Objectivist" society. So, given that, what would the governments look like?
The national government might be only a part-time biennial legislature which meets only to fund the federal courts, federal marshals, and military.
At the local levels, the courts might be the primary engines of law, with no need for city councils and state legislatures and county commissions. Some people complain about an "active judiciary" but that is the English Common Law tradition: benchmade law. If you read John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" you will see that the Courts were NOT a branch of government. His three were the legislature, the administrator, and the diplomatic corps. For Locke, the courts were COMMUNITY institutions that protected against the government: the king's men had to come to court of competent jurisdiction for a warrant and then they were accompanied by an officer of the court who saw that they followed the writ.
Just sayin' here, you have to look to history and imagine the future. Science fiction rests on a fundamental paradox: we live here and now and imaging some other society is challenged by not actually living in that society. (See "Inspecting the Objectivist Theory of Government" here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2014/...)
It could be that in operating "police forces" the government has NO (or very few) forces of its own, but acts as a LICENSING agency, to validate and approve qualified private firms and individuals. Ultimately, the government would hold that final monopoly on retaliatory force, but the daily operations would not be by government employees. We have seen this trend already for over a generation with lesser police services contracted out.
Load more comments...