How Would the Gulch Not Devolve Into Statism?
Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago to Government
Talking about my question of *where* a Gulch could be located, Lana wrote "Maybe the real first step is to form a group of serious members and outline the goals of such a community."
That made me realize I'm not even sure what a Gulch government would be like. Suppose somehow a libertarian state comes into existence. How would it be different from the US?:
1. Self-reliance - The first generation there would be self-reliant by definition. The struggle would be pass those values to all the children.
2. Regulations - Maybe some things that are handled by regulations would be handled by courts in the Gulch. Regulations in the US control things that used to be settled by litigation, making the US less litigious than it used to be. Would the Gulch keep some regulations but keep them more narrowly focused on activities that have a clear proven cost on others?
3. Taxes - Most people who think taxes are too high want to maintain spending on at least one of the three largest areas of spending: military, Social Security / Medicare, Welfare for the poor. It's a cliche that politicians like to say "I'll balance the budget without raising taxes, or touching Social Security or the military," Unless we agree to cut all those things, there need to be separate Gulches. That means when some evildoers are laying the possible foundation for WWIII, our response has to be, “we have a small army supported by minutemen if the evildoers come here.” If grandma becomes paralyzed by a stroke, the family and maybe people from her church get ready to open their pocketbooks or provide care once she spends through her $200k life savings in four year's time. I say people can rise to those occasions, but would we have to resist the temptation to look to gov't for a solution.
4. Weapons - In my mind there's a continuum between banning mild weapons such as pepper spray and allowing people to build weapons of mass destruction. Most Gulch citizens would want to allow shotguns, semi-auto rifles, and handguns. There might be debate about someone who wants to protect his house with a UAV equipped with high explosives. If there were a Gulch would the same gun debate persist but just about different weapons?
5. War on Drugs / Terror – The simple solution is to treat drugs as a medical problem for those who seek addiction treatment and treat “terrorism” as a criminal problem using the same court system that tries people who commit murders for more quotidian motives, e.g. to get the insurance money. Would everyone buy into that?
6. Disgusting Behavior – Disgusting behavior is grown adults flirting with 12 y/o boys and girls, someone contacting the family of a murder victim claiming to know how the victim died as cruel prank, lewd behavior in public, burning flags or other items held as sacred to get attention, drawing pictures glamorizing rape, incest, murder, etc. Do we just allow these things as the price of liberty? Do we state somehow in the Constitution, we won't give in and start using force to stop disgusting behavior.
Suddenly I think the biggest problem with Gulch is NOT where to hide it or how to coexist with existing power structures. It's how not to slide back to statism. On all six (6) of those issues, I can see us going from a very free society to right back where we are-- a little island micronation with moderately high taxes, with half the taxes going to defense, and half going to social spending, and all other gov't functions sustained through borrowing. The same people who defend their right to have an automatic rifle, want men with guns to protect the children from drugs and other human problems. That's depressing. If you tell me, "but taxes would be 25% less b/c we wouldn't be buying baby formula for some irresponsible single parents and we wouldn't be subsidizing grandma's medical care," it doesn't make it that much less depressing. Great, instead of sending 40% of our profits in fed and state quarterly estimates, we get to send 30% of our profits. That's a small step toward liberty, but not libertarian paradise.
If I want a liberal paradise where the vast majority are politically liberal, work in jobs related to research, science, and technology, and believe in respecting civil liberties even for unpopular things like polyamory, I already live there. My luck I was born here. I have heard there are rightwing versions all over. How do we get the libertarian version?
Even assuming the Gulch magically existed in the open and other gov't's and peoples of the world left it alone and never attempted to meddle, how would we keep the Gulch from devolving into statism?
That made me realize I'm not even sure what a Gulch government would be like. Suppose somehow a libertarian state comes into existence. How would it be different from the US?:
1. Self-reliance - The first generation there would be self-reliant by definition. The struggle would be pass those values to all the children.
2. Regulations - Maybe some things that are handled by regulations would be handled by courts in the Gulch. Regulations in the US control things that used to be settled by litigation, making the US less litigious than it used to be. Would the Gulch keep some regulations but keep them more narrowly focused on activities that have a clear proven cost on others?
3. Taxes - Most people who think taxes are too high want to maintain spending on at least one of the three largest areas of spending: military, Social Security / Medicare, Welfare for the poor. It's a cliche that politicians like to say "I'll balance the budget without raising taxes, or touching Social Security or the military," Unless we agree to cut all those things, there need to be separate Gulches. That means when some evildoers are laying the possible foundation for WWIII, our response has to be, “we have a small army supported by minutemen if the evildoers come here.” If grandma becomes paralyzed by a stroke, the family and maybe people from her church get ready to open their pocketbooks or provide care once she spends through her $200k life savings in four year's time. I say people can rise to those occasions, but would we have to resist the temptation to look to gov't for a solution.
4. Weapons - In my mind there's a continuum between banning mild weapons such as pepper spray and allowing people to build weapons of mass destruction. Most Gulch citizens would want to allow shotguns, semi-auto rifles, and handguns. There might be debate about someone who wants to protect his house with a UAV equipped with high explosives. If there were a Gulch would the same gun debate persist but just about different weapons?
5. War on Drugs / Terror – The simple solution is to treat drugs as a medical problem for those who seek addiction treatment and treat “terrorism” as a criminal problem using the same court system that tries people who commit murders for more quotidian motives, e.g. to get the insurance money. Would everyone buy into that?
6. Disgusting Behavior – Disgusting behavior is grown adults flirting with 12 y/o boys and girls, someone contacting the family of a murder victim claiming to know how the victim died as cruel prank, lewd behavior in public, burning flags or other items held as sacred to get attention, drawing pictures glamorizing rape, incest, murder, etc. Do we just allow these things as the price of liberty? Do we state somehow in the Constitution, we won't give in and start using force to stop disgusting behavior.
Suddenly I think the biggest problem with Gulch is NOT where to hide it or how to coexist with existing power structures. It's how not to slide back to statism. On all six (6) of those issues, I can see us going from a very free society to right back where we are-- a little island micronation with moderately high taxes, with half the taxes going to defense, and half going to social spending, and all other gov't functions sustained through borrowing. The same people who defend their right to have an automatic rifle, want men with guns to protect the children from drugs and other human problems. That's depressing. If you tell me, "but taxes would be 25% less b/c we wouldn't be buying baby formula for some irresponsible single parents and we wouldn't be subsidizing grandma's medical care," it doesn't make it that much less depressing. Great, instead of sending 40% of our profits in fed and state quarterly estimates, we get to send 30% of our profits. That's a small step toward liberty, but not libertarian paradise.
If I want a liberal paradise where the vast majority are politically liberal, work in jobs related to research, science, and technology, and believe in respecting civil liberties even for unpopular things like polyamory, I already live there. My luck I was born here. I have heard there are rightwing versions all over. How do we get the libertarian version?
Even assuming the Gulch magically existed in the open and other gov't's and peoples of the world left it alone and never attempted to meddle, how would we keep the Gulch from devolving into statism?
DEMOCRAZY - that form of government where the rights of individuals are at the mercy of the majority. Where the majority can vote itself benefits taken from the minority. Inevitably becomes corrupt and is overshadowed by an oligarchy that can manipulate public opinion to distract from the voting fraud. The worst form is a socialist democrazy, where government sponsored slavery and theft are implemented under the guise of compulsory charity. (Slavery : compulsory labor for the benefit of another. Theft : expropriation of property for the benefit of another.) No matter how pitiful or deserving the recipient is, slavery is not an acceptable remedy for the ills of mankind.
If you’d like some assistance in visualizing a “revolutionary” form of government, you might start with the Declaration of Independence.
...
READER’S DIGEST OF LAW
...
Law simplified into one sentence:
"All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent."
★ Government recognizes and explicitly protects private property ownership.
★ Government recognizes and explicitly protects natural and personal liberty from trespass.
Declaration of Independence soundbite:
=> Job #1 = secure rights (endowed by our Creator)
=> Job #2 = govern those who consent
. . . (Caveat - consent waives job #1)
=> All Americans are created equal before the law - no one has higher status. This is also the source of the Republican form of government.
GOVERNMENTS : created by compact to secure rights do not have rights - they have delegated powers and bestow privileges and immunities on those who consent.
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION :
=> Create a perpetual UNION of member states and their governments
=> Delegate certain powers to the United States, in Congress assembled
USCON:
=> The United States, in Congress assembled, is reorganized into three branches, allegedly to balance power, but requires the State officers to swear an oath to the supremacy of the U.S. constitution.
=> People have rights and powers (protected by government)
=> Citizens have privileges and immunities (granted by government)
In other words, the institution of government was to secure rights, via prosecution of deliberate trespass and adjudication of accidental trespass. And govern (i.e., rule, regulate, restrict) only those who consent.
★ Anything more is suspect.
★ Anything less is unacceptable.
MYOB -- Mind Your Own Business.
You have the right to say no to anyone about anything.
In 1776 these would be givens. In 2014 they have to be spelled out.
I'm sure I'm missing something, but hey, its an idea.
I agree with all of it except I like our monetary system and I don't think the problems I lay out are caused by irrational behavior. Let's set aside the monetary question and focus on irrationality.
It seems rational to have gov't doing some of the same things our gov't does, just not out of control and accounting for a a huge chunk of GDP. This is plausible, since we spend most of our money on defense, and maybe just having everyone armed with a high-power rifle along with a minimal army might provide the same level of protection. My question, though, is isn't this just a smaller less-intrusive version of the gov't we have. Maybe the answer is yes, and that's a good enough cause to create a Gulch over. If so, Gulch residents would have to guard vigilantly against creeping expansion of gov't.
Here's another thought: eliminate fiat currency entirely. If all currency was merely a representation of an actual item of value (gold, silver, platinum, etc.) then neither a private nor government bank can rip people off by printing money.
The problem I have with bitcoin (not that it isn't a great idea) is that it has no intrinsic value. That concerns me as to its long term viability. And let's just admit that bitcoins are every bit as manufactured as the current US dollar - just not by a quasi-governmental entity.
(promised in Art. 4, Sec. 4, USCON)
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly..."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
What to verify to establish evidence that the republican form is still protected by American law:
__ Private property rights (absolute ownership by individuals)
__ Natural liberty (sovereign prerogatives of the landlord)
__ Personal liberty (rights of the freeman upon the public roads and waterways)
__ Natural rights (which includes those explicitly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence)
__ Rights and liberties are not subject to taxation, regulation or impairment
...
If one has absolute freedom upon one’s property, and freedom to travel upon the public ways, and government cannot trespass upon your rights and liberties - except by your consent -or- to secure the rights of an injured party, what more do you want?
...
NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
So the question is how smart are we to design our future without falling into the standard mold. I mentioned religion because of the tax implications... Corporation... How about non-profit where the corporation provides all the basic necessities, like housing, food, clothing, education, medical.....etc? Small personal income tax?
Your talking about a non-proft company to provide for everyones needs?!
I would say all of the shortcuts (regulations) the US has used to avoid writng law or litigation is precisely the avenue used by statists. Our Constitution was designed to resist change and move slowly to make sure footed steps. In activity in COngress is the best thing fro the counry... look what happens when they run.
If the gulch is created in the US what would be the assumptions that it would have to work with?
I was assuming that the gulch would have to have a strategy to deal with the US government and all of its demands. I assumed that the strategy would strive to hold onto as much of the earnings of its
members as possible. That in the creation of wealth in the gulch that the interactions with the US government would skewed in favor of the gulch by taking advantage of the current laws etc....etc
Someone or some entity will have to deal with the outside world.
These are just ideas on beating the tax system given that nothing will be done to change it.
Interesting thought, isn't it?
1) strict limiting of the areas the government can be involved in at all. Much stricter than Constitution.
2) simplified fixed flat tax on income over some inflation adjusted amount to support agreed government functions. No changes in rate. No exemptions. No big bureaucracy to manage it all.
3) Only things that are effectively initiation of force or fraud on others, that at least can be shown to harm others, are crimes. All criminal prosecutions made on any other grounds are null and void. All laws and regulations that do not have this characteristic are rescinded.
4) The people are secure in ALL there papers and effects including electronic ones. No government roundups of citizen data without specific sufficient and warrant specifying what is to be searched are allowed.
5) No "policing the world" by government.
6) Separation of economy and state.
7) Separation of education and state.
8) Separation of science and state.
I would gladly accept (not agree) with all of these. i think #2 is simplistic b/c just having a flat rate doesn't simplify thing. Calculating income is what's complicated. The rate is a simple calculation. This whole thing is an artifice of those who want to the rich to pay less under guise of simplification.
Anyway, I would gladly adopt the whole program for the US. I'd rather err on the side of less gov't power, esp with US in serious trouble for excessive gov't power.
There needs to be someone who looks out for the good of the gulch with well thought out strategies, like lawyers hired to protect the interests of the corporation. There are so many dangers to such a community.
A takeover can come entirely from within. In business there is a saying, "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."
I do not know how to defend against takeovers. The recommendation I have heard is eternal vigilance.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Galt%27s_Gu...
Galt's Gulch is a feudal society. Membership, don't forget, is by invitation only. So the ultimate sentence for overly irrational behavior is banishment.
Midas Mulligan is the feudal landlord. He, Francisco, Hank Rearden, and Ragnar Danneskjöld are the primary stakeholders. These four form a Committee of Safety--though actually Midas sends John Galt to act as his proxy on that Committee.
Committees of Safety classically consist of a combination of those who have the biggest stakes in law and order, and those specialists in the application of force who are best able, and motivated, to exert force when the Committee deems it necessary. Midas, Francisco, and Hank (after he joins) are stakeholders. (So will Dagny be, once she builds a railroad to serve Francisco's copper mine.) Ragnar is a force specialist. He has a ship, and a method for defense (or offense). The others can best afford to pay for that defense, because they have the most to lose from either:
A) invasion, or
B) a breakdown in law and order.
The people pay rents to Midas, but do not pay taxes as such. (Taxes are "moneys paid to ensure law and order," from the Greek "taxei" meaning "order.") Instead, Midas, Francisco, and Hank pony up most of the funds, and provide volunteer guards where needed. Ragnar does his sea raiding and, I imagine, takes a little bit off the top as his fee in addition to making full restitution to the strikers.
Everyone is allowed to have any sort of weapon he deems necessary. But in an invitation-only community, crime never pays, because crime can never last.
Seats on the Committee of Safety are open to anyone willing to support its activities in a big-enough way. But that Committee has no authority to lay or collect taxes, duties, imposts, or excises. Remember: these are civic-minded, and like-minded, individuals who have the most to lose, so they exert the greatest effort. Anyone who thinks the Committee is over looking anything, is invited to join. But "if you're gonna stay, you gotta play."
Questions?
Would other gov't of the world have a legitimate complaint in saying you banish all irrational people to use and drain away our most productive? Maybe they want to banish their unproductive to your Gulch. This would lead to conflict.
1. why Rearden over Wyatt on the safety committee?
2. why is it a feudal society? Classic definition is not Rand-like. I mean serfs, the only way to advance was through the military (protection) etc...
3. I love the privateering angle. Ragnar's "take back to gulch"
I read your earlier comment about your profession. db's brother is a pathologist and has a lab in Mayo and his dad had his own lab in western Kansas for many years.
2. The society is basically feudal in that one man, i.e. Midas Mulligan, owns all the land. In the Middle Ages, he would carry the title of Duke, meaning one who can lead. To be sure, this society does not have all the trappings of feudalism. No one is bound to the land. MIdas might own the land, and its mineral wealth, and can lease it out to whomever will strike a good enough deal with him. But he does not own anyone's labor on any part of that land.
3. Remember what a privateer is: a sea raider who works under license. This, as opposed to a buccaneer, or one who seizes wealth by force for his own benefit without regard to anyone's rights.
point 2. I have a hard time seeing the Gulch today as land based. I think its members would be much more effective as a virtual community. You can "re-charge" no matter where you are and what you are accomplishing on the "outside."
In other words, John Galt, with Midas Mulligan's help, decided the term of the strike would be INDEFINITE. And one does not sustain a virtual community indefinitely.
Furthermore, Ellis Wyatt, Andrew Stockton, et al. needed a real community to retreat to. After their public decamping from Wyatt's Junction, Colorado, and its various communities (Marshville, Hammondton, etc.), they had to HIDE. And they weren't comfortable with hiding in plain sight.
And any virtual community needs a real counterpart to sustain it. Whether that's the United States Mail or the Internet Corporation for the Assignment of Names and Numbers. Only the very real community of Galt's Gulch could be beyond the reach of either.
It has never happened, and will never happen. The most free nations have eventually devolved, it is the cycle of the body politic. If you've never seen it, you need to look at it.
This cycle has been observed so many times in history that it may as well be called a law. People in Bondage are emboldened by Spiritual Truth. Spiritual Truth gives them Great Courage. From Great Courage they earn their Liberty. Liberty yields Abundance. Abundance eventually devolves into Selfishness. Selfishness yields Complacency. Complacency matures into Apathy. Apathy turns into Dependence. And Dependence once again puts the original founders' descendants back into Bondage.
And so, when you all want to whine and complain at me here, yet again, about how I bring up religious liberty and *gasp* spiritual truth, plainly detailed in the Bible, then fine, whatever... I'm just telling you what's happened already. If you want to preserve freedom, you need perfect human beings. Ain't ever been one of those on this planet, except one time.
BUT, if you at least have people striving to follow those perfect principles, then you can preserve it longer than you otherwise would be able to. But all men fail eventually. I don't think even a nation governed by true (not fake) Christian men can last indefinitely, because they're all imperfect human beings.
Don't form a state.
"Dude, she is my wife."
Did you have sex the night before?
"Uh, no..."
So, it was an altruistic act, not the exchange of value for value?
"Ummm... thinking... thinking..."
Having an oath enforcement police obviously would make Atlantis statist.
there is no enforcement of the oath. who decides who is following/not following? there are objective laws which should be enforced, but the oath is personal. that's how we get 300M people pledging allegiance to a flag at the same time. absurd. federal employees break the oath to the Constitution all the time...
And speaking of my novel, Atlas Snubbed, it directly addresses the methods used by Eddie Willers for dealing with each of your numbered points:
1. Self-reliance: A given, as you point out. Since Galt's strike resulted in the deaths of millions, the survivors would HAVE to be self-reliant.
2. Regulation: This is the third of three main political points Atlas Snubbed is out to make, specifically, the Separation of Regulation and State. Eddie sets up a voluntary framework for all sorts of regulations where individuals decide for themselves exactly which ones they want to embrace. And yes, it can lead to some sorts of torts when things go awry, but that is covered by the second main political points of the book, the Separation of Courts and State.
3. Taxes: Taxation is theft, pure and simple, regardless of any $200,000 medical bill for granny. Objectivism is pretty cold-hearted on the subject of charity, but how Society deals with that is the most important of the three major political points of the book, specifically, the Separation of Society and State. That approach becomes the norm in my novel for the world Outside, but it's also used inside the Gulch for things like traffic lights.
4. Weapons: To quote a phrase from the Pennsylvania Constitution, people are "responsible for the abuse of that liberty." See "2. Regulation" above. No difference.
5. War on Drugs/Terror: See "4. Weapons" above. Regardless of what human behavior you speak of, dealing with it all falls under the same mantra: "You have the inalienable right to live your life your way, without interference, provided you respect the rights and property of others." That mantra is the overarching message of Atlas Snubbed. Society's reaction to regulation, taxes, weapons, drugs, etc. stems from it. Even the reaction to...
6. Disgusting behavior. I added a whole half a chapter about sex and children at the suggestion of Thomas Knapp (2008 VP candidate for the Boston Tea Party) in light of what happened to poor Mary Ruwart's presidential campaign over the topic.
Bottom line: Without Galt's religious... uh, I mean PHILOSOPHICAL edicts, the world outside the Gulch is always prone to creeping statism. But as for the Gulch itself, let me quote Frank Herbert's novel, Dune: "When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movement become headlong -- faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thought of obstacles and forget that a precipice does not show itself to the man in a blind rush until it's too late." Sounds like a good theme for a sequel to Atlas Shrugged!
if someone joined me, we'd barter and divide tasks. if more joined us, we'd volunteer and agree to the division of tasks. if a full voluntary system were agreed to, then "donations" would be substituted for taxes.
the extension of this requires that non-agreed people (children, e.g.) be kept within the protected envelope.
if I suddenly decided not to agree, I would have to leave. the implication is that anyone attaining the "age of majority" would have to take an oath of agreement with the group, and if someone did not want to take the oath, then goodbye.
the vertical extrapolation of this requires that the "agreement" become a constitution, and that the oath be taken with a representative of the group alliance ... representative democracy? donations required, else I incur a lifetime debt for defense, representation and barter-result note-taking people called judges?
just a way to look at this -- from the most basic position forward!
p.s. never allow a Federal Reserve!!!
Would everyone, generation after generation, maintain citizenship in some country so the Gulch would have a place to repatriate them if they refused to follow the ways the Gulch?
From here on out, the rest of the rules would start at "Rule #20" to highlight how important "Rule #1" is.
One can dream...
According to American law, liberty has four types: natural, personal, civil and political.
● Natural = absolute freedom (on one's own property or unclaimed land)
● Personal = right of locomotion (freedom to travel on public roads and waterways)
● Civil = permission from government (licenses, permits)
● Political = participation in government (voting, holding office)
The former two are endowed rights, the latter two are government privileges.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier...
LIBERTY. 1. Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.
2. Liberty is divided into civil, natural, personal, and political.
...
It is vital to know the difference, because “the system” only stresses the liberties granted by government, and stands mute on the liberties we are endowed with. You do not see an “American Natural Liberties Union” stalwartly defending natural liberties - because most Americans were tricked into surrendering it.
It's an unauthorized sequel to Atlas Shrugged that tells the story of Eddie Willers rebuilding a small community outside the Gulch after the collapse.
As to the above mentioned drug problem - who pays for the medical treatment of someone who indulges in the drugs? It costs everyone, from the robbed, to the children, the producers whose equal trade is disrupted. Drug use is a an escape, a failure to take responsibility for ones self. Unrealistic thinking and pipe dreams lead people to try to escape consequences and shattered dreams The Gulch is not a place for such non-thinkers. The major criteria for membership is that the member thinks objectively, otherwise we are back where we are now.
The Native Americans sent those who acted against the tribe into the desert to live alone. Send offenders out of the Gulch to the entitlement utopia (which never did exist in reality). .
At the optometrist's office this week, I asked him if he wanted to be forced to live above a downtown business. He said he was a city boy. I asked if he wanted his kids in that location. "No, I want them to have a yard and a pool." - which they do have. See how easily people fail to think things through without prompting?