Objectivist Government
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
"I have long been settled in my own opinion that neither philosophy, nor religion, nor morality, nor wisdom, nor interest, will ever govern nations or parties, against their vanity, their pride, their resentment, or revenge, or their avarice, or ambition. Nothing but force and power and strength can restrain them." --John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787
I ran onto this quote by John Adams today and it stirred a thought about how would Objectivist govern. Would such a group fall sway to the evils described by Adams? Can any men hold their principles high enough to avoid the pitfalls of power, particularly ultimate power?
I ran onto this quote by John Adams today and it stirred a thought about how would Objectivist govern. Would such a group fall sway to the evils described by Adams? Can any men hold their principles high enough to avoid the pitfalls of power, particularly ultimate power?
I wrote this as a part of much explaining why we ought never opt to be governed!
http://no-ruler.net/3460/failures-of-the...
And many thanks to the link to your great ‘no-ruler work!
YES!! … “The only good alternative is to get rid of this government, either by dissolution, or by us simply waiting for this government to go bankrupt and out of business. Then, and only then, will we have a Voluntary System with True”
HOWEVER, if we allow the present State to self-destruct before we can help a significant number of the successful, intelligent, educated people to make the huge Paradigm Shift from the Montagne Dogma, the false and destructive Win-Lose Paradigm (for us to win, THEY must be forced to lose) to the Win-
Win Paradigm (for us to win, THEY must also win) we’ll be left with dictatorship, tyranny and chaos rather than the Voluntary Society.
About the State (so many) self-destructing, do we really have some way of preventing that at this juncture? We are approaching the point at which Gov's creditors will smarten up and stop buying the debt -- so again because WE have no choice except to "allow" it. Some of the survivors may live through it; I wonder only if they'll have learned, or whether another Rulership will seem their only salvation.
Objectivist government needs to be small and sparingly funded in order not to be used for cronyism on any large scale. I hate to give ANY money to the US government at this point- it just comes back to be used against me.
The general welfare clause
The necessary and proper clause
How much individual rights have been destroyed b/c of these two?
Maybe add a non interpretation clause such as no abridging of the freedom to speech means just that.
I dunno, would love to see it....objectivists, libertarian, anarchist, hell I don't care give me liberty!
We all sang it on schoolhouse rock. Except I was already reading the Freeman and had questions.
If the present system can be salvaged, we need an amendment adding those explanations to the Constitution.
When the peace was signed in 1783, Washington went before Congress and gave a very moving farewell speech, resigning his commission and retiring from public life, he hoped forever.
It was only when civil unrest made the government unable to continue operating that he allowed Adams, Hamilton, and the others to talk him into coming back and chairing the Convention. All the active politicians of that time were so factionalized that he was the only person everyone would trust. And all things considered, he did a good job.
The post ends with the following question: "Can any men hold their principles high enough to avoid the pitfalls of power, particularly ultimate power?"
I believe that George Washington did and thus proved that he "could". I cannot see how you could misunderstand my reply. Perhaps the fact that my reply directly to the post got stacked up at the bottom, "chronologically", of what was at that moment entire collection of comments.
I happen to admire George Washington more than any other American. No he was not perfect. Nobody is. But, on balance, he was the best.
Just my opinions.
As many know I DO believe in God, although I am not "Religious" in that I do not attend any particular "religion."
Having said that I want to respond in context and also draw a parallel.
First there is a specific passage in the Bible that comes to mind, totally in the context of this discussion.
Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes
Standard Version:
Ecc 8:9 All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: [there is] a time wherein one man hath power over another to his hurt.
NWT:
Ecc: 8:9 All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury.
The objectivist, no man rules over or imposes his/her will on or over another. All actions are governed by value for value, equitable trade in a totally voluntary manner between two parties.
It is ONLY when man "rules" or "dominates" or "imposes" their will on others that the principals fall apart.
Many are familiar with the axiom, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Within the principals of the Objectivist, there is no proverbial "power" with which to impose on others against their will, hence, the Government would be that of extremely limited ability, and relegated pretty much to simply resolving disputes.
The primary key is that ALL, i.e. 100% of the population MUST believe in the Objectivist oath, "I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.", or LEAVE the Gulch to those who do.
I am a disabled Marine Corps Veteran and my motto is and has always been God, Country, Corps. I agree with Ayn Rand in all but God.
I think that the missing link in all the comments that I read is the fact that the Bible played such an important roll in the lives of most of our founding fathers, and it influenced the writing of our Constitution tremendously.
Some call the Constitution a living document and some call the Bible a living document but they suffer the diversity of the minds of men only, These two documents go hand in hand and they don't change they are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow they are rocks.
There I said it, I'll keep reading.
I was drafted in 1969, was one of a small percentage placed in the Marines and was honorably discharged as a corporal two years later, using the G.I. Bill to get a degree from the college I had been kicked out of during 1968.
I've also admitted to being a Christian here.
I agree that the Bible was an important influence upon the awesome individuals who are our Founding Fathers
So I agree with Adams about the need for a strong leviathan, but it only works if there are few rules and they're consistently enforced.
When his troops started to break formation, he ran out into the fire and yelled at his troops to do likewise. It's just luck he didn't die. If he was really willing to die for a republic, maybe that same fortitude made him eschew being king.
Jan
This is a matter of character; integrity with ethical & moral principles & values.
The hypocrisy & corruption of our present leaders & representatives are shameful at best while at the same time they are representative of our society as a whole.
Another quote: "It's hard to soar like an eagle when you're flying with a bunch of turkeys."
And we all know that we can't legislate morality.
Law describes a society. Law does not prescribe the behavior of an individual or a society.
Here's a link to a concept on 'morality' - http://planet-hughes.net/Morality/
Best regards.
fashioned with real teeth in them, including national
referenda to stop stuff like the executive overreach
which congress will not stop. . they did not take us
seriously last Nov 4. -- j
The Republic method of having 'exceptional individuals' create a document that restrains the excesses of us mere mortals is the only viable path that I see. We need to shake the dust out of the Constitution, revoke the amendments that allow parasitism, increase protections for the individual. It will be just fine then. (But: Where are our 'exceptional individuals'?)
Jan
I would not, however, try to apply this to a "Gulch" community that has to live under a government by others, because the government will simply blackmail the in-group, and the rest of the members will have no way to replace them.
I am not looking for 'perfect'; I am willing to return to 'good enough'.
Jan
Jan
there are tremendous difficulties in making such a system work, but it certainly would begin to limit some of the abuses. No doubt other abuses would rush in to fill the void.
No time to expand on these thoughts now.
The ideal Objectivist government is barely a government at all. It is, instead, a Committee of Public Safety. The major stakeholders, those who have the most property to guard, form their own militias. They then agree, in committee, on how to deploy their forces for defense or for retaliation.
The Triumvirs of Atlantis, which is to say, John Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, and Ragnar Danneskjöld, worked as a Committee of Safety. John Galt held the proxy of Midas Mulligan, the top stakeholder, the landlord. Francisco d'Anconia, who owned the copper mines (probably the Red Mountains overlooking the Uncompahgre River Valley) was the second-largest stakeholder. Ragnar had the offensive military force, that being his ship, its crew, and the equipment they carried. I would imagine this Committee invested Henry Rearden, and then Dagny Taggart, with full membership when they each joined the Gulch community, this on the basis of their particular stakeholds.
In this Committee, the community vested the executive power. They would no doubt vest the judicial power in a court whose members they would appoint. The legislative power they would vest directly in the residents.
He probably struck out the part about post offices and ost roads, erased the income tax, restored State legislative choices of Senators, clarified the Second Amendment so there would be no mistake, and in the Takings clause, changed "just compensation" to "the consent of the owner."
I think it's time to limit the scope of the armed services Congress may "raise and support." That means redefining a few things. For instance:
"The Congress shall have the power: to make laws for engagement in the air and in space, to provide for and maintain air and space forces, to make regulations for the government of the same, to provide for calling forth the States' air and space militias, if any, into the service of the United States, to quell insurrections and repel invasions, to provide for organizing, arming, training and disciplining theses militias, and to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such places as may be purchased with the consent of the legislatures of the States in which the same shall be, for the erection of air bases, telescopes, space launch pads, academies for the training of the officers of the air and space forces, and other buildings needful to these services. The Congress shall also have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to the execution of the above-enumerated powers.
"The President shall be Commander-in-chief of the air and space forces, as also of the army and the navy of the United States, and also of the air and space militia, when called into the service of the United States.
"The President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint general officers of the air and space forces.
But Note, that the Congress shall not have the power to raise and support other armed services of the United States, except by a vote of two-thirds of the full memberships of both Houses, for the specific purposes of quelling insurrections or repelling invasions."
Thus you "grandfather in" the Air Force and Space Command and eliminate these ancillary forces, including the Public Health Corps.
--First, we could probably all agree that an Objectivist would attempt to limit such a government to the three functions mentioned in the “Politics’ Branch of Rand’s Philosophy (military to protect life and property from initiation of force from outside, police to protect life and property from the initiation of force from within and court system to mediate disputes between individuals &/or groups).
RE: “Would such a group fall sway to the evils described by Adams?”
--Of course. No human is immune to Acton’s Law. This is why the concept of the State must be separated from that of government. Andrew Galambos accomplished that like this:
‘Government -- "Any person or organization that sells products or services to protect property to which the owner of the property may voluntarily subscribe." (government by subscription)
State -- "Any person or organization that claims to protect property by coercing the owner of the property to use and pay for its Services,' claiming Legality as justification." (government by conscription)”
“States” are artificial entities whose bureaucratic rulers claim the power to rule over, lie to, steal from, imprison and occasionally kill their subjects.
All societies need “government” in order to survive, function and thrive. However, the State is an impediment to government.
& for the purposes of Volitional Science, Galambos & I use the word "State" when referring to "political government". The word "government", as properly used in our Declaration of Independence, referred to an organization with ONE function: the protection of private property. A rational, moral government could never be political (aka coercive), since property cannot be protected by plundering it. "Government" is a good and necessary requirement for a free society; the State is an unnecessary evil.
RE: “Can any men hold their principles high enough to avoid the pitfalls of power, particularly ultimate power?”
--Dr. Ron Paul probably came closer to that ideal than any other modern politician, ‘tho he was no Objectivist.
I took me 40 years of study, research, observation, practice & the reading of Paine, Nock,
Spooner, Mencken, & more recently, Galambos, Snelson, Molyneux & dozens of others to finally realize that, even “at the very top level”, NO coercive, theft/force-based State is necessary.
The State ensures lasting war, poverty and servitude and prevents lasting peace, prosperity & freedom. And THIS TIME, now that the politicians and bureaucrats of the State have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, when the State collapses THIS time, it can very well destroy society and pre-maturely extinct the human species.
If you want to create a privately owned town of all "pure" thinkers, that might conceivably work, except what do you do if someone is born into that town and doesn't agree with your values? This has worked for religious communities where all property was communal, but Objectivism would seem to forbid any such arrangement. So you wind up violating the property rights of the dissident even then.
The first and biggest usurpation was by Jackson himself, when he told the army to go ahead and carry out the Indian Removal Act after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Because of the separation of powers, he was neither stopped nor punished, then or later. And on that day, we ceased to have a "government of laws and not of men."
As I see it, in a rightful government, the courts should be supreme and should have the power to fire a President who disobeys their orders. And in case they abuse that power, the justices should be subject to recall by voters.
But more to the point, to the extent there is any outside check on the Supreme Court, Congress controls it -- both by its (never used) power to impeach Justices and by its power to change the number of seats and then "pack" the court -- a threat that FDR successfully used to get New Deal legislation upheld, especially the National Labor Relations Act, and which Obama used to bully Chief Justice Roberts into his last-minute decision to uphold ObamaCare.
A removal power that's in the hands of voters, rather than Congress, would be much more difficult to use as a weapon this way. But somebody has to have that power, or the Court simply becomes a committee of absolute rulers, a Politburo. Please, suggest a better alternative.
.
To me, here's how an Objectivist would operate: one simple principle: Has everything reasonable been tried in the market FIRST, and do we have ANY precedent for something similar elsewhere?
It goes without saying, also that an Objectivist would eliminate corporate taxes (and probably personal ones as well) as well as doing away with all the entitlement programs - personal OR business. And their pay would come out of the amount of money collected but NOT spent!