Oh, for sure! There was a lot of arguing in 1789, too.

Define exactly what is The Good and then integrate this through a rational system of Ideas. Moral justifiability can then be put to practice in a complete, consistent & compatible manner (not taught or yet realized to you who remain in the outside world.
Miss Rand completely identified this system - in theory - but left the task of integrating into a structural entity to us(-uh, me) - and I did it!
In the days and months to come, as you begin to understand that a withdrawal from the mixed morality of the world 'as it is' is essential, you'll be relieved and more appreciative of the effort and the truth of JohnGalt's declaration that: "the looter's code must run, for once, its undisguised course."
Until then, reassure yourselves that there is an actual motor and men on strike developing it. Your journey can begin as it did for Dagny in the story if you can project the potential of this image and the where it leads:

www.GaltsGulchPortal.blogspot.ca

Honestly, it will help you make your peace with the world. Something Ayn Rand never attained herself (nor did those in closest proximity - Frank O'Connor died in a demented state) but she laid the groundwork for future Objectivists.
Its all here if you want to grasp it.

And I mean it.
JohnGalt Iamoura

It would be a very daunting task to rewrite the constitution today to resolve those inconsistencies AND get get the people of the state's to agree to them !.

it makes me want to research the whiskey. -- j
.

IMHO, the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, an open letter to King George III, was an assault on the divine right of kings and had nothing to do with race or gender. Therefore, Thomas Jefferson being a slave owner was not hypocritical in making such a statement. It was putting the King and his minions on notice that "We The People" in the colonies weren't going to buy into that "royalty" right to rule crap anymore. The false notion of a royal/commoner blood dichotomy sanctioned by God is so far removed from our nations consciousness in these contemporary times that such an idea is actually ridiculous and, therefore, the true meaning of Jefferson's famous phrase in its context and time is lost on most of us. The application of "all men are created equal" to races and gender came later. The American Revolution and the contributions the Founding Fathers covered a lot of ground regarding individual liberty and rights, but it didn't cover all of it all at once.

Texans fought a war of independence from the totalitarian rule of Mexico and became an independent nation before opting to become part of the United States.

Yep, there are inconsistencies.

Yes, esp if the gov't lets you keep the rights to the technology you create.

This version can happen, I believe, only following a collapse and, most probably, a civil war. If, after all that, the statists are again allowed to exist and, worst of all, to reacquire control, then the civil would have been for nothing and the spilled blood a waste.

Sounds better than what we have now. I suspect something like that would be hated by the statists and they would block it big time.

Fivedollargold finds the "Jeblary" pic amusing.

Perhaps Robert Heimlich had the right idea in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - have all laws expire after a certain time, unless they are re-instated by a 2/3 majority. May be local laws can live for a couple of years, higher level laws for 3 or 4, and Supreme Court laws for 10 years. That way, all legislation will be based on the Constitution, not on the creeping re-write of the Constitution, called case law. That alone will eliminate 90% of overlapping and often un-Constitutional laws, along with the majority of the lawyers. It will also make a citizen much freer, as there will not be thousands of little laws that every citizen is constantly breaking, thus making a little criminal out of every honest citizen.

What I was getting at was that there wasnt a really consistent basis used at the start of the country, and THAT resulted in the gradual changes towards government control and socialism that have occurred over the 200+ years. There was the reliance on "god" (one nation under whatever god means). The freedoms "life, liberty, and the pursuit of "happiness"(whatever THAT was).

Also, by the time the country actually got started functioning, there was a LOT of compromises I am sure (crony capitalist stuff)

The one bright spot in the atrocity of 'The Whiskey Rebellion' for George was after leading the troops, with Hamilton as second, to put down the 'Rebellion', George realized what he was doing and feeling revolted by the realization, left to return home leaving Hamilton to finish up. George himself, was a significant whiskey distiller, experimenting and developing his own recipes. Some still used today by 'moonshiners'.

The 'Federalists' of our founding began their attack on the Constitution even before approval, but even had the anti's come out on top over the next few generations, we'd still have these battles at the state levels. Gov't at any level will always contain within it the drive for power, control, and money.

I would disagree with your assessment. The USA, starting with Jefferson (since he seems to have been singled out by many lately) has provided the greatest amount of freedom and opportunity to all classes of people, as compared to what was available at the time anywhere else. There are no realistically achieved ideals; everything must be viewed in relation to other choices. Even in the case of slavery, the slaves in America were treated much better than anywhere else in the world (at that time) and some had an opportunity to become free and to own other slaves, which some did. Perhaps due to the relatively high cost of the slaves, they were treated much better than in their native land, or by the other customers, like the Arabs.
Mormons, you say, were run out of town - but not killed like people of other religions were in the rest of the world. And even considering the atrocities done to the Indians, those were often less barbaric than what the Indians were doing to their rival tribes.
In any case, I don't see the relationship between the faults of Jefferson, et.al., and the national suicide that we've embarked on, which is socialism. Perhaps in the case of Russia a hundred years ago, socialism was embraced due to poverty, but in the 20-21 century America, socialism is being embraced due to gluttony.

You appear to be looking at this as an issue to be dealt with from the top down (i.e presidential candidates). Try looking at it as a bottom-up issue, beginning with yourself. There is a great deal that can be done individually and in small local groups. This is happening already all over the place. Get enough such micro-efforts going and leviathan is doomed. Not likely in my lifetime though (wink).

It can happen. But we have to be explicit in say-
ing we want a laissez-faire system, and not, as
the article mentions, getting bogged down in the
details about whether a specific subsidy program
"works" or not. We must say, over and over, that
such subsidies violate the rights of man and are
subversive of the proper purpose of government---to protect man against force and violence (in-
cluding fraud),and punish same. And when the
opponents start sniveling about how "heartless"
and "selfish" we are, dismiss that complaint
with the contempt it deserves.

Good idea but I am afraid the liberal people will not have a clue. But then, maybe they should learn.

Consider replacing "socialism" with "collectivism"?

I am in the process of generating a bumper sticker that reads:
Socialism = Government Dependence = Slavery
Capitalism = Self Reliance = Freedom

This should really annoy the liberals in my home town.

Very true, but those times are the clearest and most recognizable in my opinion.
Hey, sometimes I forget that I'm commenting in the Gulch and most people here are sharper than butter knives.

But it sure is a good dream.

EXACTLY!!!

The only one who is even coming close to getting government out of our lives is Rand Paul, and you see how popular his ideas are. As long as you have farmers getting subsidies for ethanol, and multinationals getting subsidies for exports, and welfare recipients getting subsidies for living, and healthcare getting subsidies for drugs and other supplies, etc., you will continue to have enough critical mass to keep the game going. Until and unless EVERYONE gets his eyes off his neighbor's wallet, this system will prevail until it finally collapses. What's needed, at a minimum, is a constitutional amendment restricting the government from dabbling in the economy. However, with all the special interests desiring such dabbling, it's probably a fool's errand to keep dreaming about something that looks like it will never happen.

You have to go back a LOT further than feudalism to discover the beginnings of state power.

"Toothless George and his Golem?"
Whatever this guy has to say became less relevant at that sentence.
However, the fact that the state can impose its will upon its citizens has been the reality since Feudal times. And what is behind that imposition is the use of force. The simple fact is, the more you want freedom, the less you want government. The moment the citizenry concedes that it is the government's job to do this, that and the other that is when each of the this and that diminishes the citizen's freedom including whatever the state chooses to impose.

Interesting that the founding fathers were more interested in getting out from under the king of England and his religion than giving us true freedom. While spouting that all people were created equal, Jefferson had hundreds of slaves, Mormons were run out of town for there polygamous beliefs, indigenous native Indians were run into reservations, Texas was taken from Mexico, and the South was attacked and defeated because they wanted OUT of the union.

I say the USA was and is very inconsistent, and this philosophical inconsistency is at the heart of our decline