+1 for AS. AR talked some about the Constitution, but I don't remember any in depth discussion.

Space Forces. Interesting

Naah, there was no “government” in the Gulch. It was the Voluntary Society, aka ‘anarchy’, ‘tho Auntie Ayn hated that word.

+1 for AS

EXCELLENT contribution. Dean!!

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.

Yes. +1

Yet it seems that a large part of the population does argue with reason.

I'm not sure a mere document will ever work. Words and clauses are to easy to reinterpret and rephrase to achieve counter goals.

Why wouldn't simple protection of individual and natural rights work?

+1 for AR quote

Yes +1

Indeed! +1

I kind of think that every word in the Constitution has been attacked at one tome or the other.

RE: “How would Objectivist govern?”
--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.

Indeed!! +1

Some, yes. But that still leaves the want to be controllers to deal with.

probably not. . checks and balances need to be
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

For an objectivist government to work, I suggest that one premise - necessary but not sufficient - is that such a government have the power to temporarily or permanently deport citizens whose conduct and consciousness are at odds with objectivist values.

Yes, it is.

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.

Just as there's a separation between church and state, so there should be a separation between business and state. If that's accomplished, you may have a chance at removing some of the perverse incentives associated with political power.

I feel strongly that while some exceptional individuals can resist the lure of power, humanity as a whole will not do so (nor make any real attempt to do so).

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

Like Alexander at the wall of Thebes.

Jan

Might as well just strike the Takings Clause then. And clarify the scope and impact of the Contracts Clause. And ensure that the draft is deemed slavery and therefore forbidden. This is fun.

The more I think about it the more I think an Objectivist may be the only type I would trust to govern. How can one argue with reason. As long as tolerance of differences is maintained and the philosophy of not initiating force in all its forms is followed, what's not to love?

George Washington did.