Mike, and Rob, might I offer personal insight? my
life has included chances to exercise power over
others -- as a department head in responsible
charge of 121 craft employees, as a National
Management Association trainer and article writer
for the national publication, etc. -- and I contend
that it is absolutely corrupting.

the "modern" era has automated the power-over-
people stuff so that many, many more have the
chance to indulge. this is proving dangerous,
from BHO's narcissism to satphones used by the
Taliban. from -- well,, you know -- senators,
teachers, mass murderers, advertisers........

yes, power over thousands goes way back, but
the prevalence has increased, so that more "bad
actors" are corrupted. I felt it, and it is strong;; it
is bad. -- j

p.s. Yes, professor Brenner, a cold drink here in
the corner of the kitchen at the end of a good day,
enjoying rationality with you and the gang, is great!!!

We achieve as much as we do because we have accepted to some extent that culture of realty, reason, and freedom. It was not complete or consistent, but it was active. We look too wistfully at the 19th century: Silicon Valley and the computer revolution were broad expressions. It was based on reality and reason - A is A. 1 or 0, On or Off. You cannot fool the bit. You cannot cajole or plead or threaten it. Yet the computer revolution opened up uncountable "alternate worlds." That, too, is objective: nature to be commanded must be obeyed. By understanding lightening, we built electric motors. It is not just a dream.

That begs the question. Atlas was a drama, not a blueprint. Rand has said that simply imposing a gold-backed federal currency is not something to be advocated out of context because it would not last. That is why she opposed any so-called "Objectivist" political agenda: politics is near the end of the line. A culture of freedom depends on a culture of reason and reality.

As for those contradictions in the Constitution, we have had some discussions here in the Gulch, not very deep or involved. Basically, the Seventh Amendment is not objective. Ayn Rand also questioned the Second Amendment. You can argue that as you wish because it is arguable and only points to the fact that you cannot impose a political solution from the top down.

Even with the "Narragansett Amendment" Congress could pass laws against CREATION ahead of production and trade, forbidding people from creating genomes or software or rockets to the Moon or time machines or vaccines or shoes... If the culture of a society allows it, the government will expand to meet its own needs.

I must disagree. People obviously have the ability to choose, which bacteria clearly do not and which even the highest-most of other animals might not. But humans clearly do. And do. followers of Locke do not bomb the cafes of followers of Hume. The Solvay conferences heard debates on physics that did not result in bombings via persons, cars, or airplanes. Like the private security firms pictured in the OP, those people had a culture of reason, as we here in the Gulch do, too.

Read about Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. No Fermatist threatened to kill him. When his "proof" was challenged he did not resort to violence, but to paper and pencil.

Whatever the failings of many other people, some of us do make rational choices.

As for Mussolini - not the worst of them, in fact, but not relevant here - Stalin, etc., go back to Caligula or Nero or even farther... In discussing the origins of consciousness, Julian Jaynes pointed out that horrible mass slaughters, mass tortures, and mass punishments seem unknown until relatively recent times, since the last Ice Age (no earlier) and maybe only since the invention of writing. "Primitives" (so-called) tend to have ritualized conflict in which no one actually gets killed. It may be that atrocities are not in our "nature" but something we chose when we acquired introspection and reason.

Thanks for sharing this, LH. Haven't finished purusing but intrigued.

Ayn Rand left few clues.

At the end of AS, she said the Constitution had contradictory statements that must inevitably destroy it. She also suggested a new Right for the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade."

Then I guess I must be a minarchist except that the USA was basically founded with the main purpose of protecting individual rights and the State has failed to do that since it's inception.

So how do you create a constitution that would actually limit the growth of a government?

It may be the fundamental fallacy of minarchy to believe that we can "create a constitution that would actually limit the growth of a government". You can read no end of complaints from conservatives about how the government violates the constitution.

Most of the nations on Earth - and their many districts, prefects, states, regions, departments, etc. - all have constitutions, often with specific bills of rights. The fact that they even attempt it may well show a line of progress from earlier times. Nonetheless, paper promises must be enforced - and by definition, no other agency can force the government to do anything without a civil war.

If a culture of objective law exists, even partially, then elements _within_ the government will be dedicated to keeping it in check. Thus, you read about a judge who refuses a government petition or writ; or about an appeals judge who overturns a previous permission.

Consider Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana. Consider the creation of West Virginia. They were both unconstitutional. Conservatives rail against the federal income tax, but it was a proper amendment.

Based on the arsenal theory of military defense, if the government wants to expand nothing can stop it. here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...

On the other hand, if a culture of reality, reason, and freedom exists, then the government will remain limited.

A culture of reality, reason, and freedom would be ... as refreshing as a cool drink out by my pool on Friday evening while reading messages in Galt's Gulch Online.