A Rights Respecting Republic

[Greyhawk]

Hello

I have heard some Objectivists argue in favour of establishing a "Rights Respecting Republic" (I use the quotes as I have heard the exact same phrase used by different people) which would deny the right to vote to those perceived as enemies of Rights possessed by "Man Qua Man"; enemies such as Communists, Muslims, and others. Such a system would ensure a constitution based on Objectivism while preventing these groups from modifying and destroying it. I am wondering what board members here think of this. The fact that I've heard many Objectivists use the same phrase makes me wonder if it is an official Objectivist position expounded by Rand, Peikoff and others or if its simply the fact that I've encountered random nutters.

Should such as system be used, if so how would abuses be prevented?

Edited February 3, 2010 by Greyhawk

[Jake_Ellison]

I have heard some Objectivists argue in favour of establishing a "Rights Respecting Republic" (I use the quotes as I have heard the exact same phrase used by different people) which would deny the right to vote to those perceived as enemies of Rights possessed by "Man Qua Man"; enemies such as Communists, Muslims, and others.

It's not the Objectivist position that Communists, Muslims, and others should be perceived as enemies.

The fact that I've heard many Objectivists use the same phrase makes me wonder if it is an official Objectivist position expounded by Rand, Peikoff and others or if its simply the fact that I've encountered random nutters.

While Objectivism is incompatible with Democracy, I'm unaware of Ayn Rand or Peikoff ever expressing any opposition to the practice of selecting the members of a constitutionally restricted government of a rights respecting republic by majority vote. But I have no idea if you encountered random nutters or not. The question is leading, so I'll have to go with the third option of 'or whatever'.

Should such as system be used, if so how would abuses be prevented?

No, the suggestion of random nutters that perceived enemies (such as Communists, Muslims and others) not be allowed to vote should not be the system to go on.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Should such as system be used, if so how would abuses be prevented?

Push comes to shove, the ultimate response (when all others fail) is flight or revolution.

I recall reading a novel where one of the characters, John was his name, said: I will stop the motor of the world. There is a thought......

Bob Kolker

[CapitalistSwine]

which would deny the right to vote to those perceived as enemies of Rights possessed by "Man Qua Man"; enemies such as Communists, Muslims, and others

What on earth? Where in the world did you get this idea? How much Rand non-fiction have you actually read. Objectivism in no way says that the people we disagree with cannot vote, that would mean the next step would be book burning or banning of their content. This is in no way shape or form a concept of Objectivism nor would it ever be a concept in a REAL republic. I guess one of the "problems" you could say we face is that we cannot FORCE views on people as it is opposed to the philosophy, this is why ARI focuses on educational changes so as to get younger people to realize the errors in their thinking and to voluntarily and willingly begin to promote the values of Objectivism within society and in effect, start changing our culture so that these changes come about naturally over time through voted in representatives, rather than political or corporate strong-arming and so forth.

Such a system would ensure a constitution based on Objectivism while preventing these groups from modifying and destroying it.

You do that by having a cultural majority that creates these changes voluntarily, and then you create a constitution that is more clear, updated, and eliminates the loopholes and other problems of the current one, see the in-progress revised one in the wiki on this site for an example. If the constitution is properly done there should be no fear of these groups modifying or destroying it, with the exception being that the former could happen through the constitutional amendment process, however that is a very difficult thing to do if its done properly and the will of the people would be required for such changes.

A voluntarily-financed constitutional republic, ideally based on Objectivist principles is definitely something Rand advocated, as she had specific reasons why she felt anarchistic systems were horrifically insensible. One that violates the rights of its citizens was never expounded upon. These people either are calling themselves Objectivists and are very confused individuals posing to be something they are not, or something.

Edited February 3, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Axiomatic]

In an Objectivist state voting would be almost arbitrary as an explicit constitution would severely limit the capacity of the individuals voted in to the function of solely protecting rights. Of course, the quality and content of character of the president specifically is quite important. The explicit nature of the constitution and the people's vigilance in not letting it be subject to rewrites is sufficient enough to protect from 'enemies within' who have a specific political agenda to be voted in.

On another matter however I have been pondering what specific purpose the legislative branch would have. I'm thinking that it would actually be quite limited.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Axiomatic

[JMeganSnow]

I've seen a number of people arrive at conclusions like the OP mentioned because they don't really understand the role of philosophy in human life. You cannot take a top-down approach and somehow construct a government that will assure that a given philosophy is adhered to in a country because politics depends on philosophy, not the other way around. You MUST take a bottom-up approach and attempt first to change the underlying philosophy of the most intellectually active people in a given country, which will result in a cultural sea change (with "ordinary" people generally going around with what they sense is the zeitgeist of the intellectual trend) which will eventually make it possible to institute a proper political structure.

So, yes, they're nutters.

[Robert J. Kolker]

On another matter however I have been pondering what specific purpose the legislative branch would have. I'm thinking that it would actually be quite limited.

If you value your liberty limit the executive more than the legislative and give the judiciary the most power (and even that should be limited too).

The executive branch of the U.S. has turned out to be the most dangerous to our liberty.

Bob Kolker

[JMeganSnow]

The executive became dangerous because the legislative branch has ceded a lot of authority to the President (or power-lusting presidents have seized it in the past). I highly recommend reading Liberal Fascism if you are interested in viewing this process. Partisan bickering in the legislative in the past has led to a desire for a strong executive who could "get things done". This is actually how Mussolini and even Hitler came to power, by posing as a "third way" option with a strong will which could override the bickering of lesser politicos.

Ultimately, though, the problem arises IN the legislative branch. So if you want safeguards, you need to limit the ability of the legislature to empower ANYONE to do ANYTHING most strictly.

[Greyhawk]

A voluntarily-financed constitutional republic,

Hey CS, thanks for taking the time out of your day to type up that response. As both you and JMeganSnow have confirmed, the idea of denying the vote is contrary to the Objectivist position. I am curious however how a voluntary financing of government would avoid similar problems. Would this not lead to a kind of oligarchy where votes are weighed as opposed to counted and the interests of wealthy elites consistently shape government policy at the expense of the wider population?

[CapitalistSwine]

I suggest you read Rand's essay on financing a free society, it covers how contract insurance would be a method for voluntary taxation, it would not be similar to tax systems we have today.

[JMeganSnow]

Would this not lead to a kind of oligarchy where votes are weighed as opposed to counted and the interests of wealthy elites consistently shape government policy at the expense of the wider population?

Um, what's your logic here? How would this "oligarchy" come about? Are you saying that politicians would have an incentive to court wealthy people to their "side"? How would this be different from now? And what type of "expense" are we talking about here? In a rights-respecting system, the politicians have no power to dispense economic favors. They can't legislate your competitors out of existence. They can't pass tariffs or squash unions or, conversely, support unions or mandate health insurance. These activities would be illegal, unconstitutional.

So what is it that wealthy people would be *buying* from the government in exchange for their monetary support? It'd be like someone bribing ME to get them into a Beyonce concert that's happening in another state. I have no pull on anyone involved in that situation. The question of "expense" gets thrown out the window, here. Sure, the wealthy may succeed in getting this or that specific person elected a time or two so we may get slightly different statues such as the disagreement between David Odden and I over whether a business must post a warning if they let their customers wander around naked inside or whether it's up to the individual customers to inform themselves of the nudity policy of a business before they walk in. This is a MINOR detail of application, but the FUNDAMENTAL principle (that it's up to the business owner to decide their naked policy) is still there.

In a rights-respecting system, only such MINOR details of application are subject to a popular vote. So whose "expense" would the wealthy be gaining a benefit at?

[Axiomatic]

Hey CS, thanks for taking the time out of your day to type up that response. As both you and JMeganSnow have confirmed, the idea of denying the vote is contrary to the Objectivist position. I am curious however how a voluntary financing of government would avoid similar problems. Would this not lead to a kind of oligarchy where votes are weighed as opposed to counted and the interests of wealthy elites consistently shape government policy at the expense of the wider population?

There is no possibility of an Oligarchy in an Objectivist system where the constitution is made explicit. The legislative branch having to abide by this constitution would not be permitted to pass laws in favour of one economic entity or another, due to its limited function of passing only laws within the context of protecting individual rights. This is why I said earlier that the legislative branch would necessarily be of limited functionality. A distinct separation of state and economics much like church and state protects citizens from the possibility of any kind of Oligarchical elements.

I'm surprised you do not already know this as you have stated many times in the past that you have read all of rand's and Peikoff's works.

I suggest you go back and read this essay.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...e_of_government

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The only scenario I can see would be some wealthy-but-corrupt individual making large contributions to the government--on the under-the-table understanding that it *not* enforce laws when he is the perp.

Or for that matter he could directly bribe the sheriff/chief of police/whoever has the authority to issue pardons.

It should be noticed that the latter scenario is common today (cops on the take from the local drug dealer) so it's not really an argument that things would be worse under an Objecitivist system of *strictly* limited, voluntarily financed government. In fact, I would expect it to be less common than it is today, because there would be no victimless crimes with huge profits for violators, like my drug dealer example.

The first scenario could be made a lot less likely by having the people that accept the money and set budgets be separate from the people who enforce the laws; it's a lot harder to conspire (where two people have to agree to break the law) than it is to have one person do it on their own. The separation of powers principle is a good one. I think it's also a good reason to have a layered government; if someone manages to bribe the local government that way, the federal one can step in and enforce the law.

When I first started thinking about these issues from an O-ist standpoint, I assumed that the two layers of government would each have legislatures of some sort, but I was called on that and was unable to think of any particular reason why a lower government should be able to make laws provided an upper government has done its job properly. They may be "closer to the situation" but that sort of rationale is usually used to defend a local government's ability to decide which particular mode of rights-violation is most effective in a given situation. (E.g., which type of zoning should such-and-such parcel of land be saddled with?)

It's possible that interpretation of a law may differ based on a local context (can't think of a good example though), but that is an executive and/or judicial issue.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I suggest you read Rand's essay on financing a free society, it covers how contract insurance would be a method for voluntary taxation, it would not be similar to tax systems we have today.

How would this be used to maintain an armed force (Army, Navy, Air Force)?

Bob Kolker

[JMeganSnow]

How would this be used to maintain an armed force (Army, Navy, Air Force)?

They take the money they get from contract registration and use it to pay for military expenditures. Duh?

[Black Wolf]

One example I've heard of how a government can be voluntarily financed is through a lottery.

I mean, it's a pretty good idea. It's voluntary (you don't have to try and win a lottery), and the government can generate just enough money to fund individual rights protection, without force.

But it also sounds like it goes against "Separation of economy and state"

[Robert J. Kolker]

They take the money they get from contract registration and use it to pay for military expenditures. Duh?

hundreds of billions of $ to register contracts? I don't think so.

A modern military force is extremely expensive.

Bob Kolker

[Grames]

But it also sounds like it goes against "Separation of economy and state"

Some government is necessary, and it will cost money to run. It is impossible to make the government function without tapping into the economy somehow, and voluntary is better than mandatory. Your idea of separation could work only with a government that took no money to run, meaning no government at all, anarchy. Of course in anarchy people end up spending time, money and effort on conflicts and conflict resolution anyway so there is no escape from the need for the expenditure.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

...that's assuming they aren't spending their money actually *fighting* gangs of raiders trying to become de facto governments, which would be the inevitably result of anarchy. (The "anarcho-capitalists" contend that that wouldn't happen because everyone would be armed and too hard a target, but that's why the bad guys gang up....)

[Black Wolf]

Some government is necessary, and it will cost money to run. It is impossible to make the government function without tapping into the economy somehow, and voluntary is better than mandatory. Your idea of separation could work only with a government that took no money to run, meaning no government at all, anarchy. Of course in anarchy people end up spending time, money and effort on conflicts and conflict resolution anyway so there is no escape from the need for the expenditure.

I know government expenditure in the economy is inevitable, I guess it's the fact that the government is directly participating in an industry that I have a concern with.

[Axiomatic]

Your idea of separation could work only with a government that took no money to run, meaning no government at all, anarchy.

That is simply not true, Voluntarily funding our own government does not equal anarchy. A separation of government and economics means that the government cannot use force to interfere to any economic entities in the market place where force has not already been initiated.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Axiomatic

[Black Wolf]

That is simply not true, Voluntarily funding our own government does not equal anarchy. A separation of government and economics means that the government cannot use force to interfere to any economic entities in the market place where force has not already been initiated.

I think (s)he was saying that a government can't make money if it is absolutely positively separate from the government. Government expenditures will happen even in Objectivist society. The gov't will pay defense contractors, they will pay soldiers who will eventually contribute to the economy, etc.

Now that I think about it, I really have no problem with a government-owned lottery.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Grames]

Right.

And definitely he.

[G.L. Coddington]

Why is Objectivism "incompatible with Democracy"?

[Grames]

Why is Objectivism "incompatible with Democracy"?

For the same reason it is incompatible with theocracy, or autocracy, or plutocracy. The only proper government is organized around the principle of defending individual rights, anything else is wrong. There is nothing wrong with voting to select particular office holders.