Citizenship

[Godless Capitalist]

By the way, some of you might hold the erroneous premise that there is some sort of “right” to choose one’s form of government. There can be no such right, since everyone “choosing” their preferred form of government would be anarchy. A democracy certainly does not do this – voting in a democracy is a statistically pointless action. It in no way legitimizes or gives you any meaningful voice in the government.

It fact, it does the opposite, by taking away choices from the market and centralizing them through legislation. The more democratic a society, the less freedom you have in governing your own life.

The best we can hope for is to nominate a natural aristocracy that we consider capable of protecting the integrity of the constitution.

I'm really not following your point here. A proper government would be a constitutional republic, not an absolute democracy. However, it would still have to rest on "the consent of the governed" and have some sort of system of elected representatives. (See "The Nature of Government")

No offense, but I think that anyone employed by the government should be the very first to be disqualified from voting for it, for reasons which I hope are obvious.

Not obvious at all. He wants to do work that is part of a legitimate function of government: protecting us from terrorists. Why would that disqualify him from voting?

[DavidV]

I doubt that theres any correlation whatsover between {rationality, integrity, morality} and wealth.

I’m rather amazed no one has caught you on this yet. If you don’t believe that reason or virtue has anything to do with material success, why the hell are you here?

I’m an Objectivist because I want to be materially and spiritually rich, and I think that the proper philosophy and the proper values are they only means to doing so. I know this because the virtues of my philosophy have been proven time and time again in the successful (and by contrast unsuccessful) people around me. If I didn’t think Objectivist virtues were the only way to material prosperity, I might as well be Marxist and steal what I need. Even evil people (like politicians) who are successful must posses at least some of the virtues to get where they are.

Your facts are just wrong. Successful people, whether CEO’s, scientists, or musicians are spiritually AND materially wealthy. One leads to another. If it doesn’t, you either have the wrong philosophy, or you’re living in a slave state.

There's a good fictional example which shows how this works in an extreme case - Howard Roark vs Peter Keating in the Fountainhead. One of the characters pursues his values without particualrly caring about money, and as such he remains poor throughout the novel. The other one wants money for its own sake, and succeeds in becoming wealthy.

Did you read the book? Gail Wynand is the character who wants power for its own sake and it kills him in the end. Keating goes bankrupt because of his philosophy, while Roark (presumably) strikes it rich when he is hired to build the world’s tallest building.

[Godless Capitalist]

Your facts are just wrong. Successful people, whether CEO’s, scientists, or musicians are spiritually AND materially wealthy. One leads to another. If it doesn’t, you either have the wrong philosophy, or you’re living in a slave state.

My wife is a successful scientist at a private research institute. She is well paid but by no means wealthy. There are very few wealthy musicians (except a few pop stars). Having a spiritually fulfilling career does not automatically lead to wealth.

[Hal]

I’m rather amazed no one has caught you on this yet. If you don’t believe that reason or virtue has anything to do with material success, why the hell are you here?

Because despite not placing an especially high premium on material success, I think that reason and virtue have a lot to do with other things I value.

I’m an Objectivist because I want to be materially and spiritually rich, and I think that the proper philosophy and the proper values are they only means to doing so.

The only way to achieve both perhaps, but that isnt the issue here. Anyone reasonably intelligent can become 'materially rich' despite their philosophy and morality. It isnt particularly difficult; just become a generic law school grad/banker and you'll almost certainly be a millionare when you retire. Become rich while doing something you genuinelly want to do is quite another matter however.

Your facts are just wrong. Successful people, whether CEO’s, scientists, or musicians are spiritually AND materially wealthy.

Well, lets take musicians for instance. The easiest way for a musician to become rich is to make the sort of fifth-rate crap that fills the popular music charts. However, serious musicians will almost certainly find it harder to become rich, since there isnt as big a market for their products - most violin players, composers, and talented indie groups are significantly less wealthy than pop-stars. If youre a musician whose primary goal is to become fabulously wealthy, the best way to do so is by selling out.

Academic careers are another great example. Most people working in universities get paid very little compared to what they could make elsewhere. Someone who has a postgrad degree in mathematics, for instance, could choose to become rich by going into finance (quantatitive analysis etc), or stick with a research career and earn very little money. In general, its an either/or choice - professors are not normally rich people.

Did you read the book? Gail Wynand is the character who wants power for its own sake and it kills him in the end.

I didnt mention power, and Keating only goes spiritually bankrupt - he is wealthy throughout the novel (as in Guy Francon, Gordon Prescott, and all the other characters who pursue wealth and popularity as primary goals). In contrast, most of the 'good' characters are poor (Roark, Mallory and Mike) - and Roark speaks negatively of people who put money first. Its also implicit in his actions when (eg) he turns down the contract to design the bank near the start of the book, since he feels it would violate his principles.

ARs novels are full of stories which show characters contemplating achieving material wealth at the cost of selling their soul - the short story about the fiction writer included at the end of the Romantic Manifesto is another good example.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Hal

[DavidV]

Having a spiritually fulfilling career does not automatically lead to wealth.

Wealth is a relative term. Coming from a communist regime, my standards are probably lower than most Americans.

In any case, nothing in life is “automatic” but if you have the right values, you should be materially successful. Being a “starving artist” is not a virtue in my book, even if you are a great artist. No one needs to make a choice between material and spiritual satisfaction, because our society is rich and varied enough to allow for both, even if your job and your passion do not match.

[Hal]

Wealth is a relative term.

Good point - it might be instructive to define what we mean by 'wealthy', especiallly since you mention starving artists. Its hard to base things on income alone since a person might be sitting on a large sum of inherited wealth, but I normally wouldnt say that anyone making a 5 figure sum was wealthy (unless they lived in a place where costs of living were insanely cheap). I agree that most people dont need to live in poverty unless they choose to, but not being poor (<$20000?) doesnt equal being materially well-off.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Hal

[DavidV]

OK, so being Objectivist won’t make you Bill Gates, but it should get you a house with cable TV, a nice car, and a chicken in your pot. If you (as an American) don’t have those things, it’s not Objectivism to blame, but your own philosophy.

Anyone reasonably intelligent can become 'materially rich' despite their philosophy and morality. It isnt particularly difficult; just become a generic law school grad/banker and you'll almost certainly be a millionare when you retire. Become rich while doing something you genuinelly want to do is quite another matter however.

I think you are genuinely ignorant of what it takes to be successful. I am not talking about the Ted Kennedy’s of the world here. Most wealthy people are wealthy because they are virtuous individuals who are pursuing their passions. I know because I’ve met them. Don’t buy the Hollywood propaganda. The Forbes list of billionaires is dominated by self-made entrepreneurs, not playboys or politicians.

[DavidV]

The easiest way for a musician to become rich is to make the sort of fifth-rate crap that fills the popular music charts.

I guess I support that “fifth rate crap” because my favorite music also happens to be rather popular. On the other hand, I don’t listen to so called “indie” music because I find it to be pretentious second-handed crap.

Many people that I respect like music that I can’t stand. This is not to say that some of the top hits out there aren’t junk, but just because you don’t like Britney Spears doesn’t mean that there is some sort of cosmic injustice.

Academic careers are another great example. ...In general, its an either/or choice - professors are not normally rich people.

The majority of academics I am familiar with (I have a graduate degree) are doing useless “research” by living of governments grants. The ones doing the really exciting and useful work are the fat cats with stock options in private industry. There is a place for academic research, but the good researchers are usually highly paid consultants as well.

ARs novels are full of stories which show characters contemplating achieving material wealth at the cost of selling their soul - the short story about the fiction writer included at the end of the Romantic Manifesto is another good example.

Using Ayn Rand’s characters here is a mistake because all her novels portray what happens to virtuous people in dystopian societies.

She intentionally dramatizes the conflict between virtue and material success to show that virtue is ultimately essential for material success.

Still, note that her heroes refuse to live a lie, and they either die (physically or spiritually) or, ultimately, they are materially successful while the villains are not.

(Btw, Keating’s wealth is only illusory – once he has no one to mooch from, his business fails as well. He is NOT rich throughout the novel. Roark on the other hand gets to build skyscrapers. The same thing happens to the villains of Atlas Shrugged.)

[The Wrath]

I kinda figured you had a different standard of "wealth" than I do. But now that you've explicitly said so, what do you think should be the standard of "wealthy" that would allow someone to vote?

[ex_banana-eater]

I am in favour of citizenship under a fully capitalist government to create funding and other valuables for the government. I would offer citizenship to those citizens who had retired from the military and police, as well as wealthy individuals who chose to "buy" their citizenship. This would then grant them voting rights, the ability to run for public office, and other legal incentives I can't think of right now.

[DavidV]

I kinda figured you had a different standard of "wealth" than I do. But now that you've explicitly said so, what do you think should be the standard of "wealthy" that would allow someone to vote?

You know, I haven’t given that much thought. But I don’t think the vote should be limited because rich people are more likely to be virtuous – even though I think they are. I think it’s more important to limit the percentage of population that can vote in order to prevent politicians from running populist campaigns – something like 5% perhaps. The distinction can be based on other factors, such as military service – but I think wealthy, landed people have more of an incentive in preserving the status quo because they are financially invested in the community. Otherwise people could just move away when they mucked things up. (I know other posters have argued the opposite in this thread – but I think history and Federalist Papers back me up.)

[The Wrath]

Your system makes sense, but I still think it's too limiting. You're giving 5% of the population the power to essentially do whatever they want with the other 95. I think something like a third would be more reasonable.

[gags]

You're giving 5% of the population the power to essentially do whatever they want with the other 95. I think something like a third would be more reasonable.

If the government were truly rational and limited to its core purposes (defense, police, court system), I don't think there would be that much of a need (or even a desire) to vote becuse government would be far less prominent in our lives. Of course, you'd like to put people in office who will perpetuate a rational government. Other than that, politics wouldn't have to be this national American Idol contest that we go through every 2 and 4 years because politicians COULDN'T do whatever they want with people.

[The Wrath]

Votes have the potential to change everything. Under a well-written Constitution, the politicians couldn't do whatever they wanted, but what happens when a bad amendment makes it through? Say...one that provides for an income tax?

[Proverb]

Under a well written constitution, income tax would be in violation of it.

[Spano]

I'd be most concerned about establishing an indepedent judiciary to keep elected officials in check. If we had:

1. A constitution that explicitly set forth not only the powers of government but its purpose and the philosophy behind it, such that it would more immune to "interpretation" than the current U.S. constitution

2. A judiciary consisting of rational judges with the integrity to uphold the constitution against politicians making ever expansive and intrusive laws

then I would be much less concerned with the details of how those politicians were elected. I think most of the aversion we have to popular elections comes from the fact that elected officials have been able to run amok without nearly enough interference from the judicial branch.

Of course, in the current system, the top judges at least are the indirect result of popular elections (e.g. appointed by the President). While the legislative branch must agree to the judges' appointment, those legislators are likewise popularly elected. I don't really see a way around this. I wonder if anyone else considers this a problem or has other ideas?

Edited April 1, 2006 by Spano

[The Wrath]

Under a well written constitution, income tax would be in violation of it.

Not if a Constitutional Amendment is passed that explicitly permits it. You can't declare a Constitutional Amendment to be unconstitutional.

[DavidOdden]

Not if a Constitutional Amendment is passed that explicitly permits it. You can't declare a Constitutional Amendment to be unconstitutional.

Under a well-written constitution, you could, if there is some kind of hierarchy in constitutional statements, for example a fundamental clause such as the Purpose Clause which states "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. All provisions of this constitution and laws passed thereunder shall be deemed valid only to the extent that they serve this purpose". A constitution is not necessarily an unstructured hodgepodge of arbitrary sentences.

[The Wrath]

The Second Amendment explicitly states, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." And look at how much debate there is over what that sentence really means.

If that fundamental clause were adopted, it would not surprise me one bit to have people start claiming that "physical violence" includes violence perpetrated by bacteria and viruses (or virii?), thus developing an argument for socialized medicine. No matter how explicitly you state something in the law, you can always count on the fact that people will try and turn it into the opposite of what you intended it to be.

Thus, I think the only way to maintain a proper government is for the people to hold rational views of that government and to remain vigilant. I just don't think a Constitution, no matter how flawlessly written, can safeguard against all possible abuses.

[DavidOdden]

The Second Amendment explicitly states, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." And look at how much debate there is over what that sentence really means.

In part because the Second Amendment actually says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That first clause suggests a restriction as to legitimate purposes as opposed to "for any purpose you can imagine". A clearer statement would be "No law may restrict a person's right to acquire, possess and use weapons of any sort, except if that action violates the rights of another person". Obviously, there must be something that says what people's right are. And of course we can debate whether people should be allowed to have home fusion bombs or nerve gas.

If that fundamental clause were adopted, it would not surprise me one bit to have people start claiming that "physical violence" includes violence perpetrated by bacteria and viruses (or virii?), thus developing an argument for socialized medicine.

Okay, I took that clause from Galt's Speech: to be more explicit, you should include "by another person".

Thus, I think the only way to maintain a proper government is for the people to hold rational views of that government and to remain vigilant. I just don't think a Constitution, no matter how flawlessly written, can safeguard against all possible abuses.

So what you're saying boils down to holding that we can't live in a society governed by law, that the only possiblity for survival is if everybody is rational and lives by an Objectivist credo. If we have to depend on laws to maintain civilization, then these laws can get perverted and twisted. Well, perhaps, but still stating the laws as clearly and explicitly will help to remind people what it is that proper law is supposed to do.

[The Wrath]

In part because the Second Amendment actually says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

But that isn't the operative part of the sentence. If it said "as long as a well-regulated milita is maintained," then it would matter. As it is, the beginning phrase does not impose a restriction on the operative part.

So what you're saying boils down to holding that we can't live in a society governed by law, that the only possiblity for survival is if everybody is rational and lives by an Objectivist credo. If we have to depend on laws to maintain civilization, then these laws can get perverted and twisted. Well, perhaps, but still stating the laws as clearly and explicitly will help to remind people what it is that proper law is supposed to do.

That's not at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is that a law can never be so perfectly written as to completely rule out possible abuses and mistranslations. That's why the public needs to be vigilant. The public can be vigilant without all of them being Objectivists.

By all means, make laws as clear as possible so that it is difficult to misinterpret them and so that, when it happens, the people misinterpreting it look ridiculous. But I still hold that it will always happen.

[D'kian]

Didn't Jefferson say eternal vigilance is the price of freedom?

[The Wrath]

I thought that was Adams, but I could be wrong. Either way, it's true, and that's the point I've been trying to get across.

[DavidOdden]

But that isn't the operative part of the sentence. If it said "as long as a well-regulated milita is maintained," then it would matter. As it is, the beginning phrase does not impose a restriction on the operative part.

There's no distinction between an operative part and an inoperative part of a sentence. Context is really important in understanding what statements mean -- taking words out of context is a serious error in legal interpretation, and the principles eiusdem generis and expressio unius est exclusio alterius are there to remind us that laws must be understood in context. A corollary of that is that poorly expressed contextual information can really screw up the interpretation of a law (as we have seen).

By all means, make laws as clear as possible so that it is difficult to misinterpret them and so that, when it happens, the people misinterpreting it look ridiculous. But I still hold that it will always happen.

Why will it always happen? Are you claiming that it is in the nature of man to always be evil? I'm not maintaining that a well-written law would, by dint of the power of words somehow prevent people from being illogical, i.e. you can't make people obey the law just by having a good law -- you can make it overt that they are violating the law by claiming a right to my life. It doesn't matter if the public is vigilant: what matters is whether the justices that interpret laws are vigilant. The public be damned.

[D'kian]

Are you claiming that it is in the nature of man to always be evil?

I'm not answering for Moose. I do want to point out the possibility of evil must be taken into account. The human capacity to rationalize and obfuscate should never be discounted. Even in this forum, you will find occasional misuse of Objectivist principles to justify evil actions.

It doesn't matter if the public is vigilant: what matters is whether the justices that interpret laws are vigilant. The public be damned.

It's important to have vigilant Justices who will be good guardians of the Constitution. However, Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?? With a system of checks and balances, the good Justices aren't guaranteed. They depend heavily on the other two branches of government. those elected by the citizens (howver you define it). Therefore it is ultimately important for the voting public to be vigilant as well.