Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Limiting Government

Rate this topic


Zip

Recommended Posts

I'm playing a geo-fiction game and have of course designed what I think is an Objective government. This government has a standard constitution which lays out the powers held by the branches and the constitution of each branch, the mechanism of government and the mechanism to change the constitution but it also has what I've called the three Inviolate Articles who's sole job is to limit the government through the definitive establishment of citizens rights, and limits what the government can and can not do. I'm wondering if you think these articles would be successful in defining and maintaining an Objective government.

Yes, I've borrowed from the work of Mill and others. I'm not a brilliant mind I just pretend to be. :D

I'm interested to learn what you think.

The Inviolate Articles:

Article 1: Rights;

The XXX Objective Republic does hereby affirm the following fundamental rights;

• Right to Life – Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. No government shall set down or offer implicit support to any means, method, or moral code by which any person may live, make or rule his own life.

• Right of Liberty – The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. Government shall not initiate force against the individual except in order to protect the rights of others or the just laws of the nation.

• Right of Property - The right of property is among the most important individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race. Government can not appropriate or in any manner deprive any man of his personal property except in such case where it has been justly seized by law. Said property once seized must be auctioned or sold in the open market to private citizens or corporations.

• Right of Equality – All individuals are equal in all respects before the law and government.

Article 2: Law;

The XXX Objective Republic recognizing the contradictory need for both order and the widest possible personal liberty does hereby limit the legislative purview of government in order that both can be ensured;

• Government shall make no legislation limiting trade.

• Government shall raise no taxes.

• Government may only legislate punitive law where it is demonstrably justified that the action, omission or inclusion of one individual, group, corporation or similar entity is likely to cause physical harm to another, or in such cases where it is demonstrably justifiable that an action omission or inclusion will detrimentally impact on the Rights of another.

• Government may develop and institute such law as required to resolve breach of contract or trust between individuals, corporations, groups or similar entities.

Article 3: Security;

The State has the ultimate responsibility to protect its citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic that seek to infringe on the Rights of one or all. To this end the government shall, in order to ensure freedom from such abuses;

• Raise, train and equip a volunteer standing army sufficiently equipped and trained to defend the Nation.

• Provide for police services to enforce the law of the land.

These forces may not initiate force against the population except;

• In such cases where the failure to do so would result in physical harm to themselves or another.

• Or in such cases where an action omission or inclusion by individuals, corporations, groups or similar entities will detrimentally impact on the Rights of others.

The XXX Armed Forces shall not initiate force or conquest on any sovereign state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article 3: Security;

The State has the ultimate responsibility to protect its citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic that seek to infringe on the Rights of one or all. To this end the government shall, in order to ensure freedom from such abuses;

• Raise, train and equip a volunteer standing army sufficiently equipped and trained to defend the Nation.

• Provide for police services to enforce the law of the land.

These forces may not initiate force against the population except;

• In such cases where the failure to do so would result in physical harm to themselves or another.

• Or in such cases where an action omission or inclusion by individuals, corporations, groups or similar entities will detrimentally impact on the Rights of others.

The XXX Armed Forces shall not initiate force or conquest on any sovereign state.

I'm not sure this part is totally right, which it might just be in the way I read it, but:

1. While having volunteers go into the army isn't bad, I think an Objectivist government would have a paid army. IE, people would volunteer money to pay for such an army.

2. I see no problem in a conquest against another nation that does not respect _basic_ rights. Granted, there is no moral duty for this to happen, but I see nothing immoral about doing it. Obviously, a nation shouldn't do this unless it has some reason that would help the nation as a whole, or prevent a moderately known future threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure this part is totally right, which it might just be in the way I read it, but:

1. While having volunteers go into the army isn't bad, I think an Objectivist government would have a paid army. IE, people would volunteer money to pay for such an army.

This infers that there is no conscription, not that the soldiers do it for free. We soldiers are a mercenary bunch after all! :P

2. I see no problem in a conquest against another nation that does not respect _basic_ rights. Granted, there is no moral duty for this to happen, but I see nothing immoral about doing it. Obviously, a nation shouldn't do this unless it has some reason that would help the nation as a whole, or prevent a moderately known future threat.

This is a dangerous idea. At what point do you draw the line? Is it okay to invade in cases of ethnic cleansing? Do you have the moral authority to invade a democratically socialist nation because its ideology is wrong? How do you justify the waste of blood and treasure to bring Objective thought to another country? Is it even possible to do so?

This is the same thinking the statists relly on today. The kind that says the invasion of Afghanistan is wrong because Afghanistan had a functioning government but somehow the invasion of the Sudan is right because that government is involved in genocide.

Needless to say I think you are wrong on this. The point at which a sovereign nation has the right to invade another is when that nation is directly under threat or is attacked. The governance of any other nation is no ones concern but the citizens of that nation. If they do not like their government it is their duty to do something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a dangerous idea. At what point do you draw the line? Is it okay to invade in cases of ethnic cleansing? Do you have the moral authority to invade a democratically socialist nation because its ideology is wrong? How do you justify the waste of blood and treasure to bring Objective thought to another country? Is it even possible to do so?

This is the same thinking the statists relly on today. The kind that says the invasion of Afghanistan is wrong because Afghanistan had a functioning government but somehow the invasion of the Sudan is right because that government is involved in genocide.

Needless to say I think you are wrong on this. The point at which a sovereign nation has the right to invade another is when that nation is directly under threat or is attacked. The governance of any other nation is no ones concern but the citizens of that nation. If they do not like their government it is their duty to do something about it.

No, I said to prevent a future threat or something that helps one's own nation as a whole.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I said to prevent a future threat or something that helps one's own nation as a whole.

What would define a "future threat"?

Someone could very well say that invading Saudi Arabia would "help" the US as a nation (all that oil) but that doesn't make it moral, right or even desireable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I said to prevent a future threat or something that helps one's own nation as a whole.

I think stating the idea the way you did is putting the cart before the horse. Isn't the essential guiding principle in foreign policy one of rational self interest, not arbitrary license to conquer?

I realize you qualified your statement, but maybe that wouldn't be required stated more clearly.

I will say I have the same problem with Zip's limitation. What constitutes "sovereign"? It is a term that is widely used even to defend the worst of tyrants. If one limits conscription, and taxation, it places the burden of utlimately enabling conquest on the individuals in a country and as such, I'm not sure one would see a large amount of abuse, but horvay is right.

Tyranny negates sovereignty, and if such countries are threats to the US, then we have a moral right (not duty) to invade.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think stating the idea the way you did is putting the cart before the horse. Isn't the essential guiding principle in foreign policy one of rational self interest, not arbitrary license to conquer?

I realize you qualified your statement, but maybe that wouldn't be required stated more clearly.

I will say I have the same problem with Zip's limitation. What constitutes "sovereign"? It is a term that is widely used even to defend the worst of tyrants. If one limits conscription, and taxation, it places the burden of utlimately enabling conquest on the individuals in a country and as such, I'm not sure one would see a large amount of abuse, but horvay is right.

Tyranny negates sovereignty, and if such countries are threats to the US, then we have a moral right (not duty) to invade.

To a rational being, the only appropriate use of force is in retaliation for the use of force. Those who initiate violence surrender the right to claim that no violence may be used against them.

Now hypothetically, lets say we establish a fully rational, self-defended nation (Lz-F Cap), which is bordered by irrational (State-ist) nations. As the Nation of Lasseiz-Faire grows, there will be those in other nations who see our success, grasp the reason for it, and wish to live in a rational society, but their controlling state disallows it. (Much like the USA and the USSR with its "iron" borders at the height of the cold war.)

Increasing the number of rational individuals in our free, rational nation is without doubt, of value to all of us. Any nation which keeps its citizens by force has lost the right of immunity from force. Therefore, in such a circumstance, a small scale invasion for the purpose of freeing such individuals would be a moral response. By small scale invasion, I refer to a kind of "Underground railroad" setup, by which those willing to "take the oath" (Atlas Shrugged) would be smuggled out by any means available.

Consider Rand's own example: The Rescue of John Galt. The entire valley was prepared to launch a full scale invasion to rescue Galt, had it been necessary.

For a while I was thinking that the Ethics of Emergencies applied here - but as I wrote this, I realized they do not. In such a scenario, violence by the Stateists would be the norm. The simple lack of respect for individual liberty, coupled with the value of growing our numbers with like minded individuals, gives the morality for that type of "invasion" of another nation.

I can think of no other moral grounds - the invasion for resources, for land, etc. would be putting material objects at greater value than life. The invasion to bring others to freedom is putting the value of the life of the like minded over the value of the life of those who initiate the use force against others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is an important kind of intellectual effort, because it helps to concretize why we end up with rights-violations and bad governments, despite best intentions. One attitude that some people have is that constitutional statements don't really matter that much and what matters is people's underlying philosophy -- you will have a rights-respecting society if and only if you have rational rights-respecting people. Yeah, maybe, but until we get to that utopia where everybody thinks exactly like me, we're gonna have to deal with disagreements. The rule of law then gives you statements that objectively describe how disagreements regarding force and rights are going to be resolved. As human knowledge expands, we will inevitably have to change the wording of laws, as we discover that a given statement does not correctly describe reality. For example, I don't think that the Welfare clause in the US constitution was composed to lay the foundation for a socialist dictatorship, I think it was just vague writing where they hadn't previously tried to say explicitly what they had in mind, and nobody tried to pervert the "original intent" by clever (mis)interpretation. With that in mind, I offer some nits which I believe need picking.

• Right of Liberty – The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
Ouch. You've introduced what will becomes know as the Harm clause, which will be used to justify all sorts of evil consumer protection legislation. The idea that government is supposed to protect citizens from the initiation of force widely gets shortened to the claim that government is supposed to protect citizens. Mention of "harm" does more harm than good (and would be therefore unconstitutional).
Government shall not initiate force against the individual except in order to protect the rights of others or the just laws of the nation.
Government shall not ever initiate force against an individual. It may use force in response to the initiation of force. The "or" clause is kind of scary. I think that means that if some person were to speak against a just law, that the government would have the right to imprison the person, in order to protect that law (so that people would not consider changing the law). Going for the conjectured "original intent", perhaps The Framers had in mind that the just laws of the nation are the objective statement of those rights. They might have been thinking not just that the government should protect the rights of the individual whatever they might be deemed to be from time to time, but that they are recognized in the just laws of the nation.
Government can not appropriate or in any manner deprive any man of his personal property except in such case where it has been justly seized by law.
One problem is that this limits property rights severely, so that business property is not afforded constitutional protect, whether it is the business property of one man, of a partnership, or of a corporation. Second, I'm now wondering what "just" does for us here. How do we determine what laws are "just". Under what circumstances would it ever be just to confiscate a man's property -- I don't need an exhaustive list, just a characterization via principle.
Said property once seized must be auctioned or sold in the open market to private citizens or corporations.
Wait, that is unjust. First, I assume that a public citizen is someone like Mariah Carey, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or George W. Bush, so you're saying that these people can't buy confiscated property. Also, there's a restriction on the purchaser of such property, that they have to be a citizen, and being a permanent resident or god forbid a foreigner would not be possible. And it can't be biught by a partnership, just a private citizen or corporation. Is there a reason to restrict to whom property can be sold?
The XXX Objective Republic recognizing the contradictory need for both order and the widest possible personal liberty does hereby limit the legislative purview of government in order that both can be ensured;
No no no no no. There are no contradictions. "Hierarchy" does not mean "contradiction", and you should not say in the foundational document that liberty and order contradict each other. "Order" in the context of law specifically refers to preventing the initiation of force, and "liberty" specifically refers to the freedom to act on ones own judgment, free from initiation of force. They are one and the same thing, and not contradictory.
Government shall make no legislation limiting trade.
Except that the government shall enforce business contracts and shall prohibit fraud. And furthermore, the government shall enforce contracts and prohibit fraud; the foundational document shall not suggest that the protection of rights is optional, at the whim of the enforcing agency. This clause addresses man's freedom to do business, but where is the clause that guarantees a man's right to freely give stuff away, or to otherwise dispose of his property as he sees fit? I suggest that this problem arises from the implicit assumption (which we've lived with for millenia) that the government has the right to dictate anything it wants, and therefore we need to say exactly what the government cannot do. A simple solution is to prohibit all government action, except as explicitly allowed. If you state that the government has the right (and obligation) to prevent or prosecute people for murder then you have something that the government can do. If you do not say that the government has the right to restrict interstate commerce or food labeling, then the government has no right to such actions. While there is some value in saying specifically what the government cannot do, if there is a contextual reaon for being explicit, a list of explicit particular prohibitions cannot supplant a general prohibition. So I urge you to include the Prohibition clause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point at which a sovereign nation has the right to invade another is when that nation is directly under threat or is attacked. The governance of any other nation is no ones concern but the citizens of that nation.

If a demagogue such as Robert Mugabe was pursuing nuclear weapons, this should be of concern to all free nations, even if he is currently not leading a chant of "death to <insert name of your nation here>". Especially nowadays when dictators and/or unscrupulous scientists with weapons of mass destruction are willing to sell them to just about anybody.

Overthrowing a dictator is always morally justified so long as you plan to make the nation he ruled over a truly freer place. However, there is a legitimate concern where citizens of a free nation may wish to donate money to their government's army only for wars of self-defense (which are morally necessary) and not for arbitrary dictator cleanup (which are morally proper but optional). Thus, a free nation, could have a self-defense fund and a dictator-elimination fund.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I can at least see a legitimate concern where citizens of a free nation may donate money to their government's army only to see those funds used to overthrow a third world dictator who does not pose a threat to one's nation in the near future. I imagine the solution is to just have a separate branch of the military for these moral, but non-imperative, military operations. Thus, a free nation, could have a self-defense fund and a dictator-elimination fund.

I think a less costly and more moral approach to such a situation would be the John Galt approach - remove the producers (if they freely agree, of course) upon whom the dictator depends from the dictator's control. (Limited invasion for the purpose of extracting the like minded.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a less costly and more moral approach to such a situation would be the John Galt approach - remove the producers (if they freely agree, of course) upon whom the dictator depends from the dictator's control. (Limited invasion for the purpose of extracting the like minded.)

This sounds like a question of strategy, when I was addressing the moral justification of one's government adopting such a strategy.

Nevertheless, since you brought it up, this option should be considered, but it might not always be the best option. There are a few heavily armed dictatorships who will probably not be docile if we remove their sources of funding. For example, Kim Jong Il's North Korea. How do you think he will react if South Korea, China and the U.N.-related agencies all decide to cut off aid going into his country? Sure, his country will eventually collapse, but he will have plenty of time to launch tactical nuclear strikes on South Korea, Japan and the like before his country crumbles.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, since you brought it up, this option should be considered, but it might not always be the best option.

Conceded.

There are a few heavily armed dictatorships who will probably not be docile if we remove their sources of funding. For example, Kim Jong Il's North Korea. How do you think he will react if South Korea, China and the U.N.-related agencies all decide to cut off aid going into his country?

Not nearly the same scenario I was advocating. Presuming, again, that we are in a fully rational society (which is likely only to exist by some form of bloodless revolution (or bloody only if we didn't shoot first)), such a society would never engage in SENDING aid to North Korea.

Overthrowing a dictator is always morally justified so long as you plan to make the nation he ruled over a truly freer place. However, there is a legitimate concern where citizens of a free nation may wish to donate money to their government's army only for wars of self-defense (which are morally necessary) and not for arbitrary dictator cleanup (which are morally proper but optional). Thus, a free nation, could have a self-defense fund and a dictator-elimination fund.

Revisiting this ...

How, exactly, do you propose to make a nation be freer?

This was one of the rationalizations used for invading Iraq the 2nd time around. It hasn't really worked, has it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Increasing the number of rational individuals in our free, rational nation is without doubt, of value to all of us. Any nation which keeps its citizens by force has lost the right of immunity from force. Therefore, in such a circumstance, a small scale invasion for the purpose of freeing such individuals would be a moral response. By small scale invasion, I refer to a kind of "Underground railroad" setup, by which those willing to "take the oath" (Atlas Shrugged) would be smuggled out by any means available.

I think the statement in bold is a very weak statement of national interest. Removing the threat that a dictatorship poses is very much of value to me. Whether or not there is another rational producer here is of little consequence to me.

I have no problem if someone wants to to do this sort of activity (which is not really an invasion as much as it is a rescue) privately, and I'd certianly donate toward the efforts, but I'd be a bit concerned whether this is something that would be justified by a government on the basis of national defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyranny negates sovereignty, and if such countries are threats to the US, then we have a moral right (not duty) to invade.

Legaly in the political world as it is you are incorrect. The measure of a nations tyranny or justice does not define their claim to sovereignty. The concept pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit.

The will of another nation to deny that claim and invade is based on political decisions which include the ability of it to do so and it's self interest. No matter what a despot Mugabbe is Botswanna can not rationally and would not practically invade Zimbabwe. Their "moral right" to do so is irrelavant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legaly in the political world as it is you are incorrect.

I would agree with you, and that is the problem I have with the term. Dictators are awfully good at controlling their own boundaries and those within it. I think the default position ought not to be sovreignty, but rather established relations with said. That makes it our option to evaluate before we enter in. The default position for any would be dictator then, given no established relations is that his position is potentially under threat of invasion at any time.

But also, the phrase "legally in the political world" is curious. Whose laws exactly? Legality among nations is by treaty only. THere is no body of international law as I understand it, and the accountability of any such claims is suspect.

"By convention" maybe. "Legally"? hmmm.

I'm not denying there is a precedent. I think it's time it was changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a rational being, the only appropriate use of force is in retaliation for the use of force. Those who initiate violence surrender the right to claim that no violence may be used against them.

Now hypothetically, lets say we establish a fully rational, self-defended nation (Lz-F Cap), which is bordered by irrational (State-ist) nations. As the Nation of Lasseiz-Faire grows, there will be those in other nations who see our success, grasp the reason for it, and wish to live in a rational society, but their controlling state disallows it. (Much like the USA and the USSR with its "iron" borders at the height of the cold war.)

So far so good, but it would be the responsibility of the individual who is being coerced to defend himself (escape) from that coersion.

Increasing the number of rational individuals in our free, rational nation is without doubt, of value to all of us. Any nation which keeps its citizens by force has lost the right of immunity from force. Therefore, in such a circumstance, a small scale invasion for the purpose of freeing such individuals would be a moral response. By small scale invasion, I refer to a kind of "Underground railroad" setup, by which those willing to "take the oath" (Atlas Shrugged) would be smuggled out by any means available.

I could agree that individuals (as was the case in the Underground Railroad) could try to free these oppressed peoples but the state has no business squandering the donations of the citizenry in such an undertaking unless it had the explicit permission of the majority.

Consider Rand's own example: The Rescue of John Galt. The entire valley was prepared to launch a full scale invasion to rescue Galt, had it been necessary.
Individuals acting on their own for another individual. This would be a good analogy for the assistance of an ally by another nation however.

For a while I was thinking that the Ethics of Emergencies applied here - but as I wrote this, I realized they do not. In such a scenario, violence by the Stateists would be the norm. The simple lack of respect for individual liberty, coupled with the value of growing our numbers with like minded individuals, gives the morality for that type of "invasion" of another nation.

I can think of no other moral grounds - the invasion for resources, for land, etc. would be putting material objects at greater value than life. The invasion to bring others to freedom is putting the value of the life of the like minded over the value of the life of those who initiate the use force against others.

So many black and white mentalities... There are plenty of Statist nations that do not perpetrate true violence on their citizens. Almost every person in this forum lives in one. Would you consider the invasion of the USA in its current satist form an imperitive of an Objective Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the statement in bold is a very weak statement of national interest. Removing the threat that a dictatorship poses is very much of value to me. Whether or not there is another rational producer here is of little consequence to me.

You are right - National interest - or the public good - is a byproduct of capitalism, not a cause of or reason for it. I was wrong to suggest otherwise.

But removing the producers from the dictator's control would weaken the dictator, and as long as the producers came of their own free will, perhaps that is really the only *moral* action available.

Consider that, barring any direct, clear (as opposed to infurred) threat of force against us, I'm not sure that any action against a dictator initiated by the non-threatened is morally valid. Must ponder....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not nearly the same scenario I was advocating. Presuming, again, that we are in a fully rational society (which is likely only to exist by some form of bloodless revolution (or bloody only if we didn't shoot first)), such a society would never engage in SENDING aid to North Korea.

Right. I was operating in the unstated context that we are discussing what should a generally good nation do given the contradictions, complexities and imbroglios that exist in the contemporary geo-political environment. Obviously, foreign policy in a global world that is largely rational would be substantially different from what it should be today.

How, exactly, do you propose to make a nation be freer?

Using Objectivist principles. I can elaborate on this more later. Please understand that I cannot do so at the moment.

This was one of the rationalizations used for invading Iraq the 2nd time around. It hasn't really worked, has it?

Bringing my concept of freedom to Iraq was never a cited motivation. Irving Kristol, George W. Bush, Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, Murray Rothbard, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke all were for making their country a "free" place, yet they all have substantially different ideas as to what freedom entails. Freedom is just a word. What is important is the underlying concept that it denotes, if its user even bothers to connect it to reality. I am for overthrowing a dictator if one truly and properly plans to make that nation a freer country, using an Objectivist concept of freedom.

Anyway, there is a substantial amout of literature on why the Neoconservative plan for Iraq was doomed to failure from day one in both The Objective Standard and in Ayn Rand Institute op-eds. If you are interested, I recommend looking at Onkar Ghate's analysis of the Iraqi Constitution and the Objective Standard articles on both Bush's Forward Strategy of Freedom and on Neoconservative Foreign Policy.

Again, I apologize for replying while I am in a hurry.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using Objectivist principles. I can elaborate on this more later. Please understand that I cannot do so at the moment.

I understand posting in a hurry, but if you have time, consider:

My point is that under objectivist principles, YOU can not make a nation freer. It is up to that nation to free itself.

Your choice of words may simply be insufficient to your meaning - to me it sounds as if you're advocating freedom at the point of a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As human knowledge expands, we will inevitably have to change the wording of laws, as we discover that a given statement does not correctly describe reality.

I agree 100%. And I’ll try to bear in mind your belief in that statement as I continue responding to your picked nits :)

Ouch. You've introduced what will becomes know as the Harm clause, which will be used to justify all sorts of evil consumer protection legislation. The idea that government is supposed to protect citizens from the initiation of force widely gets shortened to the claim that government is supposed to protect citizens. Mention of "harm" does more harm than good (and would be therefore unconstitutional).

You have misinterpreted what I wrote. It does not say that Government is supposed to protect citizens from harm but that the government can only use it’s monopoly on the use of force to prevent one person from harming another or depriving another of his rights.

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.”

This most definitely places the onus on government to NOT interfere with the individual so long as he does not cause harm.

Government shall not ever initiate force against an individual. It may use force in response to the initiation of force.

I’m unsure as to what this exercise in syntax is supposed to accomplish.

If a government justly applies force against a person who was holding another hostage then it is both initiating and using force.

The "or" clause is kind of scary. I think that means that if some person were to speak against a just law, that the government would have the right to imprison the person, in order to protect that law (so that people would not consider changing the law).

No, because that use of force would defy the harm principal

Going for the conjectured "original intent", perhaps The Framers had in mind that the just laws of the nation are the objective statement of those rights. They might have been thinking not just that the government should protect the rights of the individual whatever they might be deemed to be from time to time, but that they are recognized in the just laws of the nation.

Constitutions are (in most democratic governments) the highest law of the land and the intent is that these articles are the backbone limiting the possible abuse of the governments monopoly of the use of force. The US constitution is a great document but there is nothing which has prevented what I call government creep.

One problem is that this limits property rights severely, so that business property is not afforded constitutional protect, whether it is the business property of one man, of a partnership, or of a corporation.

I’m not a lawyer, but to me business property (all and any property for that matter) is owned by those that own the business or whatever and is therefore owned by men.

Second, I'm now wondering what "just" does for us here. How do we determine what laws are "just".

As defined by the limits placed on the government under the harm principal and the legislative limits regarding law

Under what circumstances would it ever be just to confiscate a man's property -- I don't need an exhaustive list, just a characterization via principle.

If a man commits vehicular manslaughter it might be prudent to confiscate his vehicle. If he can not pay his debts his property might be confiscated and sold.

Wait, that is unjust. First, I assume that a public citizen is someone like Mariah Carey, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or George W. Bush, so you're saying that these people can't buy confiscated property. Also, there's a restriction on the purchaser of such property, that they have to be a citizen, and being a permanent resident or god forbid a foreigner would not be possible. And it can't be biught by a partnership, just a private citizen or corporation. Is there a reason to restrict to whom property can be sold?

Again I’m not a Lawyer. I admit, the language is imperfect as you have described it,

No no no no no. There are no contradictions. "Hierarchy" does not mean "contradiction", and you should not say in the foundational document that liberty and order contradict each other. "Order" in the context of law specifically refers to preventing the initiation of force, and "liberty" specifically refers to the freedom to act on ones own judgment, free from initiation of force. They are one and the same thing, and not contradictory.

This is a historical construct (in the game) the Objective Republic is supposed to have been born out of a Social Anarchy movement and an Oligarchy before that. It is also the only Objective nation and therefore the only other examples are Statist, Oligarchies or Theologies. I’m also trying to couch this in ideas that are familiar to the other players so that I don’t spend all my time “playing” explaining concepts and theories. I am doing that but more subtly, through storylines.

Except that the government shall enforce business contracts and shall prohibit fraud. And furthermore, the government shall enforce contracts and prohibit fraud; the foundational document shall not suggest that the protection of rights is optional, at the whim of the enforcing agency.

That is trade in the limited national and international exchange of goods and services.

This clause addresses man's freedom to do business, but where is the clause that guarantees a man's right to freely give stuff away, or to otherwise dispose of his property as he sees fit?

Check under Liberty, he is free to do whatever he wishes as long as he causes no harm or violates another’s rights.

I suggest that this problem arises from the implicit assumption (which we've lived with for millenia) that the government has the right to dictate anything it wants, and therefore we need to say exactly what the government cannot do.

I specifically made this simple and kept (or so I thought) to a very few broad yet constrictive principals precisely so that government would be limited.

A simple solution is to prohibit all government action, except as explicitly allowed. If you state that the government has the right (and obligation) to prevent or prosecute people for murder then you have something that the government can do. If you do not say that the government has the right to restrict interstate commerce or food labeling, then the government has no right to such actions. While there is some value in saying specifically what the government cannot do, if there is a contextual reaon for being explicit, a list of explicit particular prohibitions cannot supplant a general prohibition. So I urge you to include the Prohibition clause.

I like the idea of a prohibition clause. I’ll have to work that in somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that under [O]bjectivist principles, YOU can not make a nation freer. It is up to that nation to free itself. ... t sounds as if you're advocating freedom at the point of a gun.

It is a fact that you cannot force an individual to think.

However, how does a nation become freer? Typically this is done through legislative enactment, a decree or a revolution. Regardless, it must be executed by one or more individuals. If a collection of individuals can domestically forge a freer nation or improve the level of freedom in an existing nation, why cannot they do so abroad? Post WWII Japan was made substantially freer by the Allied forces.

Granted, an established, free nation will fail if there are not a sufficient number of individuals ideologically committed to keeping it free. But, since we are discussing assisting in the overthrow of a despotic government when it is not a moral imperative, why get involved in nation building if there are no individuals in the nation who are committed to freedom?

Your implicit question is, "can we advocate freedom at the point of a gun?" It depends what you mean, here.

Yes, we can force tyrants to relinquish power at the point of a gun and hand it over to those who truly wish to uphold freedom. I advocate this as just under certain contexts.

Yes, we can break the spirit of adherents of an evil ideology using military force, in hope that we can then persuade those who remain to subsequently embrace a pro-life philosophy. I advocate this as just under certain contexts.

No, we cannot force an individual to truly accept a pro-life philosophy at the point of a gun. Although, of course, we can force those who are truly anti-life to comply with a pro-life philosophy using force. This too, is proper, under certain contexts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could agree that individuals (as was the case in the Underground Railroad) could try to free these oppressed peoples but the state has no business squandering the donations of the citizenry in such an undertaking unless it had the explicit permission of the majority.

A majority is beside the point. If a single backer or group of backers were willing to fund the government doing such no majority would be needed. Besides, they would have no right to spend the money I donated for the defence of my nation and not for rescuing those of another nation just because a majority said it was okay to do so.

And in fact I agree with the person that earlier stated that such efforts should be private not government based.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not say that Government is supposed to protect citizens from harm but that the government can only use it’s monopoly on the use of force to prevent one person from harming another or depriving another of his rights.

Then you need to reword it as such, because as it is politicians could eventually use it as a wedge to do just as David said and just as he said will call it the "Harm Clause".

If a government justly applies force against a person who was holding another hostage then it is both initiating and using force.

No, it is retaliating with force. The distinction is large. Iniating the use of force means one is the first to use force, retaliating with force means you are responding to force with force. The latter is what the government should do, the former is something the government should not do

No, because that use of force would defy the harm principal

Well, as it is worded politicians could use it to mean just what David said and as an excuse to make such legal and claim it is "constitutional". As such you need to reword it or remove it.

Constitutions are (in most democratic governments) the highest law of the land and the intent is that these articles are the backbone limiting the possible abuse of the governments monopoly of the use of force. The US constitution is a great document but there is nothing which has prevented what I call government creep.

And as both me and David have illustrated both m,e and David have showed how yours does as well - and I am not done yet.

I’m not a lawyer, but to me business property (all and any property for that matter) is owned by those that own the business or whatever and is therefore owned by men.

Actually, strictly speaking the owners of partnerships and corporations do not directly own the property of such businesses. The business owns the property and the partners of a partnerships/shareholders of a corporation own the business. That is indirect ownership of the property of the business - and only partial at that since each individual only owns a portion of the business. Your constitution needs to account for the direct and full owner. In other words it needs to account for property owned by multiple people not just one person, as well as accounting for the direct owner. Your wording doesn't do that.

As defined by the limits placed on the government under the harm principal and the legislative limits regarding law

You are going to have to do better than that, especially since those are flawed themselves. I don't think that section should rely on others at all, let alone flawed ones. It should be self-contained, ie, have the definition in it. However, I think it'd be better yet to remove the section.

If a man commits vehicular manslaughter it might be prudent to confiscate his vehicle. If he can not pay his debts his property might be confiscated and sold.

In other words, if he initiates force. That needs to be stated in your constitution so that people know that. As it stands they have to guess. That is a problem.

Again I’m not a Lawyer. I admit, the language is imperfect as you have described it,

Then fix it so such problems don't exist.

Also, stop using that "I am not a lawyer" excuse. it is a red herring and does not excuse bad wording. I am no lawyer yet I am able to spot mistakes and advise you on how to fix them.

This is a historical construct (in the game) the Objective Republic is supposed to have been born out of a Social Anarchy movement and an Oligarchy before that. It is also the only Objective nation and therefore the only other examples are Statist, Oligarchies or Theologies. I’m also trying to couch this in ideas that are familiar to the other players so that I don’t spend all my time “playing” explaining concepts and theories. I am doing that but more subtly, through storylines.

That is a very poor excuse to poorly word your constitution. As David said there are no contradictions, they are the same thing, and as such the constitution should not state that there is a contradiction. Find some other way to avoid explanations. Besides, as me and David have showed, you have failed at that goal since much of your constitution needs clarifications and explanations.

That is trade in the limited national and international exchange of goods and services.

What has that got to do with David's statement that the government should limit businesses to adhering to contracts and not comitting fraud?

I specifically made this simple and kept (or so I thought) to a very few broad yet constrictive principals precisely so that government would be limited.

You failed. Instead of being simple, it needs clarifications and explanations. It also has many flaws.

Oh, and DavidOdden, thanks for putting to words what I was unable to put into words when I read his constitution. Most, though not all, of what you said, was what I saw wrong in his constitution, but was unable to put to words and didn't have the time to think over.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have misinterpreted what I wrote. It does not say that Government is supposed to protect citizens from harm but that the government can only use it’s monopoly on the use of force to prevent one person from harming another or depriving another of his rights.
Since I might be harmed by someone raising prices beyond what I can afford, especially life-saving drugs, then the government may use its power to prevent Pfizer from harming me, by raising prices excessively. I deliberately went beyond your probable intention, and stayed withing the boudaries set by your words. I'm sure you didn't have that in mind, I'm equally sure that you didn't prevent that interpretation.
I’m unsure as to what this exercise in syntax is supposed to accomplish.

If a government justly applies force against a person who was holding another hostage then it is both initiating and using force.

This is a basic conceptual error. The hostage-taker is the one who initiated force. The government, in this case, uses its right to retaliate by force. This is a really important and fundamental distinction. The initiation of force is always wrong. The use of defensive and retaliatory force can be right.
No, because that use of force would defy the harm principal
In which case, there is no need to "protect the laws". You may want to enforce law, which I won't quibble over, but protecting a law has no role in a free society.
I’m not a lawyer, but to me business property (all and any property for that matter) is owned by those that own the business or whatever and is therefore owned by men.
So the solution is to remove the restriction. There is no reason whatsoever to imply that only personal property is subject to protection from seizure. All property should be protected from seizure; and by removing that restriction, you don't have to add in a codicile that says "BTW to him, business property is also personal property, even though that isn't how the concept 'personal property' is generally understood". Remember, this is not just a declaration of personal philosophy, this is supposed to be an objectively interpretable set of principles that define the notion "government" in this republic. Any restrictions that you put on man's rights is tantamount to a denial that there is such a right. Property, period.
As defined by the limits placed on the government under the harm principal and the legislative limits regarding law
The latter basically says "whatever the legislature says is thereby 'just'. If you put in a clause that says that "just laws" are only those that prevent harm. However, many forms of "harm" should actually be allowed in a free society. The important form of harm that should not be allowed is the violation of another person's rights by the initiation of force. I don't see any clause that spells that out.

I'm urging you to try to state the principles in terms the fundamental generalization that Rand made in "The Nature of Government", namely (p. 128) "A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted." The nature of what is permitted to the government derives from this observation about the nature of government:

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government —its basic task, is only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government. A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

It is important that laws be stated objectively, without hidden assumptions and without unintended restrictions. The reason is, 100 years later, people can't ask you "what did you mean by that?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...