Facta, Non Verba

[Seeker]

This is a change of context. The original topic had to do with going somewhere and founding a new and specifically Objectivist nation. I think there is absolutely no point in even considering such an action unless there is a very well-developed blueprint for what such a government and nation would look like. That goes way beyond generalities like 'eliminating government programs' and 'getting the government out of people's way'. That isn't a political program, it's a pair of libertarian bromides.

I stand by my view that, as far as the original stated goal of establishing a new Objectivist nation is concerned, the "time for action" is most emphatically not now.

Actually, we were encouraged to "think outside the box", which in this context includes considering working within the present system to achieve the desired outcome gradually. Stepwise improvement is a means by which to one day implement a proper government. It enables us to get started making concrete improvements that we know to be correct, while giving time for "a lot of abstract thinking and research that needs to be done in the political science and philosophy of law spaces" so that the best possible government can one day be realized. To reiterate, therefore, and in specific reference to the original topic: the time for action is now.

[Seeker]

I like this idea too, but I do not hold out much hope for it, especially in my country.

Nearly all real power in the Canadian Parliamentary system is concentrated in the Prime Ministers Office. Individual Members of the parties are little more than parrots and are completely 'whipped' in the House of Commons. Independents are very, very rarely elected and then only in response to a single issue and when they are they are a single lone vote in a parliament of 308 MP's and a Senate of 105.

As I am rather unfamiliar with the Canadian system, a question I have is how is leadership exercised? In the American separation of powers, the structure of the executive (vested in a single person elected with a separate mandate from the legislature) is one such mechanism, which is typically duplicated at the state and local levels - this is a practical means for exercising leadership through the "bully pulpit". In Westminster systems, that structural advantage is nominally held by the monarch, but is not exercised by her in reality, instead belonging to the prime minister who is chosen by the majority party in the Commons (and I gather that this is where the practical problems come in as you say). I am interested in exploring how radical leadership could work in such a system, but perhaps this is getting slightly off-topic for this discussion. At a minimum though I would encourage more thinking and research to consider whether and how that particular disadvantage might be overcome.

[Zip]

As I am rather unfamiliar with the Canadian system, a question I have is how is leadership exercised? In the American separation of powers, the structure of the executive (vested in a single person elected with a separate mandate from the legislature) is one such mechanism, which is typically duplicated at the state and local levels - this is a practical means for exercising leadership through the "bully pulpit". In Westminster systems, that structural advantage is nominally held by the monarch, but is not exercised by her in reality, instead belonging to the prime minister who is chosen by the majority party in the Commons (and I gather that this is where the practical problems come in as you say). I am interested in exploring how radical leadership could work in such a system, but perhaps this is getting slightly off-topic for this discussion. At a minimum though I would encourage more thinking and research to consider whether and how that particular disadvantage might be overcome.

The easy answer is that it does not lend itself to anything radical. In order to have any real power in the House of Commons one must be a member of the ruling party. All the rest is pretty much window dressing.

Overcoming that construct would mean remaking the constitution, which would according to our amending formula require the consent of parliament, 7/10ths of the provinces and the Senate.

[Zip]

No, I believe that the first Objectivist state will be founded in space or under-water.

http://www.islandone.org/

Too bad it's full of Libertarians

[Rounin]

Wouldn't the simplest first step be to have as many objectivists as possible move to a small, immigration-friendly and freedom-loving nation, akin to what the Free State Project is doing in New Hampshire? The idea of founding a new nation is certainly exciting, but in actual fact there may already be one or more nations out there that would be relatively open to Objectivism already.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Rounin

[JMeganSnow]

Assuming that mere numbers is all that's important is a form of social metaphysics. Plus, I have neither money nor desire to move out of the U.S. I like it here. I'd like it MORE if things changed for the better, and there's a definite threshold of abuse that would cause me to move out, but otherwise I'm staying put.