Objectivist Legislature

[Peripeteia]

From the Objectivist point of view, what form of legislature (assuming that you, as I do, believe in a republican form of government) is best?

A parliament or a congress? Does it reach descisions by majority vote or unanimity? Unicameral, bicameral, or even tricameral? How many members, how are they elected, and what are their powers?

[John McVey]

Check for previous threads on the topics by using the search function or just going back over the contents of the political philosophy and law subforums.

Some examples here, here, here, and here. This is my handiwork, drawn from the US and Australian Constitutions plus my own thinking.

JJM

[Zip]

From the Objectivist point of view, what form of legislature (assuming that you, as I do, believe in a republican form of government) is best?

A parliament or a congress? Does it reach descisions by majority vote or unanimity? Unicameral, bicameral, or even tricameral? How many members, how are they elected, and what are their powers?

I'm a little confused here.

In your first sentence you state "assuming that you, as I do, believe in a republican form of government" then you go on to ask which we prefer a Congress or a Parliament. Bearing your assumption in mind then you are just considering what you think we should name the legislature. A Parliament and a Congress perform the same function (legislative) albeit the division of responsibilities and selection of members is different nation to nation and form to form.

Had you asked which is preferred a republican or Westminister system then there could be some debate. Though I dare say the sheer number of 'murricans here would trample the few Westminister hold-outs into a pulp. (I for one would go down fighting if for no other reason than to ensure a debate of the issue)

As far as decisions go, I am unaware of any sizable legislature (except those of single party thugocracies) that ever make decisions through unanimity. So I'd say majority rules, though the quality of that majority could be debated... Why pass something on a simple 50%+1 majority, perhaps a 60% majority would be better? I don't know.

Unicameral, Bicameral or Trilateral? Well I for one believe that if the idea is to limit government then it should follow the simplest form. I'd opt for a unicameral legislature and a unitary state. I don't see a reason for there to be two houses of elected legislators (in the republican form) or one of elected and one of appointed (in the Westminister model).

A properly constrained government could only ever control matters dealing with the Police, military and courts and should only ever legislate objective law (something which I would imagine would have to undergo a judicial review to ensure that it complies with the constitution). Really there would be precious little for the Legislature to do.

There would be no more of these endless debates about what company is going to receive what hand out, what legislation to pass so that the left-handed guacamole makers union (Local 235) is protected from the eeeeeeeeeeeevil businessman... No deciding on tariffs, sanctions or free trade deals. No deciding where or how or when to build that new road or bridge. No medicare, medicaid, old age pension schemes, monetary policy... you get my point. The list goes on and on.

I hold that the reason that separation of powers at the legislative level is necessary is that government was given too much power in the first place. Take away the ability to legislate on practically every aspect of a mans life and you have no need to divide up the little valid exercise of state power that is left.

The number of members is impossible to even guess at but I would like to see as closely as possible a 1:1 ratio where every persons vote is equal to every other persons vote. Today in Canada (I'm unsure the US has this problem) we have a wide disparity between the size of constituencies. The rural voter has more clout in electing a Member of Parliament than an urban one.

For example;

The Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing constituency has a population of 77,961 and elects 1 MP whereas the constituency of Brampton-West has a population of 170,422 and still elects only one MP, making every 1 vote in Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing more than twice as valuable than one from Brampton-West.

Now this inconsistency might have been unavoidable at one point but with modern technology it ought to be possible to assign a specific number of voters to each Member of Parliament and issue a list at the beginning of each election to tell the voter.

Election... Direct vote

Powers... as defined by the constitution.

[Greebo]

I personally still find some of the political ideas raised in "Starship Troopers" (the book, NOT the abysmal movie) to be intriguing. That society adopted the premise that only those who had demonstrated willingness to put their own lives on the line to protect their way of life were worthy of having a say in how society would operate. Thus, only those who had volunteered to serve in the military got a vote in matters of law. Aside from that, there was no distinction between citizens and civilians, and any civilian could join, regardless of ability to serve, and earn their vote.

I often casually contemplate whether that concept could compatibly be combined with objectivist principles.

[Jackethan]

Greebo, the idea sounds to me like a form of the draft. Further, the government should have no say in how society would operate. One does not need to have been in a life threatening situation in order to understand the origin and meaning of individual rights.

I'm actually wondering why a government would need a legislature at all, wouldn't most administrative caries be handled at a local level?

[Peripeteia]

Zip- when I said "republican form of government", I meant any type of represenative government, whether it be the United States Congress, the Canadian Parliament, or the Senate of Ancient Rome, but I would be interested in hearing what you think it should be called.

Although a small, unicameral legislature in a unitary state may be less beuracratic, wouldn't that also mean that government could be courrupted much more easily? With a bicameral legislature, if one body is courrupted, the other may not be. In the United States Congress, in the House of Represenatives, seats are given (very) roughly proportionately to each state based on its population, whereas the Senate gives each state an equal voice with two seats. In essence, in the United States, we need a majority of majorities to govern. (The United States President is actually elected indirectly, by an Electoral College, awarded to whomever wins a plurality of a state's votes, allowing for situations where winning the popular vote does not always equal victory).

And yes, here in the United States, we also have uneven vote ratios. For example, the states of Montana, population 970,000, and Wyoming, population 494,000 are each given given one seat in the House of Represenatives, making a Wyoming vote nearly twice as valuable as a Montana vote.

I'm confused by what you mean pertaining to roads, medicine, and monetary policy, but I suppose that is better left for another debate, time, or topic.

Also, since your name is Zip, do you use Miracle Whip? Just wondering.

John McVey- Wow. Do you regularly think of governments (as I do often) or did you form it as a response to a question? You've put in a lot of effort.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Peripeteia

[rtaylortitle]

A representative government is meaningless, as in this country, unless all political parties are allowed to enter and be heard. The news media today is almost totally controlled by interests that are detrimental to objective journalism, and the system (state by state) does not lend itself to other parties other, primarily, than the Repubs and Demos. The individual states need to loosen the ties that bind this process. Whether a group calling itself the Capitalist Party, the Constitution Party, the Socialist Party, the Green Party....whatever, they should all be allowed a voice. Maybe some independent syndicate will arise some day to allow such coverage to be presented and debated.

Admittedly, there may turn out to be too many groups or parties to share the platform, so some objective standards would have to apply. Possibly a small percentage or registered voters that sign up with that group or party. But, the standards would have to be rational and fair to all concerned.

Also, I don't believe in "winner take all". I believe a proportional system based on the number of votes each group garnered should be installed. I think in the long run such a proportional system would be the most fair to all concerned. Again, reason would dictate that some mathematical "rounding off" of votes would be needed to install the proper candidates to office. But, it can and should be done.

[John McVey]

John McVey- Wow. Do you regularly think of governments (as I do often) or did you form it as a response to a question? You've put in a lot of effort.

I did that up 10 years ago, and haven't updated it in 3.

Anyway, it is nonsensical to try to figure out the form of government without basing it on the nature of the relationship between individuals and the members of that government. That includes integrating the nature of rights, individuals' qualifications for franchise etc with the form of government, nature of oversight required, and the details of that government's operation. I'll give you one example for now - that the government gets its authority from the consent of the governed, and exists to serve the governed:

I advocate the Congressional system rather than Parliamentary, if by that you mean how the Cabinet is formed. The Congressional method has a strict separation of executive offices (HoS + Cabinet) from legislative offices, while the Parliamentary method has the HoS+Cabinet drawn from the legislature. I advocate the former because it upholds the doctrine of the separation of powers, which doctrine is a critical element in the system of checks and balances.

One of the purposes of the legislative body is to provide some oversight on the executive. The concrete means of this in relation to people is that each individual member of the legislature is a representative of the electorate he or she came from. It is the function of that member to bring executive officers to account in response to possible improper action by those officers against the said individual constuents. This is the basis for the legislative body's authority to haul executive officers into their chambers for a what-for session. A Parliamentary system compromises that role in a variety of ways:

- it puts the actual cabinet members in a conflict-of-duties situation, that their legislative role is in conflict with their executive role.

- the lack of a separate Executive necessarily leads to a Party-based system in order for there to be stability in executive roles

- the two combined above leads to almost all legislative members to treat concern for their constituents as vehicles for political promotion (ie toeing the party line in order to get front-bench positions or even just their questions being asked in the chamber), further compromising the checks-and-balances system

All this eventually ends up leading to a breach between individual people and their government, that instead of government being for, by, and of the people, government becomes something for, done to and in the name of the people. That leads to an increasing attitude of servant and master with the government as the master prattling on about noblesse oblige. It is no accident that Parliamentary systems are those with a prior history of aristocratic and monarchial rule. At the end of the day, the Parliamentary method opens the door for the erosion of the rights of man, past historical developments notwithstanding. The method wont do it alone (what the constituents themselves will allow plays a critical role), but it makes it much easier to fall into decay.

That being said, I am sure someone with a better grasp of the Philosophy of Law could put this better than I.

JJM

[John McVey]

I often casually contemplate whether that concept could compatibly be combined with objectivist principles.

I think Heinlein had his priorities reversed in the concrete application of a reasonable principle. The reasonable principle is that the franchise should be earned in some fashion rather than doled out like an 18th birthday gift. In contrast to Heinlein I think that prior earning the franchise should be a prerequisite of being anything higher than a PFC (or equivalents thereof in the other services), and that military service shouldn't count towards earning the franchise. The entitlement to vote should be predicated on demonstrated understanding and acceptance of individual rights, not the willingness to shed blood or to conform to a system that expects public-service as payment for getting the ear of one's government.

JJM

[Zip]

I think Heinlein had his priorities reversed in the concrete application of a reasonable principle. The reasonable principle is that the franchise should be earned in some fashion rather than doled out like an 18th birthday gift. In contrast to Heinlein I think that prior earning the franchise should be a prerequisite of being anything higher than a PFC (or equivalents thereof in the other services), and that military service shouldn't count towards earning the franchise. The entitlement to vote should be predicated on demonstrated understanding and acceptance of individual rights, not the willingness to shed blood or to conform to a system that expects public-service as payment for getting the ear of one's government.

JJM

I'm on board with John on this. I've met troops I wish were never allowed to copulate much less vote.

[Juxtys]

If we want a government in it's most simple form, it should be a contract-based society. A government controls the territory and in order for people to live in that territory, own property or do business, people have to agree to a set of rules that seldom change, by signing a contract with the state. If a person violates that contract, he is taken to a court and the officers look that the person pays for his crimes. This way, the only time when you need to have a parliament is a wartime and any contract changes if neccessary. This would reduce governing costs.

[DavidOdden]

If we want a government in it's most simple form, it should be a contract-based society. A government controls the territory and in order for people to live in that territory, own property or do business, people have to agree to a set of rules that seldom change, by signing a contract with the state.

Then it isn't a contract. With a contract, you have the free choice not to enter into the agreement.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Whatever specific form it takes, a legislature would have a lot of work to do the first couple of years, and very little work thereafter.

If the legislature has a "legacy" legal code (e.g., imagine an existing country having an "Objectivist revolution" at the polls) it will have to spend a lot of time repealing bad laws, and possibly adjusting disproportionate sentences in the criminal law. Once it has done all that, its job would be allocating money (if that is its duty), confirming appointees (if that is its duty), the hopefully very infrequent war declaration, etc. A proper legal code shouldn't need to be tinkered with much once in place. (I could even imagine there being two legislative bodies, even if they have overlapping memebership, one to take care of such housekeeping, the other to pass laws as we understand them, and the meeting of the latter would be an extraordinary event.) SImilarly if it's a legislature forming in a new territory with no legal structure in place, it has work cut out for it; a criminal code would have to be created. (Ideally, someone will have devised one beforehand as a theoretical exercise and the legislature can simply adopt it. In this case it would be tempting to simply enshrine it in the constitution but I would hesitate to do this just in case the theoretical exercise later turns out to have been flawed.)

[Greebo]

I'm on board with John on this. I've met troops I wish were never allowed to copulate much less vote.

Yes but your personal preference isn't a rational basis for denying them the opportunity for either.

[Greebo]

I think Heinlein had his priorities reversed in the concrete application of a reasonable principle. The reasonable principle is that the franchise should be earned in some fashion rather than doled out like an 18th birthday gift. In contrast to Heinlein I think that prior earning the franchise should be a prerequisite of being anything higher than a PFC (or equivalents thereof in the other services), and that military service shouldn't count towards earning the franchise. The entitlement to vote should be predicated on demonstrated understanding and acceptance of individual rights, not the willingness to shed blood or to conform to a system that expects public-service as payment for getting the ear of one's government.

JJM

I do see your point, and I think certain restrictions would have to apply. For example, a successful term would have to be completed - discharge for other than honorable reasons would be reason to deny the discharged full citizenship.

I would further expect in such a system that, as part of the military training, a full explanation of how the system of government was intended to work would be covered.

But the willingness to shed blood - that's not the idea. Like myself, quite a large portion of the military or former military did their service without ever seeing combat, and very few military men in my experience join hoping for the chance to kill someone.

I think a lot would have to change for such a system to work - service would guarantee one thing and one thing only - a vote. It wouldn't guarantee an education, or health care after service was finished, etc.

As for requiring *acceptance* of individual rights as primary in order to grant a vote - that strikes me as self contradictory. If one is going to recognize individual liberty as sacrosanct, then one cannot *require* the individuals who have the authority to have a say in how government runs to accept that. That constitutes violation of their freedom of thought and speech, after all.

I think such a "you must prove yourself willing to defend your beliefs to the death to have a say in how the country will run" system would have to ensure that even those without the vote had a voice- had the right to express their beliefs all they liked, as well. Denying those with no vote a chance to voice their opinions to those with a vote would be denying those of different beliefs their freedom of expression.

I particularly think that those who want to run the government should be required to prove themselves willing to die for the country before they ever get a chance to be in a position to force others to go die for them (aka instituting a draft).

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I do see your point, and I think certain restrictions would have to apply. For example, a successful term would have to be completed - discharge for other than honorable reasons would be reason to deny the discharged full citizenship.

Heinlein explicitly states that the term must be completed. You were also free to quit at any time as long as it wasn't a pitched battle--but were never given a second chance if you did.

I would further expect in such a system that, as part of the military training, a full explanation of how the system of government was intended to work would be covered.

also covered

But the willingness to shed blood - that's not the idea. Like myself, quite a large portion of the military or former military did their service without ever seeing combat, and very few military men in my experience join hoping for the chance to kill someone.

THat didn't matter in Starship Troopers--it was the willingness to risk your skin that did, not whether it actually ended up happening.

I think a lot would have to change for such a system to work - service would guarantee one thing and one thing only - a vote. It wouldn't guarantee an education, or health care after service was finished, etc.

Also, I beleive, addressed in SS.

As for requiring *acceptance* of individual rights as primary in order to grant a vote - that strikes me as self contradictory. If one is going to recognize individual liberty as sacrosanct, then one cannot *require* the individuals who have the authority to have a say in how government runs to accept that. That constitutes violation of their freedom of thought and speech, after all.

I think such a "you must prove yourself willing to defend your beliefs to the death to have a say in how the country will run" system would have to ensure that even those without the vote had a voice- had the right to express their beliefs all they liked, as well. Denying those with no vote a chance to voice their opinions to those with a vote would be denying those of different beliefs their freedom of expression.

I don't believe anyone here wants to deny freedom of speech to those who do not accept individual rights, though some have advocated denying the *vote*.

I particularly think that those who want to run the government should be required to prove themselves willing to die for the country before they ever get a chance to be in a position to force others to go die for them (aka instituting a draft).

[John McVey]

It wouldn't guarantee an education, or health care after service was finished, etc.

What's wrong with offering those, at market value, as part of a serviceman's pay?

As for requiring *acceptance* of individual rights as primary in order to grant a vote - that strikes me as self contradictory. If one is going to recognize individual liberty as sacrosanct, then one cannot *require* the individuals who have the authority to have a say in how government runs to accept that. That constitutes violation of their freedom of thought and speech, after all.

What Steve said. You're confusing the entitlement to vote with the fundamental rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. None of those things will be in doubt. The government will always be bound to abide by all primary rights and protect them of all citizens, irrespective of who does or doesn't have the franchise. Free speech, btw, is not a primary right. It, like the right to privacy (thanks Jenni & David), is only a derivative of property rights.

As to the franchise itself, what it's really saying is that those who have it are entitled to direct the body possessing the monopoly on retaliatory force to lawfully turn guns on other people as and when required for justice. As part and parcel of why the propriety of that monopoly arises, the said other people already possessing the franchise have every right to demand proof that a candidate for the franchise is going to abide by those others' rights and have a sound understanding of justice before giving authority to give such directions.

Note that this earning of the franchise is not and cannot be a substitute for the people at large maintaining a proper understanding of rights and abiding by them. Prevailing philosophy always trumps existing political institutions in due course, and there's nothing that any system of government checks and balances can do to stop that. If there is no widespread prevailing proper understanding of justice as an ethical virtue then justice as a political principle is hosed, irrespective of whatever a Constitution may say.

Denying those with no vote a chance to voice their opinions to those with a vote would be denying those of different beliefs their freedom of expression.

A denial of a vote does not mean that someone wont have the ability to be heard. A non-voting resident of some electorate would still have the right to complain about possible improper government action to his or ler local member of the legislature of that government, who would then take up the matter by grilling appropriate officers and employees of the executive. Not having the vote only means not having a say in how that member was chosen in the first place.

I particularly think that those who want to run the government should be required to prove themselves willing to die for the country before they ever get a chance to be in a position to force others to go die for them (aka instituting a draft).

You're missing the point. A willingness to die doesn't automatically translate to know the first thing on how to draft or implement reasonable law. There is no close connection between the two.

JJM

[Zip]

I was thinking that in talking about limiting the vote we are going about this question ass backward. We have been focusing the danger on the vote instead of the ideals being voted upon.

Most O’ists agree that there will have to be a fundamental shift in philosophy before a Laissez Faire Capitalist (LFC) could be formed, now this may be true but once such a thing is accomplished why would we then insist that we allow it to be subverted from the inside through an open democratic process that gives voice to and lends the legitimacy of the state to all political ideologies? Why not found a single party state?

A nation is an organization, like the Knights of Columbus, the Boy Scouts or any of a myriad of others. All organizations of any size have founding documents that lay out the ‘philosophy’ of the group in a constitution precisely like a nation.

No one would claim that the Knights of Columbus are violating anyone’s individual rights when they state explicitly in their constitution that all their members must be Christians. So why not construct a LFC nation with the same sort of focus in the political realm?

I doubt there are any O’ists here who would make the claim that all cultures are of equal worth, that all cultures deserve an equal voice within western culture. But that indiscriminate sort of multicultural thinking is the basis of our modern democracy.

We would not accept that the owner of a railway be forced to carry his competitors goods, or that a radio station be forced to give equal time to ideas contrary to its stated purpose, so why would we suddenly, when talking about the most important social construct of man be willing to accept someone trying to poison it from within?

If individuals are free to immigrate and emigrate as they wish, if they are able to enjoy the individual rights of Life (to support his life by his own work), Liberty (the freedom to pursue his goals) and Property... but there are specific limitations placed upon democratic rights (explicitly enumerated in the nations constitution) where is the violation of individual rights?

[Eiuol]

Then it isn't a contract. With a contract, you have the free choice not to enter into the agreement.

I don't see anything in Juxtys' post that says anything about being forced into the contract.

[DavidOdden]

I don't see anything in Juxtys' post that says anything about being forced into the contract.

I want him to see that there's something about the nature of government versus business that he's not understanding: that with a government, you are not required to agree, and you are required to comply. He didn't use the word "force", he did say "people have to agree", which implies force if they do not.

[Juxtys]

I want him to see that there's something about the nature of government versus business that he's not understanding: that with a government, you are not required to agree, and you are required to comply. He didn't use the word "force", he did say "people have to agree", which implies force if they do not.

In a contract-based society, many laws can be enforced without having a gun in the room. The contract is also two-sided(a win/win relationship). Agreeing to the governmental contract basically means that:

1. You will obey the laws of that government, will respect private property and individual's rights;

2. Government will look that your values do not get violated.

If you do not accept the contract, you will basically not be allowed to enter the country or not have protection granted to you. If the government asks you to sign a contract that asks you not to assault anyone in the country unless they attack you first and you refuse, that means you have come to their territory to break havoc and they will see that you would be treated as an outlaw since you have a greater chance to be one. And if you don'tr lkie the contract so much, you can operate in secrecy, hire your own bodyguards or just go to somewhere else.

[AllMenAreIslands]

Whatever specific form it takes, a legislature would have a lot of work to do the first couple of years, and very little work thereafter.

If the legislature has a "legacy" legal code (e.g., imagine an existing country having an "Objectivist revolution" at the polls) ...

Oh yes, let's! It's something along the lines of "If you think it, it will come" isn't it?

How about we dispense with the idea of elected representatives and have people vote on their own behalf, individualistically. There is no need of some intermediary personage to handle this, carrying messages from the folks on the farm to the big city.

Now we have the Internet in addition to the telex, telegraph, snail mail and in-person appearances. We need to initiate the process of Individualization, the creation of a socio-economic entity which has empanelled Objective Law and has begun to practice Laissez-Faire Capitalism. We need, in short, to buy and own land. Do we need to be in the same geographical unit? Well, we already are as long as we're both on Earth.

[DavidOdden]

If you do not accept the contract, you will basically not be allowed to enter the country or not have protection granted to you.

Government protection of rights is not conditional: the government must protect the rights of those in its territory. You might be able to reduce government concepts to contracts to some limited extent for immigrants, but this will not be applicable to people who already live there.

If the government asks you to sign a contract that asks you not to assault anyone in the country unless they attack you first and you refuse, that means you have come to their territory to break havoc and they will see that you would be treated as an outlaw since you have a greater chance to be one.

But then you don't even need the contract: all you have to do is say what the laws are, and say that whoever you are, you must obey the law. Contracts are irrelevant to getting the rule of law.

And if you don'tr lkie the contract so much, you can operate in secrecy, hire your own bodyguards or just go to somewhere else.

But if you try to reduce government to a contract, then if I don't sign the government's contract, the government has no right to hold me to the conditions of the contract.