Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who Should Own Government Property?

Rate this topic


Jerry Story

Recommended Posts

The phrase in her definition does not mean "some property" and it would be incorrect for the definition to say "some property" or "almost no property" or anything like that referring to an amount or fraction.  In referring to "property" here, we are not just talking about physical objects or some quantity of them. The government does not "own" property or have "property rights" in the normal meaning of those concepts (under Objectivism) -- governments do not have rights.

In Post #16 you wrote, “It does not mean that government cannot ‘own’ and control property specifically for its own proper, required purposes.” Now if there are certain parcels of real estate that are “owned” and controlled by government, those parcels are by definition not in private hands. And if there is some property that is not in private hands, it follows that we have not achieved Rand’s definition of capitalism which requires that “all property is privately owned.”

The degree of government "ownership" -- i.e. control, under strict limits on purpose and procedures, over certain specific kinds of physical property it needs for its own mandatory functions (and only that) -- is 1) very small but 2) more importantly is of a radically different kind of control over property than ownership in accordance with private property rights.  This kind of "government ownership" is not what is meant by property and property rights in definitions, discussions and comparisons of different kinds of social systems.  (Defenders of fascism don't worry about who owns the bureaucrats' pencils either.) Understanding it requires understanding the proper nature of government according to Objectivism.

Let’s be specific here and discuss an air force base. Now that base must be either government-owned or privately owned, for there is no third option. If it is privately owned, then we are on our way to achieving a society of 100% private property. However, if there is a sign posted on the base fence that reads “U.S. Government Property, No Trespassing,” then we have an instance of a piece of real estate existing outside private hands. Yes, it may be the case that for our government there will be “strict limits” and “a radically different kind of control over property.” But, no matter. The air force base is still a form of property, and there is no escaping the fact that if there is one chunk of land that is not under private ownership, we have not reached a society in which “all property is privately owned.”

Do you object to Ayn Rand's wording or to the explanation?  The purpose of a definition is to state the essence of a concept in the form of what explains the most about it, not to describe its full meaning or enumerate all its characteristics.  Understanding a definition, especially for advanced abstractions, requires much more than its statement by itself, taken out of the context of what else you know.  It is true that Ayn Rand did not explicitly address the topic of "government ownership" as it was first raised and worded in this discussion, but the entire essay "What is Capitalism", along with other essays such as "The Nature of Government", which it referred to, describe the context and what you need in order to arrive at the concept of capitalism, including the limitations on government action (as required for a specific purpose, not undertaken by right), the full nature and role of private property and ownership rights, and the relation of government to them.

Rand’s wording is crystal clear, and I fully endorse the concept of a pure private property society. Furthermore, I find nothing in the rest of the essay, "What is Capitalism?" or in any of her other writings that contradicts the idea of moving all government property into private hands.

It would have been helpful if Ayn Rand had addressed some issues more explicitly than she did, particularly with regard to subsequent recurring questions, but she couldn't anticipate or treat every possible difficulty posed by every possible wording of every question, even if some of them in retrospect might now seem obvious.  I think that part of the difficulty in this case is that the Objectivist concepts of a proper government and of property ownership and rights are so radically different than what we are accustomed to hearing that it is easy to get off track when analyzing some of her statements out of the context of her meaning.  So don't drop that context.

I have not dropped context. If it is your position that Rand elsewhere endorsed keeping some property in the hands of the government, feel free to cite the relevant passages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlotte is still missing the whole point. We are not talking about physical objects outside the context of the meaning of private ownership and property rights or outside the context of mandatory limits on government action, including what government may do with property (including money). The idea that Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism was intended to require that government has to "rent" everything it uses (with rented money?) is ludicrous, as some of the previous examples like "bullets" illustrate. (Note the contorted attempts to explain the bullet example away through "replacement costs", as if the purpose of buying and using dispensable bullets were not completely understood in advance.)

Whether a government "rents", "leases" or "owns" anything, it does not do so by right, cannot acquire or use anything by right, and is severely limited in what it can do with it. The severe limitations on its control over whatever objects it acquires is not true "ownership" because government has no rights. Likewise when it "leases" property. Moreover, it may not use such mechanisms to control property not specifically related to its mandatory and strictly delimited functions. Remember that the limitations preclude a proper government from interfering with the economy by investing in real estate or stock markets, buying up land for recreational parks, etc.

With these fundamental limitations on government, what difference does it make if the government acquires court houses, bullets and pencils for its clerks through fee acquisition or a lease agreement? That should be determined by the purpose for which they are required and cost effectiveness, not an arbitrary prohibition on government "ownership". A government as to have the physical means to function. It is true that objects under the control of the government are therefore "property" that is not "privately owned". So what? That is not what Ayn Rand was talking about and should be clear from all of her discussions of the nature of private property and the nature of government, even though she did not devote an essay to the legal mechanisms government should use to control the "property" used for its proper functions.

Charlotte's whole approach on this topic follows (though not deliberately) the methodology of analytic philosophers who specialize in context-dropping manipulation of words -- which others in this forum have tried to capture, not quite correctly, as being overly "literalistic" -- except that analytic philosophers are typically philosophical skeptics who turn their whole endeavor into a kind of game unrelated to knowledge of reality as a result of their poor epistemology. Charlotte evidently is trying to rationalistically deduce a major principle she truly believes in. But she is doing this without noting the absurdities it leads to or what the real goals and means for limiting the government are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlotte is still missing the whole point.  We are not talking about physical objects outside the context of the meaning of private ownership and property rights or outside the context of mandatory limits on government action, including what government may do with property (including money).

If we grant that private ownership should be given a specific meaning and that there should be mandatory limits on government action, we still have not addressed the issue of who should own the land and buildings used by the government for its operations. Suppose that we fully agree on the meaning of property and the limits on a proper government. That agreement would not tell us who should hold the title for the land and buildings of an air force base. However, once we accept the idea that under capitalism "all property is privately owned," there is no doubt as to whether the air base should be in the public or private sector.

The idea that Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism was intended to require that government has to "rent" everything it uses (with rented money?) is ludicrous,

That is a judgment of taste. I do not regard I as the least bit ludicrous.

as some of the previous examples like "bullets" illustrate.  (Note the contorted attempts to explain the bullet example away through "replacement costs", as if the purpose of buying and using dispensable bullets were not completely understood in advance.)

What’s not to understand? There is no reason why a contract could not exist between government and Smith & Wesson stating in precise terms who is the owner of certain bullets and what responsibilities and obligations exist between owner and user of the property in question.

Whether a government "rents", "leases" or "owns" anything, it does not do so by right, cannot acquire or use anything by right, and is severely limited in what it can do with it.  The severe limitations on its control over whatever objects it acquires is not true "ownership" because government has no rights.

Does this mean that when the government purchases a parcel of land for the purposes of building an air force base, it does not truly own the land? If the government does not own the land that it has just paid for, exactly who does?

 

Likewise when it "leases" property.  Moreover, it may not use such mechanisms to control property not specifically related to its mandatory and strictly delimited functions.  Remember that the limitations preclude a proper government from interfering with the economy by investing in real estate or stock markets, buying up land for recreational parks, etc.

With these fundamental limitations on government, what difference does it make if the government acquires court houses, bullets and pencils for its clerks through fee acquisition or a lease agreement? 

The difference made would be that if the government takes title of land or other property through purchase, it has removed that property from the private sector. If certain property is no longer in the private sector, it is no longer true that “all property is privately owned,” one of Ayn Rand’s criteria for capitalism.

 

That should be determined by the purpose for which they are required and cost effectiveness, not an arbitrary prohibition on government "ownership".

I do not consider Rand’s criteria to be arbitrary.

 

A government as to have the physical means to function.  It is true that objects under the control of the government are therefore "property" that is not "privately owned".  So what?  That is not what Ayn Rand was talking about and should be clear from all of her discussions of the nature of private property and the nature of government, even though she did not devote an essay to the legal mechanisms government should use to control the "property" used for its proper functions.

If Ayn Rand was not talking about all property, why then did she say “all property”? If Rand did not really mean for all property to come into private hands, why then didn’t she say so in “What Is Capitalism” or any other essay? You are asking us not to take Rand at her word, without providing any reason to follow your recommendation.

Charlotte's whole approach on this topic follows (though not deliberately) the methodology of analytic philosophers who specialize in context-dropping manipulation of words

Unproven assertion. You have offered no evidence that Rand in the essay under discussion, or in any other work, endorsed something other than putting all property into private hands.

-- which others in this forum have tried to capture, not quite correctly, as being overly "literalistic"

You have yet to prove that Rand did not literally mean “all property” when she said “all property.” If we are free to interpret Rand loosely instead of literally, we might also (wrongly) claim she did not really mean it when she said there should be a complete separation between government and the economy.

-- except that analytic philosophers are typically philosophical skeptics who turn their whole endeavor into a kind of game unrelated to knowledge of reality as a result of their poor epistemology.

Actually, objective epistemology would render the statement “all property” to be “all property” and not “some property.” “A is A,” not “A is somewhat A.”

Edited by Capitalism Forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism was intended to require that government has to "rent" everything it uses (with rented money?) is ludicrous, as some of the previous examples like "bullets" illustrate.

There is one thing you've got to grant Charlotte: she's a rather shrewd little vixen. What she attempted in this thread is nothing less than a reductio ad absurdum of the notion of a capitalist government, which--if one accepted it--would necessarily lead one to reject the idea of government altogether, i.e. embrace anarchy.

The essence of her insinuation is as follows:

Premise 1: All property should be privately owned.

Premise 2: When the government controls something, that thing is not privately owned.

Premise 3: A proper government needs to control certain things, such as airbases, in order to achieve its purpose.

Out of Premise 1 and Premise 2, we reach the conclusion that the government should not control anything: if it did control something, e.g. an airbase, then that airbase would not be privately owned, but we know that all property should be privately owned.

If we combine this conclusion--"The government should not control anything"--with Premise 3--"A proper government needs to control certain things in order to achieve its purpose"--we are compelled to believe that it is impossible for a proper government to achieve its purpose; in other words, that a proper government simply cannot exist ! THIS is what, although she never stated it explicitly, Charlotte has been trying to get us to believe.

------

Premise 2 is false.

The airplane factory in Everett, WA is the property of Boeing Corporation. Boeing Corporation is not an individual, yet we say that the factory is privately owned. Why? Because Boeing Corp. is an entity sustained by, and acting under the rules agreed upon by, a number of individuals--namely, Boeing's shareholders.

In a free country, the government is just like a corporation, except that it has citizens instead of shareholders, and its purpose is not to make money for them but to protect their rights. As long as its actions are bound by a constitution sanctioned by the citizens--which, in a free country, will restrict the government's actions to protecting the citizens' rights--it can acquire and control property on their behalf just like a corporation can do things on behalf of its stockholders.

So the airbase would be privately owned--by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one thing you've got to grant Charlotte: she's a rather shrewd little vixen. What she attempted in this thread is nothing less than a reductio ad absurdum of the notion of a capitalist government, which--if one accepted it--would necessarily lead one to reject the idea of government altogether, i.e. embrace anarchy.

Thank you for your lengthy analysis of my argument. However, I must correct a point or two. My aim here has not been to argue for free market anarchism. I’ll fight that battle elsewhere and with other reasons. Rather, I’m merely defending a point that Ayn Rand makes with absolute clarity: under capitalism, “all property is privately owned.” There is no reason for the minarchist to be alarmed by Rand’s position. Limited government can function quite well without having to hold title to the property where and with which it conducts its business. In this thread I’ve offered several examples of how this could be done.

The essence of her insinuation is as follows:

Premise 1: All property should be privately owned.

Premise 2: When the government controls something, that thing is not privately owned.

Premise 3: A proper government needs to control certain things, such as airbases, in order to achieve its purpose.

Given the ambiguity of Premises 2 and 3, I cannot say that the above accurately represents my position. Let’s look at the word “control.” In my last two years of college I lived in a small house. I determined who could and could not enter, what color the rooms were painted, where the furniture was placed, where drapes and pictures were hung, which lights and appliances were turned on, when the furnace ran, etc. For all appearances, I “controlled” the house. But I did not own it. Instead, I paid rent to a landlord, the actual owner. Similarly, we can imagine the government occupying and conducting business in office buildings, warehouses, freight depots, seaports, air bases, etc. without holding title to those properties. Ergo, ownership and control are related but not identical.

Out of Premise 1 and Premise 2, we reach the conclusion that the government should not control anything: if it did control something, e.g. an airbase, then that airbase would not be privately owned, but we know that all property should be privately owned.

No, if a government leases a property, it may be said to control that property in most respects. It can determine who can enter and leave, and what activities take place on that property (provided such activities do not violate the terms of the lease). The only important aspect of the property not controlled by the government would be the property’s title. Sale or future lease (once the current lease expires) would remain the privilege of the title-holder.

If we combine this conclusion--"The government should not control anything"--with Premise 3--"A proper government needs to control certain things in order to achieve its purpose"--we are compelled to believe that it is impossible for a proper government to achieve its purpose; in other words, that a proper government simply cannot exist ! THIS is what, although she never stated it explicitly, Charlotte has been trying to get us to believe.

As I have shown, this is a misreading of my position. I have never said, "The government should not control anything." Therefore, since one of the premises is false (in the sense of not representing anything I’ve said), the conclusion does not follow from the premises and the argument is invalid.

Premise 2 is false.

Agreed. See my second paragraph above.

The airplane factory in Everett, WA is the property of Boeing Corporation. Boeing Corporation is not an individual, yet we say that the factory is privately owned. Why? Because Boeing Corp. is an entity sustained by, and acting under the rules agreed upon by, a number of individuals--namely, Boeing's shareholders.

In a free country, the government is just like a corporation, except that it has citizens instead of shareholders, and its purpose is not to make money for them but to protect their rights.

Earlier in this thread, I showed that the idea that the government is owned by its citizens is a myth. The foremost reason why there can be no analogy between Boeing Corp./Boeing stockholders and government/citizens, is that any one of Boeing’s stockholders can in a matter of minutes divest himself of ownership in the company by trading his shares on the NYSE. However, no such option exists for the supposed “citizen/shareholder.” As I wrote in Post #12, “Anyone who claims that government property is owned by individuals in that collective known as ‘the public’ can put his claim to a real world test. Simply go down to your local school board and demand that you, as a bona fide constituent of the public, be given your share of the real estate owned by the board, i.e. ‘the public.’ If they actually hand over a chunk of land to you (or its worth in dollars), then we can say that the public really does own public property. If the board ignores the demand, then it should be clear that public property is not public at all but a fiefdom of whatever politicians happen to be in power. “

As long as its actions are bound by a constitution sanctioned by the citizens--which, in a free country, will restrict the government's actions to protecting the citizens' rights--it can acquire and control property on their behalf just like a corporation can do things on behalf of its stockholders.

So the airbase would be privately owned--by the government.

“Private” is by definition non-governmental: “a. Belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government: private property. b. Conducted and supported primarily by private individuals or by a nongovernmental agency or corporation.” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992) Now, perhaps your argument is that once we have achieved a government “bound by a constitution” and restricted to “protecting the citizens' rights,” all distinctions between government and private property will disappear. Let us put it to the test: if a citizen of a free country cannot sell his share of government in the same way he can sell his share of Boeing, then government property and private property are not the same thing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, objective epistemology would render the statement “all property” to be “all property” and not “some property.”  “A is A,” not “A is somewhat A.”

Actually, objective epistemology doesn't approach principles as contextless absolutes. So, for example, even the principle of non-initiation of force has contexts where it can be appropriate, even necessary, to violate it. One needs to grasp the fundamental contexts from which these principles are derived, rather than regarding them as disembodied axioms the way you (rationalistically) do.

So, in this instance, in order for there to be property in the first place, one presupposes one is in a social setting, which at a certain point will require some mechanism for protecting ones' rights, adjudicating disputes, and objectively enforcing them, i.e. a gov't. Such an entity will require some physical means for performing its functions. At some advanced point buildings will be required - for example to house, say, courts. Why shouldn't the gov't own those buildings? In fact it is arguable that it should own them (vs., say, renting them) so that it is not beholden to any private individual and can maintain one of its essential characteristics, namely, impartiality and also that it's functions aren't interrupted.

The gov't is a unique *and necessary* entity in any civilized society and therefore a prerequisite for private property to even be recognized and protected.

Since AR considered the notion of anarchism patently absurd - which it is (as we have previously discussed) - and since she therefore considered gov't an essential aspect of a civilized rights protecting society, it would be clear - if one keeps that full context - that she intended to exclude gov't from that general dictum regarding "all property" (so long of course as it is confined to its necessary functions, and no other).

As a broader point, one doesn't understand Objectivism by a process of lifting sentences out of context - and ignoring everything else AR had to say on any given subject. AR generally had a degree of respect for her readers and their ability to keep the full context - and didn't assume that she would have to detail every exception and special circumstance via an endless cataloguing or through pages of footnotes and parenthetical comments. Or in other words, she assumed that her readers had commonsense.

I'll also note that it appears you are quite willing to grab Objectivist principles and declare them absolutes when it suits you - and then turn around and reject others when it doesn't. And the issue in any case in any particular instance doesnt' rest on "AR says", as if it were an edict of god. The question is whether it is right.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, objective epistemology doesn't approach principles as contextless absolutes. So, for example, even the principle of non-initiation of force has contexts where it can be appropriate, even necessary, to violate it. One needs to grasp the fundamental contexts from which these principles are derived, rather than regarding them as disembodied axioms the way you (rationalistically) do.

Perhaps, you might also wish to argue that the military draft is not always bad. Depending on the context, could it not “be appropriate, even necessary”? Perhaps we could also say the same thing about inflation, wage and price controls, censorship, government ownership of major industries, income redistribution, socialized medicine and a host of other government evils. In short, can we really say that certain activities should be forbidden to government, as context may potentially render any and every action appropriate? Following this line of thought, every guarantee in the Bill of Rights should be apprended with the phrase "except when appropriate, even necessary, to violate it."

So, in this instance, in order for there to be property in the first place, one presupposes one is in a social setting, which at a certain point will require some mechanism for protecting ones' rights, adjudicating disputes, and objectively enforcing them, i.e. a gov't. Such an entity will require some physical means for performing its functions. At some advanced point buildings will be required -  for example to house, say, courts. Why shouldn't the gov't own those buildings? In fact it is arguable that it should own them (vs., say, renting them) so that it is not beholden to any private individual and can maintain one of its essential characteristics, namely, impartiality and also that it's functions aren't interrupted.

Furthermore, why shouldn’t government own the roads and railroads that lead to those buildings, lest it be beholden to the “private individual” owners? And why stop there? Why not have government own the electric, water, phone and gas utilities, lest it be beholden to the stockholders of those enterprises? And to prevent any interruption of government’s legitimate activities, why not call for government ownership of armaments factories, oil reserves, coal deposits, hydroelectric dams, etc. Surely, one doesn’t advocate minimal government as a “contextless absolute.”

The gov't is a unique *and necessary* entity in any civilized society and therefore a prerequisite for private property to even be recognized and protected.

Since AR considered the notion of anarchism patently absurd - which it is (as we have previously discussed) - and since she therefore considered gov't an essential aspect of a civilized rights protecting society, it would be clear - if one keeps that full context - that she intended to exclude gov't from that general dictum regarding "all property" (so long of course as it is confined to its necessary functions, and no other).

First of all, I have made it clear that this is not a debate about anarchism vs. minimal government. This discussion is placed within the context of providing for some form of government. Secondly, you have presented no evidence that Rand “intended to exclude gov't from that general dictum regarding ‘all property.’” In order to prove that, you will have to do better than simply make an assertion.

As a broader point, one doesn't understand Objectivism by a process of lifting sentences out of context - and ignoring everything else AR had to say on any given subject. AR generally had a degree of respect for her readers and their ability to keep the full context - and didn't assume that she would have to detail every exception and special circumstance via an endless cataloguing or through pages of footnotes and parenthetical comments. Or in other words, she assumed that her readers had commonsense.

It would indeed be fraudulent to use a quotation from an author to represent that author’s views, if the preponderance of the author’s work contradicted that quotation. But in the case of Rand’s belief that under capitalism “all property is privately owned,” I can find nothing in the rest of the essay or in her other works that would invalidate the statement. In fact, the statement is perfectly consistent with Rand’s general aim to keep government small.

I'll also note that it appears you are quite willing to grab Objectivist principles and declare them absolutes when it suits you - and then turn around and reject others when it doesn't. And the issue in any case in any particular instance doesnt' rest on "AR says", as if it were an edict of god. The question is whether it is right.

Strawman fallacy. At no point in this thread did I declare that Rand’s statement “all property is privately owned” under capitalism to be an absolute. Nor did I claim that the Ayn Rand’s saying something made it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one thing you've got to grant Charlotte: she's a rather shrewd little vixen. What she attempted in this thread is nothing less than a reductio ad absurdum of the notion of a capitalist government, which--if one accepted it--would necessarily lead one to reject the idea of government altogether, i.e. embrace anarchy.
There is one thing you've got to grant Charlotte: she's a rather shrewd little vixen. What she attempted in this thread is nothing less than a reductio ad absurdum of the notion of a capitalist government, which--if one accepted it--would necessarily lead one to reject the idea of government altogether, i.e. embrace anarchy.
Not knowing anything about Charlotte, I tried several times to patiently explain the issues, all the way down to the nature of definitions, but have given up. But I don't find her arguments, at least on this topic, to be "shrewd" at all. At first it's hard to tell if such people don't understand something too subtle for them or, after a few attempts, if they are off on a stubborn rationalist tangent or dishonest goading provocation. On this topic, Charlotte persistently ignores explanations, drops the context, manipulates the words that are left as out of context absolutes in the name of "logic", ignores the absurdities in her own conclusions, and ends with an irrelevant dramatic flourish of "A is A". Is this "shrewd" or only nuts?

I don't know if she is trying to promote anarchy on this thread, but the nature of the arguments are certainly similar. Whether or not the perpetrators think of themselves as serious and "logical", most people simply ignore those games as irrelevant and silly once they see the context-dropping, stubborn, intellectual nihilism in their conceptual goals and means.

Meanwhile, please let me know if you find some place I can "rent" obviously dispensible items such food, bullets, pencils, etc. using "rented" money which in turn can only be "rented" with "rented" money, etc. Surely someone out there can be convinced that it is possible if only it is put into a "contract" saying it is. Maybe a "free market anarchist rental food agency"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only important aspect of the property not controlled by the government would be the property’s title. Sale or future lease (once the current lease expires) would remain the privilege of the title-holder.

What if the lease is such that it never expires?

Earlier in this thread, I showed that the idea that the government is owned by its citizens is a myth.  The foremost reason why there can be no analogy between Boeing Corp./Boeing stockholders and government/citizens, is that any one of Boeing’s stockholders can in a matter of minutes divest himself of ownership in the company by trading his shares on the NYSE.  However, no such option exists for the supposed “citizen/shareholder.”

A free country allows you to abdicate your citizenship in a matter of minutes.

As I wrote in Post #12, “Anyone who claims that government property is owned by individuals in that collective known as ‘the public’ can put his claim to a real world test. Simply go down to your local school board and demand that you, as a bona fide constituent of the public, be given your share of the real estate owned by the board, i.e. ‘the public.’ If they actually hand over a chunk of land to you (or its worth in dollars), then we can say that the public really does own public property.

You are perfectly right about this, but I have never advocated any kind of "public" property. What I have advocated is government property.

"Public" would indeed mean that you and I and the rest of us own the thing jointly, just like the shareholders of Boeing own the company jointly. If there are 290 million Americans, the public airfield would have 290 million owners.

Government property, on the other hand, means that the airfield has a single owner: the government. Just like that factory is owned by a single entity, Boeing Corporation.

Now, perhaps your argument is that once we have achieved a government “bound by a constitution” and restricted to “protecting the citizens' rights,” all distinctions between government and private property will disappear.  Let us put it to the test:  if a citizen of a free country cannot sell his share of government in the same way he can sell his share of Boeing, then government property and private property are not the same thing at all.

Not all corporations are publicly traded. One of my favorite novels, Sidney Sheldon's Bloodline, has a plot based on a family company whose founder stipulated that the firm must remain in family hands, i.e. that his heirs must not sell their shares to strangers. Would this mean that this company is not private property?

A citizenship does mean a "share" in the government: the citizen can participate in controlling the government by means of voting. And, as I said, in a free country you could divest your citizenship any time you wished (for whatever price your fellow citizens would be willing to pay to get rid of you :P).

A rational constitution, however, will not allow a person to obtain citizenship by buying it from another; rather, it will grant citizenship to whoever wants it and is eligible. (That is my opinion, at least--I am in favor of placing restrictions on immigration and naturalization.) But this is the privilege of the citizens who establish the government, just like it was the privilege of Samuel Roffe, the founder of the company in the novel I mentioned, to place restrictions on whom the shares in his company could be sold to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the lease is such that it never expires?

If the government can find someone to lease it land unto perpetuity, so be it. The landlord still holds title and still holds the right to sell the property (as long as the new owner does not violate the terms of the lease contract).

A free country allows you to abdicate your citizenship in a matter of minutes.

And, like the Boeing stockholder who cashes in his holdings, do I get my share of government property? If not, then my alleged ownership of the government's property is a farce.

You are perfectly right about this, but I have never advocated any kind of "public" property. What I have advocated is government property.

The same disproof of citizen ownership of “public” property applies to alleged citizen ownership of government property. If a citizen cannot sell or transfer his share of government property, in no sense does he own it. Therefore government is not at all analogous to Boeing.

"Public" would indeed mean that you and I and the rest of us own the thing jointly, just like the shareholders of Boeing own the company jointly. If there are 290 million Americans, the public airfield would have 290 million owners.

Government property, on the other hand, means that the airfield has a single owner: the government. Just like that factory is owned by a single entity, Boeing Corporation.

If your point is that officeholders and not citizens are the true owners of government, I could not agree with you more. However, in Post #29, it appeared that you wished to draw a parallel between citizens and corporate shareholders: “In a free country, the government is just like a corporation, except that it has citizens instead of shareholders, and its purpose is not to make money for them but to protect their rights. As long as its actions are bound by a constitution sanctioned by the citizens--which, in a free country, will restrict the government's actions to protecting the citizens' rights--it can acquire and control property on their behalf just like a corporation can do things on behalf of its stockholders.”

However, if a citizen’s relationship to the government is the same as that of a shareholder to the corporation, then the citizen would enjoy the same privilege as the shareholder: the right to divest himself of his share by selling or trading it. Since this is clearly not the case with government (even in the case of a strictly limited government), we cannot say that government property is ultimately or in any other sense the property of its citizens.

Not all corporations are publicly traded. One of my favorite novels, Sidney Sheldon's Bloodline, has a plot based on a family company whose founder stipulated that the firm must remain in family hands, i.e. that his heirs must not sell their shares to strangers. Would this mean that this company is not private property?

I never claimed that property must be publicly traded in order to be private. For example, in a partnership, each partner has a specified (usually equal) share. And, while the shares are not traded on a stock exchange, each partner retains title to a portion of the company and the right to sell it or to dissolve the partnership and reap a portion of the liquified assets. Now, if your point is that the U.S. government is somehow like the fictional company in Sheldon’s novel, then why can’t Citizen A sell his share of government property to Citizen B, in the fashion of one family member to another?

A citizenship does mean a "share" in the government: the citizen can participate in controlling the government by means of voting.

But being given the right to participate in elections in no way implies ownership, for ownership entails the right to sell or trade one’s property. For example, a movie theatre could give its patrons the opportunity to vote on the next titles to be shown. Yet taking such a poll does not mean the patrons have a proprietary share of the theatre. The person who holds the deed to the building and its contents (not those casting ballots) is the only one who has the essential right of the property owner: to transfer ownership to another person.

And, as I said, in a free country you could divest your citizenship any time you wished (for whatever price your fellow citizens would be willing to pay to get rid of you.

If I divest myself of my citizenship and receive no portion of government property in return, then it is demonstrably clear that citizens are not owners of government property at all.

A rational constitution, however, will not allow a person to obtain citizenship by buying it from another; rather, it will grant citizenship to whoever wants it and is eligible. (That is my opinion, at least--I am in favor of placing restrictions on immigration and naturalization.)

Again, citizenship in a country is distinctly different from ownership of the government’s property in that country. Just as being a member of the Majestic Theatre’s Movie Watcher Club is distinctly different from owning a share of the Majestic.

But this is the privilege of the citizens who establish the government, just like it was the privilege of Samuel Roffe, the founder of the company in the novel I mentioned, to place restrictions on whom the shares in his company could be sold to.

Any group of citizens has the right and privilege to establish an organization of their choosing, provided that such organization does not involve the initiation of force. And while the organizers are within their rights to designate exactly who should be the lawful owners of the institution and its property, they cannot logically state that their institution is owned by all the people, unless they are prepared to issue negotiable shares to all the people. By comparison, I could absurdly claim that you are co-owner of my automobile, yet restrict your right to drive it, sit in it, touch it, or even enter my garage to view it. Some "ownership" that is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not knowing anything about Charlotte, I tried several times to patiently explain the issues, all the way down to the nature of definitions, but have given up.  But I don't find her arguments, at least on this topic, to be "shrewd" at all.  At first it's hard to tell if such people don't understand something too subtle for them or, after a few attempts, if they are off on a stubborn rationalist tangent or dishonest goading provocation.  On this topic, Charlotte persistently ignores explanations, drops the context, manipulates the words that are left as out of context absolutes in the name of "logic", ignores the absurdities in her own conclusions, and ends with an irrelevant dramatic flourish of "A is A".  Is this "shrewd" or only nuts?

EWV, I responded clearly and patiently to each point made in your last post. I regret that instead of dealing specifically with my response you have chosen instead to engage in derisive characterizations of it. If, as you say, I have dropped the context, manipulated words or ignored absurdities, then you should have no trouble demonstrating same. However, in the absence of evidence, the reader has nothing more than faith to go on.

Meanwhile, please let me know if you find some place I can "rent" obviously dispensible items such food, bullets, pencils, etc. . . .

I’ve already provided the hotel room mini-bar as a model of how certain property titles do not change hands until the property is consumed. Another example would be the rental car contract which charges the renter for any gas that is used up. The renter does not own or pay for the gas until it has been consumed.

. . .  using "rented" money which in turn can only be "rented" with "rented" money, etc. Surely someone out there can be convinced that it is possible if only it is put into a "contract" saying it is.

But if financing of government is to be truly voluntary, why does government itself need to be the raiser and disburser of operating funds? Could not private organizations perform the necessary task of collecting donations on the government’s behalf and then directly pay -- with private money -- whatever invoices are presented to the government?

Maybe a "free market anarchist rental food agency"?

First of all, I’ve already taken pains to point out that this is not a debate on the minarchism-anarchism dispute but presumes that there is to be some form of government. Therefore, your raising the “anarchist” issue here is just a red herring. Secondly, avoidance of ownership is not necessarily a matter of “renting” consumables. Restaurants and banquet facilities which provide food often have contracts which charge by the amount of beverage and edibles that are used up during the event. (This, by the way, is frequently the case in pro sports stadium sky boxes.) You don’t pay for it till you use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any group of citizens has the right and privilege to establish an organization of their choosing, provided that such organization does not involve the initiation of force.

So then you would agree, wouldn't you, that a group of people has a right to establish an organization called a government, ruled by a charter called the constitution, with the exclusive purpose of protecting the rights of the organization's members--who are called citizens--and their visitors--who are called immigrants--in accordance with laws passed by the citizens under voting procedures defined in the constitution?

If you agree, wouldn't you then further agree that the founders of such organization would have the right to allow the organization to act as an independent legal person, much in the way a corporation does--including the capacity to own property under its own name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then you would agree, wouldn't you, that a group of people has a right to establish an organization called a government, ruled by a charter called the constitution, with the exclusive purpose of protecting the rights of the organization's members--who are called citizens--and their visitors--who are called immigrants--in accordance with laws passed by the citizens under voting procedures defined in the constitution?

I agree only with the following: that a group of individuals may establish an organization for the “purpose of protecting the rights of the organization's members.” But the membership of that organization would include only those who of their own free will chose to join it. The organization would have no moral authority to proclaim every person from sea to shining sea a member and thus oblige him to certain duties he did not voluntarily undertake. Nor, for the same reason, would it have the authority to enroll posterity as members and bind them to involuntarily acquired duties. An organization may require certain dues of its members. However, no organization has the right to “lay and collect taxes” (as the U.S. Constitution proclaims) on those who did not willingly enlist in the organization, for taxes are an involuntary form of wealth transfer that violate the fundamental right to be free from the initiation of force. Furthermore, while a group of individuals may contract for mutual protection of their lives and their property, they have no moral authority to limit the peaceful movements of non-members. Thus, you and your organization may set any rules you wish for admitting certain visitors to property belonging to you and other alliance members, but such rules would not extend to anyone who did not of his own free will join the organization.

If you agree, wouldn't you then further agree that the founders of such organization would have the right to allow the organization to act as an independent legal person, much in the way a corporation does--including the capacity to own property under its own name?

I agree that people may of their own free will give money to an organization without stipulation so that the officers that that organization would have full command of the resources in their treasury. However, this state of affairs does not describe government, since the hundreds of millions of people who “contribute” to the coffers of this institution so under threat of violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the membership of that organization would include only those who of their own free will chose to join it.

Have I ever implied otherwise?

I agree that people may of their own free will give money to an organization without stipulation so that the officers that that organization would have full command of the resources in their treasury.  However, this state of affairs does not describe government, since the hundreds of millions of people who “contribute” to the coffers of this institution so under threat of violence.

Have I ever implied that the government I described would collect taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday @ Oct 13 2004, 03:39 PM)

But the membership of that organization would include only those who of their own free will chose to join it.

Capitalism Forever:  Have I ever implied otherwise?

In Post #37 you wrote, “a group of people has a right to establish an organization called a government.” Now if your government considers its citizens to consist expressly of those who voluntarily contract with it and not of any who live outside the property lines of its self-chosen members, then this is not a government at all, but a free market protection agency. For the defining characteristic of government is that it holds a monopoly on enforcing “certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.” (Ayn Rand) So, if on Elm Street, the homeowners at 100, 103, 106 and 109 Elm may freely choose Government A, while the homeowners at 101, 102, 104, 105, 107 and 108 Elm may freely choose Government B instead, then we no longer have a monopoly on enforcing “certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the defining characteristic of government is that it holds a monopoly on enforcing “certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.”  (Ayn Rand)

This does not contradict the notion of voluntary citizenship, provided that ALL citizens have given their consent to the constitution. If you read my earlier posts on other threads, you will find that I have consistently advocated that a government has to enjoy the consent of each and every one of its citizens in order to be legitimate.

However, a rational constitution will grant the government a monopoly on legislation, law enforcement, and judicial matters. In other words, what I am saying is that it is in the rational self-interest of people to place themselves under such a monopoly. I do NOT believe in "competing protection agencies."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in economics, there are three types of property

private property - property owned by private individuals. Every one here knows what private property is

property - property upkept by the government. This can include things like national parks, and military equipment. public property doesn't necessarily mean that it is owned communally, it merely means it is property used to serve the public interest.

common property - this is communally owned property. It is owned and maintained by the people. The Flaw of this type of property (known as the tragedy of the commons) is that you have everyone using it and everyone leaving the upkeeping to the "other guy". An example is the common grounds during the medieval era when the lord would set aside a plot of land for all his subjects to use. Typically commons property was the most ill kept land in the area.

so to answer your question, yes there would be public property under capitalism. Police and military equipment, and judiciary property would all be public. Under the U.S constitution, roads and other utlities would be provided by the state (not federal government) and paid for by a state tax.

:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does not contradict the notion of voluntary citizenship, provided that ALL citizens have given their consent to the constitution. If you read my earlier posts on other threads, you will find that I have consistently advocated that a government has to enjoy the consent of each and every one of its citizens in order to be legitimate.

Bravo! The idea of a government requiring the constitutional consent of every citizen it rules strikes me as eminently sensible. However it gives rise to this question: what happens if one citizen (out of, say, one million) objects? Does the government rewrite its constitution in order to win the consent of all one million out of one million citizens? Or does government merely withdraw its rule (or proposed rule) from the one objecting citizen? If the answer is the former, it is difficult to imagine any document (especially one as lengthy and complex as a blueprint for government) meeting with the perfect approval of everyone in a large population. Surely, even in a nation of unusual ideological homogeneity, there are bound to be disagreements. If we change the document to please one dissenter, wouldn’t we risk losing the support of those who want no revisions? If the solution is that the government simply not presume to rule those who refuse to give their consent to its constitution, then surely those not consenting to Government A and its constitution, have not forfeited their right of self-defense and are entitled to institute a separate organization for preserving life and property. Accordingly, to employ my earlier example, on Elm Street, the homeowners at 100, 103, 106 and 109 Elm freely consent to Government A and its constitution, while the homeowners at 101, 102, 104, 105, 107 and 108 Elm freely consent to Government B and its constitution.

However, a rational constitution will grant the government a monopoly on legislation, law enforcement, and judicial matters. In other words, what I am saying is that it is in the rational self-interest of people to place themselves under such a monopoly. I do NOT believe in "competing protection agencies."

If you believe that “a government has to enjoy the consent of each and every one of its citizens in order to be legitimate,” then doesn’t it follow that the citizen has the right to choose which government he will give his consent to, i.e. that there be more than one option? I trust your position is not that if the citizen does not consent to the government he is offered, he may not form a separate government or organization for rights protection. For that would be a Hobson's choice between a flawed (perhaps even tyrannical) government and being at the mercy of any aggressor that happens along. However, if a citizen is to be allowed more than one governmental option, then we are back to my Elm Street example, where neighbors live side by side but are ruled by separate governments. Under those circumstances, I do not see why we should not think of these governments as competing agencies. If a “government” has to win the voluntary patronage of its citizens/customers and may quickly lose citizens/customers to a more efficient “government,” then we are in fact speaking of a free and competitive market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in economics, there are three types of property

private property - property owned by private individuals. Every one here knows what private property is

property - property upkept by the government. This can include things like national parks, and military equipment. public property doesn't necessarily mean that it is owned communally, it merely means it is property used to serve the public interest.

While I would not say that government property is in every case “used to serve the public interest,” I do agree that government property is not owned by the members of the public.

so to answer your question, yes there would be public property under capitalism. Police and military equipment, and judiciary property would all be public. Under the U.S constitution, roads and other utlities would be provided by the state (not federal government) and paid for by a state tax.

:)

To correct a small error: the U.S. Constitution says nothing about “roads and other utilities” being provided by “the state (not federal government) and paid for by a state tax.” The Constitution is utterly silent on the matter of what agency should provide utilities. As for building and operating roads, the Constitution did not entirely leave this power to the states. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does not contradict the notion of voluntary citizenship, provided that ALL citizens have given their consent to the constitution. If you read my earlier posts on other threads, you will find that I have consistently advocated that a government has to enjoy the consent of each and every one of its citizens in order to be legitimate.

But what if 1/3 of the citizens want communism, 1/3 want capitalism and 1/3 want mixed economy. Do you think that the government can enjoy the consent of murderers or robbers?

A Constitution has to be objective, not a document of 100% consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a broader point, one doesn't understand Objectivism by a process of lifting sentences out of context - and ignoring everything else AR had to say on any given subject. AR generally had a degree of respect for her readers and their ability to keep the full context - and didn't assume that she would have to detail every exception and special circumstance via an endless cataloguing or through pages of footnotes and parenthetical comments. Or in other words, she assumed that her readers had commonsense.

I'll also note that it appears you are quite willing to grab Objectivist principles and declare them absolutes when it suits you - and then turn around and reject others when it doesn't. And the issue in any case in any particular instance doesnt' rest on "AR says", as if it were an edict of god. The question is whether it is right.

Fred Weiss

The form of Charlotte's argument reminds me of a rhetorical fallacy commonly found in religous circles: prooftexting. Prooftexting is the technique of choosing very small passages, such as single verses of the bible, and using them to defend an argument without considering their context. It can frequently degenerate into a contest over who can quote the most verses in support his position. (Which I'm glad to say I haven't seen here--it's been entirely one-sided.) Much theological writing consists almost entirely of prooftexting--it is the essence of Rabbinic Judaism, for instance.

I have seen prooftexting from an Objectivist before, on an email discussion list, but at least he had something of an excuse: he wasn't entirely right in the head. (He had OCD or bi-polar or something like that, I don't remember the details.) Whether Charlotte is "innocently" rationalistic in her obsession with this single verse or "shrewdly" making a reductio argument for anarcho-capitalism, I'm not sure, but I just thought the resemblence of her argument to those found in the circles of the proudly irrational is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what happens if one citizen (out of, say, one million) objects? [...] does government merely withdraw its rule (or proposed rule) from the one objecting citizen?

It withdraws its rule from the objecting person, i.e. the objecting person cannot become a citizen. If you are already a citizen, then your continued citizenship implies your continued acceptance of the constitution; that is, you have to abdicate your citizenship if you change your mind about being bound by the constitution.

If you believe that “a government has to enjoy the consent of each and every one of its citizens in order to be legitimate,” then doesn’t it follow that the citizen has the right to choose which government he will give his consent to, i.e. that there be more than one option?

It does, but if the constitution is drawn up as I think it should be, then "switching to another government" will always mean moving to another town/state/country. The constitution should require the landowners to limit access to their properties to only those people who are either immigrants who have been granted a visa, or citizens. Both a visa and a citizenship can only be given to those who give their consent to be bound by the constitution.

I think it is important to include such provisions in a rational constitution in order to protect the government's territorial integrity. Splitting up Elm Street between competing governments and allowing residents to switch governments arbitrarily will simply not work in practice: both civil disputes and criminal prosecutions will become a mess if the parties can switch jurisdiction whenever it suits them. I agree with the Objectivist position that such a competition between governments would lead to anarchy.

You will note that I have mentioned various levels of government, such as town, state, and country. This is the key to how I think territorial integrity combined with unanimous consent can work in practice. By default, the individual is the sovereign ruler of all his property; however, acting alone, it would be very difficult for him to defend his property from criminals and invading armies. So it is rational for him to seek out like-minded people with whom he can easily agree on the details of a constitution, and form a local government on the basis of that constitution. Such a local constitution could include whatever quirks these very like-minded founders agree to place into it; for example, it could ban working on Sundays, restrict citizenship to Jehovah's Witnesses, or whatever else turns them on. However, this small community is still too weak alone, so rationality will dictate that it enters into an alliance with its neighbors, forming what might be called a county. The county's constitution will have to be ratified by all the county's towns, so it will probably not include items like no work or Sundays or a requirement to be a Jehovah's Witness; however it should still provide for an adequate means to protect individual rights and to maintain the county's territorial integrity. The counties would then form states, and the states could form a federal government, with progressively less "specialized" constitutions as we go upward so that unanimous consent is still possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if 1/3 of the citizens want communism, 1/3 want capitalism and 1/3 want mixed economy. Do you think that the government can enjoy the consent of murderers or robbers?

Simple: Those who want communism or a mixed economy should be told to go and found their own government--and leave our place alone, or else our military will show them how we treat invaders.

(Here I assume that this new government would be founded on newly inhabited or newly independent soil, just as the first American settlements were founded. If you already have a mixed-economy government in place--well, then you have a problem! :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, allow me to observe that not only is your goal of reconciling government with individual consent a noble one, but your suggestions for getting us from here to there exhibit a rare independence of thought on this forum.

Now to our debate:

It withdraws its rule from the objecting person, i.e. the objecting person cannot become a citizen. If you are already a citizen, then your continued citizenship implies your continued acceptance of the constitution; that is, you have to abdicate your citizenship if you change your mind about being bound by the constitution.

This is fair and reasonable.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday @ Oct 14 2004, 03:38 PM)

If you believe that “a government has to enjoy the consent of each and every one of its citizens in order to be legitimate,” then doesn’t it follow that the citizen has the right to choose which government he will give his consent to, i.e. that there be more than one option?

Capitalism Forever: It does, but if the constitution is drawn up as I think it should be, then "switching to another government" will always mean moving to another town/state/country. The constitution should require the landowners to limit access to their properties to only those people who are either immigrants who have been granted a visa, or citizens. Both a visa and a citizenship can only be given to those who give their consent to be bound by the constitution.

I do not object on principle to a contract which explicitly requires certain actions by a party if should he cancel the contract. In the case of a contract between a government and a citizen, there may indeed be a clause which requires the client/citizen to emigrate should client/citizen choose not to renew the contract. But, as I have said earlier on this thread, contracts between members of one generation are not binding on successive generations. Thus, by signing an agreement with a government, I do not bind my children or grandchildren to that same agreement. In order to be truly voluntary, a government would have to start fresh with each new native-born member of the population. Nor could it demand that a post-compact native leave the country if he chose not to sign up, for that stipulation can only be imposed upon those who have by their own free will already agreed to do so. Furthermore, if this government of yours is truly “conceived in liberty,” then within its “borders” (if we can use such a term), there will be original hold-outs who had never signed on in the first place. Given human diversity and difference of opinion, I expect that there will be a sizable minority who will refuse to sign on and will seek to institute for themselves governments (or protection agencies) separate and independent from that of the majority, creating a patchwork quilt of sovereignties. Your government, regardless of the percentage of its majority, will have no contractual or moral authority to command these “interior” non-citizen hold-outs on how to limit access to their property.

I think it is important to include such provisions in a rational constitution in order to protect the government's territorial integrity. Splitting up Elm Street between competing governments and allowing residents to switch governments arbitrarily will simply not work in practice: both civil disputes and criminal prosecutions will become a mess if the parties can switch jurisdiction whenever it suits them. I agree with the Objectivist position that such a competition between governments would lead to anarchy.

But, as I have suggested above, if the government must attain the consent of each individual before it exercises authority over that individual (a pre-condition, by the way, that I consider highly admirable), then it is not realistic to expect wide, uninterrupted swaths of unity. Even if we take a state like New Hampshire that is small in territory and whose citizens generally favor individual freedom, we may reasonably expect that there will be a significant minority peppered throughout the state who will refuse to sign on to your Constitution of Liberty and who, because of your laudable respect for personal choice, must be permitted to go it alone in peace. In short, a coercive monopoly (or “territorial integrity”) is simply incompatible with your sound concern for individual consent.

You will note that I have mentioned various levels of government, such as town, state, and country. This is the key to how I think territorial integrity combined with unanimous consent can work in practice. By default, the individual is the sovereign ruler of all his property; however, acting alone, it would be very difficult for him to defend his property from criminals and invading armies. So it is rational for him to seek out like-minded people with whom he can easily agree on the details of a constitution, and form a local government on the basis of that constitution. Such a local constitution could include whatever quirks these very like-minded founders agree to place into it; for example, it could ban working on Sundays, restrict citizenship to Jehovah's Witnesses, or whatever else turns them on. However, this small community is still too weak alone, so rationality will dictate that it enters into an alliance with its neighbors, forming what might be called a county. The county's constitution will have to be ratified by all the county's towns . . .

Forgive the interruption, but why is it the towns that do the ratification but not the individuals within those towns? “Unanimous consent” (your term) would imply that each person and not merely a consensus within a community be the deciding factor as to whether a particular individual is subject to the authority of a state or federal government. I bring this up reluctantly, because I think communities based on shared interests are desirable.

. . . so it will probably not include items like no work or Sundays or a requirement to be a Jehovah's Witness; however it should still provide for an adequate means to protect individual rights and to maintain the county's territorial integrity. The counties would then form states, and the states could form a federal government, with progressively less "specialized" constitutions as we go upward so that unanimous consent is still possible.

But this explanation does not deal with those residents who had never signed on to the government (community, county, state or federal) to begin with. It is okay with me if your scenario excludes the hold-outs, but those hold-outs may not be sacrificed to your vaunted “territorial integrity,” nor may your government asset “unanimous consent” unless everyone within its “borders” said so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor could it demand that a post-compact native leave the country if he chose not to sign up, for that stipulation can only be imposed upon those who have by their own free will already agreed to do so.

Do children have a right to use their parents' property for an indefinite amount of time, without regard to the conditions the parents set?

Furthermore, if this government of yours is truly “conceived in liberty,” then within its “borders” (if we can use such a term), there will be original hold-outs who had never signed on in the first place.

Actually, they would be outside my nation's borders, since there would be a border around them. :)

But, as I have suggested above, if the government must attain the consent of each individual before it exercises authority over that individual

An important distinction should be made here: The government has a right to use retaliatory force against anyone, citizen or non-citizen; in other words, it can enforce a respect for individual rights regardless of who the target of such enforcement is. Consent is only required for those government activities that would qualify as an initiation of force in the absence of such consent; that is, the government can enforce restrictions on the exercise of individual rights only against those who have agreed to be so restricted.

then it is not realistic to expect wide, uninterrupted swaths of unity.

I think it IS realistic to expect many people to want to live--and especially, do business!--in a nation where there are no taxes, no regulations, no environmental laws, no frivolous lawsuits, and so on. Consider the number of people that have chosen to immigrate into the United States! If the constitution is reasonable enough (i.e. it focuses on the protection of rights and territorial integrity and does not contain any stupid "Jehovah's Witness" provisions), then I am sure it will be very popular, especially given the economic prosperity this free nation will undoubtedly enjoy. Wealthy investors will scramble to buy out any blocks of land that have not been placed under this free government!

Forgive the interruption, but why is it the towns that do the ratification but not the individuals  within those towns?

The individuals are likely to delegate to the government the authority to ratify treaties, in a manner defined in the constitution (for example, a "yes" from 80% of the citizens could count as a ratification "by the town," provided that the treaty is compatible with the constitution and does not violate individual rights).

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...