Is a national assembly necessary?

[Kjetil]

Did Ayn Rand have any specific views on whether a capitalist society requires a parliament / national assembly consisting of elected politicians? And if so, should this be counted as part of her philosophy, or merely personal opinions?

 

I cannot see why the protection of individual rights requires such an institution. Why not just skip the middle man and let those who want to pass a new law file a case in the Supreme Court and prove that the law is not violating the constitution (and thereby individual rights)? 

Edited February 3, 2015 by Kjetil

[Nicky]

Objectivism doesn't prescribe any kind of political structure. And no, I wouldn't say a national assembly is "necessary" to the functioning of a capitalist government.

But, judging from history, it does seem like a good idea. I'm not aware of a better alternative.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Nicky

[Reidy]

And where would these judges' jobs, power and legitimacy come from?

[2046]

It is indeed true that Rand never specified her views on governmental structure. But it does seem apparent that she agreed with the Lockean view of having a separate legislative branch with a National Assembly of some sort. Objectivists' support for individual rights is unquestionable, but strange that many do not engage on questions of structure, and simply assume that a centralized legislature is the only way to have objective law, and do not ask if this is the best incentive structure for a free society.

More than just "cutting out the middle man," there are some very powerful reasons why centralized political systems are very negative for long term liberty. The danger and bad incentive structure of making law by a centralized legislature is just assumed to be the way it "has to be."

It would be great if more Objectivists were aware of their own philosophical history, many great classical liberals, such as the Italian jurist Bruno Leoni (not some crazy anarchist, but a supporter of limited government), have argued that legislation as such is incompatible with freedom. There have been historical instances of decentralized legal systems which does not depend on legislation or centralized legislative bodies. This is the way of legal systems such as customary law, Roman law, and the common law. Until such questions as centralized vs decentralized legal systems, and which structural framework is more compatible with those attributes of objective law, uniformity, certainty, reliability, stability, rationality, etc. can be engaged with, then we have not really proven our case as to what is the best constitutional structure of government.

[Spiral Architect]

Proscribed?  No.  As a philosophy it says what the Government should do (protect rights).  Not how to do that.  

 

That being said the discussion is how to set up a Government to accomplish that.  You need courts but if they are voted in democratically then they are simply going to slowly become and ad hoc assembly anyway, so another approach is needed.  

 

The U.S. Constitution was set up to force power centers to offset each other to discourage centralization of powers and to create checks.  They also choose each of the three based on history which is a good lesson to keep in mind.  Judiciary was necessary for justice and politically independent checks and balances but was also determined by the other two; the Executive was necessary for military command and checking congress but had to be limited to avoid another King George; Congress was necessary for democratic participation and representation but needed to be checked to avoid the issues of the Articles.  

 

Revamping a moral Government likely have to follow the same methodology.