I want to present a general idea I have had for an ideal government, and hear anyone else’s thoughts about this topic.
A. This is the sandbox scenario for this discussion: men are living in outer space colonies. These are in Earth orbit, or on the moon. What is relevant is that trade with the Earth is completely possible and reasonable. The colonists have access, generally, to enough resources to sustain life comfortably. The colonists also have sufficient means to defend themselves. Survival itself is totally dependent on artificially created environments, so there is no mother earth to bum around on and pick berries and kill rabbits. Technology and lifestyle preferences can be assumed to be about what they are today. Anything else is variable and depends on peoples’ choices.
B. This is my idea for a government - First, theory. Every man’s life is furthered by his own efforts and vision, every man possesses objective rights vis-a-vis other men, and so participation in government must be the product of his judgement concerning that commitment. In other words, participation in government is agreeing to laws along with other men. Or, a social contract. As such, the government will not be considered a ‘republic’ with ‘laws above all’ where the mystical ‘will of the people’ through representative legislatures regulate morality and ‘fairness’ in society. It will be considered a contract, and treated as such. Specifically, the contract regulates the use of force in society. The fundamental terms of the contract are that each citizen forfeits their judgment on their use of force in protection of their rights to the agents of the contract, so that those judgments can be made in a civilized and consistent manner. Of course, they can still advocate and vote for their judgment, but must abide the final outcome of that process.
C. Details of my idea follow.
-
The nature of the agents of this contract, or the government, must be settled. All I’ve said are that they make judgements on the use of force in protection of rights. This doesn’t speak to those who might use force. Theoretically, citizens can enforce justice themselves, only according to terms established by the government. This begs the question of why a government is needed at all. Given the diversity of man, and his capacity for ignorance, a common standard of justice is necessary for the protection of rights. Though rights can be discerned objectively, this standard is still necessary. The principle of trade requires that two men interacting have a common understanding of the terms of their interaction. If I acknowledge objective rights, a partner in trade might not - beyond whatever agreements were necessary for that trade. A universal standard is therefore necessary to create a marketplace, so every right is acknowledged by every potential trading partner. Government is the agent that performs the function of identifying this standard - so it is necessary. Otherwise, a man would have to live on the fringes of society, and such a man would obviously not need government. But he would be missing out on opportunities that could enhance his own life through trade and interaction. Therefore the minimum requirement for government is that it identify rights and whatever laws they imply.
-
What is the jurisdiction of this government? Any interaction or trade by any citizen falls under the scope of the government. Minimally, the government has identified rights and laws explicitly. Every citizen, or even those who interact with citizens, are subject to those laws. That doesn’t speak to enforcement. What this means is that the government has the right to proscribe what use of force would be proper against anyone who commits a crime against any citizen. It can also proscribe the use of force against any citizen that violates the rights of any person. It cannot proscribe the use of force for situations that arise between non-citizens.
-
What is the limit of power for this government? It can only proscribe the use of force. The theory of rights is generally accepted to conclude that the use of force is only acceptable in retaliation against force. Initiating force is a violation of rights. I must assume that this implicitly forbids government from levying any tax. Fees and fines, if levied only in the proper contexts, are perfectly appropriate, but taxes are not. This raises the question of who will pay for the enforcement of the law? As already stated, self-defense is reasonable - especially with a common set of rules about how it should be done. Also, it takes no money to commission an executive agent. A legislature could appoint the higher members of society who volunteer as officers during a time of war. These individuals, through their wealth and ability, could come to an agreement of how to conduct self-defense (I speak generally, modern times probably require a ready-trained force, but I think such could be handled in the same manner). Also, donations by private citizens toward enforcement measures could be made. The legislature could even legitimately proscribe a proper method for such donations if necessary to provide order to the system. There is also a question of the rights of underclasses being abused because of a lack of economic access to protection under the law. In terms of libertarian philosophy, the question would be: is there a positive right to the protection of negative rights? I’d say no, there are not ‘positive rights’. But I don’t think the more productive members of society would tolerate a market tainted by the profits of those that exploit the situation of the poor by trampling their rights. Objectively they should provide what they can towards the protection of all rights, but it remains their judgement what the specific burden of the poor should remain. Fines and fees could cover most of what is necessary for enforcement. Commit a crime? You have to contribute to the court fee. Need a contract enforced? You’ll be responsible for paying if the police need to get involved. etc. So the government cannot tax, and its proscription of the use of force is limited to describing what constitutes a crime, or breach of contract, and what the appropriate response is. It cannot create a crime ahead of time (i.e. regulation). With such limitations, it is not as necessary to explicitly define rights. For example, the private exercise of religion involves no initiation of force, or force, so the government has nothing to do with it. And, clearly, a breach of contract is effectively a lie, which is effectively stealing, which is the use of force, so government has a place there.
D. A specific plan in the sandbox scenario
I envision a federal system with states, each defined by a specific spatial territory. The state boundaries are concrete. The federal government has two roles: regulating affairs between states, and governing the affairs of citizens when outside the territorial boundaries of any state. In that sense, there is no specific ‘national’ territory. However, the federal legislature may want to determine how to deal with foreign powers and perhaps make treaties in which foreign powers recognize certain territories as belonging to the federal government in the sense that they promise not to claim them for themselves.
These states derive their legitimacy and form of government from the federal constitution. Of course, this document would not strictly be a federal constitution, but rather the social contract, which defines state and federal governments. The purpose of states is to provide flexibility in law-making. While rights are universal, law enforcement - specifically concerning property - depends a lot on the specific situation of the state itself. Imagine a moon state which occupies one quarter of the earth-facing side of the moon. Property is easy to define: acreage. Now imagine a man-made rotating wheel colony. You might own a ‘spot of land’ on its interior, but your whole environment - even the location of the colony itself- is subject the will of the operators of the colony. Property law might require much greater nuance there. The rule for incorporating states is that whatever requirements there are for a group of citizens occupying a spot in space, that the state cannot be disbanded as long as it abides the requirements under which it was originally incorporated. But otherwise there is a lot of flexibility for the formation of states.
Each state has two branches of government: the legislature, and the ‘justice of the contract’. The legislature is composed of ‘aldermen’. Aldermen are appointed by ‘wards’. A ward is a non-territorial group of state residents of a certain number (say 500-1000) that band together due to similar political preferences. Under such a system, each resident can have their specific viewpoint represented so long as they can find 500 (for example) like-minded residents. This way, there is no political disenfranchisement just because you live in the wrong place. Nor is there the expectation that people from the same place must think the same (but that’s more commentary). Aldermen form a council and the ‘Council of Aldermen’ makes laws for the state, which happen to include provisions for the proper enforcement of laws. The ‘Justice of the Contract’ passes judgement, based on the law, of what would be proper enforcement. To the extent he is given authority to do so by the council, he can commission executive agents to enforce the law. He is elected much in the same manner as state governors today.
The federal government consists of two legislative bodies: the ‘Conference of the Aldermen’ and the ‘Senate’. The conference consists of the same aldermen, but from all states (technology being the enabling factor of organizing so many into one governing unit; also, the conference would by 500 times smaller than the national population, and if everything was by referendum, the dangerous ‘will of the people’ argument could apply and so there should never be direct democracy, because ‘rightness’ is not subject to democratic impulses). The only role of the conference is to settle disagreements between states, and make laws common between them. Therefore, the conference would have no say over what occurs outside all states.
The ‘Senate’ has law-making authority for any interactions occurring outside any state. It is elected by popular national vote. To avoid regionalism, each Senator represents a distinct ‘national’ district which theoretically represents ‘all’ the nation. One method of determining vote outcomes (because it’s hard to choose whether your preferred candidate - eligible to run in all districts - should receive your vote in a certain district - because you can vote in any district) would be a proportional system. Say in an election, 10 seats are up, so each citizen lists their top ten picks. There are then rounds. In the first round, the winner of all the first choices wins a seat, and everyone who voted for him now will have their remaining votes discounted 10%. This way, districts automatically form along ideological boundaries - without the need for autocratic and politically troublesome party structures seen in other proportional voting systems. Thus the Senate represents the national opinion, whereas today the President is the only ‘national’ candidate in all of America. This Senate, given its jurisdiction, will be able to have implicit ‘treaty making power’ and ‘war making power’ so its role is important (however, I don’t think that the social contract should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of governments - even America by contrast - that are authoritarian over their people). Finally, the Senate has an oversight role in which it can occasionally override state laws only when such laws clearly fail to proper protect the rights of citizens, or when the elected government fails in an obvious way (consider Mississippi lynchings in the 50’s, or Massachusettes ‘mandates’ today).
There is also a ‘Chief Justice of the Contract’ who functions in the same role as any state justice, but his jurisdiction is whatever is outside the states, and he also is part of the same oversight role as the Senate.
Finally, the constitution will provide for the appointment of an optional officer, called the ‘Speaker for the Contract’, who effectively is the head of state. He can be appointed by the senate to handle relations with ‘foreign powers’. The purpose for specifying this role (executive agents and the terms of their commissioning are usually up to legislatures) is to place constitutional checks on such a figure. Because foreign powers lie outside the jurisdiction of the the constitution, there is the fear of conspiracy with commissioned executive.
There could be checks and balances between these bodies, but I’m not sure what precisely. Also, there wouldn’t be a need for a bill of rights so long as the constitution specifies to what end laws should be made, and the limits of government power. There could be a ‘Commander in Chief’ role specified in the constitution (much like the Speaker role), but I’m not sure if that would be necessary to explicitly mention.
Becoming a citizen requires taking an oath, and is not automatic. Denying citizenship must be based on a potential threat such a person might offer existing citizens. The oath specifically acknowledges the ‘trade’ that the social contract represents in terms of use of force, and also explicitly acknowledges the fundamental basis of rights as exclusively belonging to individuals independent of any governing body. Children and the insane are considered under ‘stewardship’ in the sense that their rights are protected according to the constitution, but ‘stewards’ can obtain permission to care for these people. For example, a child must be forced to eat, go to sleep on time, take medicine etc. in ways that an adult could never be. Mentally handicapped people who can’t walk or communicate surely have the ‘right’ - as any adult would - to not be wheeled around wherever, or fed whatever their caretakers desired. But of course, by virtue of their handicap, these people would perish without the efforts of the caretakers, so the government must at least provide ‘permission’ for caretakers who choose, to manage those functions of life the handicap cannot (not all handicap, I refer to the insane). As such, children cannot become citizens while they remain under stewardship. I’m not sure when the transition should be - 18 seems arbitrary - but when it occurs, the child recites the oath, and receives full citizenship. This effectively means the right to vote (whereas other rights have more to do with losing the stewardship relationship).
In summary: ideal government = constitution, voluntary citizenship, rights universal, federalism, no taxes, explicit limit on scope: only retaliatory force.