Introduction & Disclosure
"The underlying ideas of capitalism are: Metaphysics -- existence is primary, consciousness is secondary. Epistemology -- reason is man’s means to knowledge, not faith or instinct. Ethics -- man is a thinking animal. His life is the irreplaceable value to which all lesser values are the means. His life is the standard by which all lesser values are evaluated. Politics -- man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.
Capitalism is the only philosophy of mankind which is founded on the concept of individualism. All other philosophy systems value a king, a god or society as their greatest good. Individual rights, the linchpin of capitalism, cut across criteria of race, nationality, cultural background and gender, identifying the smallest minority of a society to construct a just and fair political system.
A secularized constitution is designed to protect people from the government. The proper purpose of a limited government is to protect individual freedoms.
A limited government consists of -- "the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law" (Ayn Rand).
All other government functions are illegitimate and should be privatized, dismantled and/or liquidated. Business should be separated from the state for all the same reasons the state should be separated from the church. Government should be a referee -- not a player -- among competing interests in the marketplace and society.
As the ultimate democracy is the capitalist marketplace, it is here -- not government -- individuals should turn to for leadership and creative problem-solving. Government should exist solely to carry out the limited but crucial mandate of a secularized constitution to guarantee the rights of free individuals." (GJW)
“Political parties and their elections are the bane of civilized societies. I look forward to an enlightened society which not only phases them out but declares them constitutionally illegal. They are the greatest flaw of today's capitalism, of Western Civilization's politics.” (GJW)
Pulling no punches: government by elected representation is a failure. Reason: an individual cannot be represented by another in government for such representation is a form of alienation (Jean Jacques Rousseau). One either represents their self or does not: there is no medium.
Empowering someone to represent -– i.e., speak and act -– for one individual is difficult at best. Depending on the complexity of the situation it can be impossible. Now picture a representative 1000 miles away who has to speak and act not only for one person but for 550,000 people. By its very nature representative ‘bottleneck’ government alienates individuals from being represented.
Individual alienation is pushed farther still. Add to this the shortcomings of the majority vote which determines the representative of an area. Due to vote-splitting among multiple parties in some constituencies the majority of voters are represented by an individual they did not vote for.
Reading about elected representative government one finds fiery critiques are plenty. Then, predictable to the end, many philosophers, scholars and lawyers list its so-called virtues, yield to its supposed necessity, declare it good and essential, then conclude their schizophrenic ramblings with the need for some kind of superficial reform to attain ‘genuine’ representation or offer no solution at all. This is most aggravating.
"Most of the men who helped found the young American republic feared the destructiveness of factions. In the beginning they hoped the country could somehow be governed without political parties. But where Jefferson and Madison came to see party divisions as an element of the electoral system, Washington, Adams, and Hamilton, though themselves Federalist partisans, continued to think liberty could be preserved without resort to party alliances." (source unknown)
“Centralizing the government of 290 million people in a distant capital is a tragic reversal of our liberal Founding. … the Founders were right to reserve most subjects to state, local, or private endeavor. The Founders feared the concentration of power. They believed the best way to protect individual freedom and civil society was to limit and divide power.
Thus it was better to have decisions made independently by 13 -- or 50 -- states, each able to innovate and to observe and copy successful innovations in other states, than to have one decision made for the entire country.
As the country gets more populous and more complex, and especially as government amasses more power, the advantages of decentralization and divided power become even greater.” (www.cato.org: Edward H. Crane and David Boaz)
This discussion of government was meant to be included in the March 2004 letter composed in San Jose, Costa Rica. As it took dozens of the most enlightened men on the planet more than a dozen years to ink the US constitution, I pulled this section as I did not feel ready to disclose my thoughts.
For purpose of further thought and dialogue I am going out on a limb. The following is an attempt with the knowledge I possess today to take the ideas of individual liberty to what I think is their ‘logical terminus’.
This is in no way meant to be a full treatise. Scant and simple as it is, it is an alternative view to correct the systemic and irreparable problems of representative government. By putting this on my website it is in the hope somebody somewhere can tune me in to a similar line of thought I have yet to find or take these ideas and run with them. That said, here we go.
Government by elected representation, political parties, and the political party election process should be declared illegal and outlawed. The alternative proposal is a corporate styled government.
How is it possible to make the transition from today’s representative government to a limited, party-less government? What does the limited government of capitalism look like without political parties and elections? Who, if not Congress, represents and speaks for individuals in government? If not elected how are government employees selected? And how is all this financed without taxation?
Transition
The first step toward what I call corporate-styled, accountable government is to streamline its operations. For reasons mentioned in the July 2000 Letter :
(A) progressively dismantle protectionist policies;
(B) progressively reprivatize sectors (eduction, postal services, health care, etc.);
(C) progressively phase out social programs (welfare, unemployment insurance, public housing, pensions, etc.).
Eliminated over a period of time (decades), these retired ‘services’ would save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars a year (in the US).
“President Reagan was confident the free market would supply whatever corrective forces were necessary when the welfare state began to dismantle itself.” (Edmund Morris, Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan)
Imagine a streamlined government -- if you can. Remember, after the above A-B-C, government is nowhere as large, imposing or aggressive as it is today.
Under the multi-lateral agreements of the WTO foreign nations help one another by reducing government interference in the marketplace, thereby subduing special interest groups. In turn protectionist policies and social schemes are eliminated, national debts are paid off, taxes are cut, individuals are re-empowered.
With the confusion of government interference subsiding the role of government in society is progressively seen in a clearer light. The inefficient, irrational socialist leanings of government are increasingly seen for what they are: immoral. Capitalism is the only philosophy and system in the world founded on individual rights. The rest are altruistic which undermine such rights.
With this in mind the following steps are achieved under the leadership of an elected politician (president) who has made clear his intentions to all: he is going to retire representative government and the political party election process into history.
With the president calling for the dismantling of party alliances -– i.e., for the objectivity of all legislative bodies -– it involves taking the Constitution and Bill of Rights and:
(1) providing increased definition of individual rights by passing an economic bill of rights, which ultimately includes striking down Amendment 16 giving Congress authority to tax and confiscate the property of individuals;
(2) rewrite the focus of the Judicial and Legislative branches of government (see “Basic Structure” below).
The next step would be to make the transition from an elected government to a corporate government. As the last elected president he would select individuals in his party -– even all parties (as he should) –- to achieve this objective.
The last elected president would serve as the first interim president of a corporate government. The members he selects would likewise take interim seats as executives and managers within the three specialties of government, each according to their knowledge and skill: courts, police, national defense.
Basic Structure
Federal government in the United States is divided into three separate and distinct branches:
The Legislative branch: responsible for making basic laws; the federal body is the Congress, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The Executive branch: charged with administering and enforcing the laws. The president is the chief executive of the branch.
The Judicial branch: interprets the laws of the land; this is the court system. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the chief executive of the branch.
The Judicial branch is the one I see the greatest change in, at least in concept. For the most part I leave it as is, to interpret the laws of the land, the courts providing a peaceful means to resolve disputes among competing interests, according to objective rules.
Individuals, however, do not need or want government and elections in their lives. I, for one, have never needed to be represented by an elected official. I am sure the overwhelming majority of individuals would agree with me.
Government becomes necessary only when things go wrong, i.e., when individual rights are violated, when a conflict rises between parties that requires settling. Government should only address the negatives of societal relations, leaving the positives untouched to do their thing. In this light most of men's actions will be positive, the negatives few.
Rarely do law-abiding individuals need to think about matters of law when things are going right for them. Only when one comes into conflict with another individual(s) is a forum necessary for discussion and objective evaluation.
Here I want to emphasize all individuals have access to the courts. Only via the courts can all individuals be heard in person to address their concerns, bypassing representative alienation.
The courtroom, then, is the ideal place whereby the voice of the individual is heard. While arguing in his-her own defense they can contribute to the process of improving government. Each court case is a reinforcement -- and possibly a refinement -- of the law.
If a legal precedent is established then it clarifies (1) individual rights, and (2) the role of government in our lives. This is done directly, in person, not through an elected representative he or she did not vote for. An elected representative who has five thousand people standing in line to see him/her.
I think democracy-elected-representation unnecessarily and ineffectively duplicates a forum for individuals to participate in the legislative process. The courts being specialized in Constitutional interpretation give this branch a distinct advantage and insight over representative government.
I propose the Legislative branch take its lead from the proceedings of Judicial court rooms. Who is better to refine a country’s constitution? There is no branch of government or group of professionals more objective, skilled and/or qualified to do so than the Judicial branch.
Most court cases are and will be of a redundant nature. Should a new issue arise that is so important it might necessitate Constitutional amendment, then the Supreme court will propose the matter to Congress to vote on. The Legislative and Executive branches thus take their cues from the courts.
To sum: the courts are my power, my sounding board, my entry into government to fight for the refinement of law and constitutional change. At most all I need is counsel to stand beside me, to offer legal and procedural advice. I represent myself before government, direct from my mind, my mouth.
For this I need no political party, no election process, no elected representatives. I need no empty campaign promises, no lying politicians, no party scandals. I speak for myself through due process of law.
To go against the grain of the modern conception of government –- government does not govern the people, it should be governed by the people via the courts.
“American laws, piling compromise upon compromise, from the top down, have become a gargantuan maze of imcomprehensible nonsense which offers no guidance to anyone about the right things to do –- which is why Americans today are frequently confronted with situations where they find that doing the ‘right’ thing is not ‘legal,’ and vice versa.” (www.intellectools.net)
The Judicial branch, without having to deal with the contradictory laws of todays Executive and Legislative branches, would find the complexity of determining what is and what is not legal greatly simplified. This would simplify the work of policemen. Written in the July 2000 letter “government interference with individual liberties creates criminal activity. For the most part it is the law that is corrupt and not the populace. If we can chain the government and free trade, watch the prisons empty.”
Meritocracy
The peaceful changing of a high-level executive position is handled not by popular vote but by resume, interviewed and selected by a Board of Directors. This Board would be composed of other high-level executives from the three branches of government. With the added possibility of including civilians of distinction for their superior understanding of individual rights and a limited government. The Board would hire, regularly review and –- if necessary -– fire high-level executives.
As it is today other job positions within government departments (civil servants) would be filled by resume as well. Job abstracts are provided, detailing the skills and experience required. Those interested submit resumes. Potential hires are selected and interviewed based on how well they understand the scope of the position, their previous work experience, and what kind of insights they may possess to make the business of government run more efficiently. Ideally, like it is in the common workplace, the individual who is hired is considered the best, most experienced, able, intelligent person who applied for the position.
Just as it is in any business today, all employees -– CEOs included –- are regularly evaluated as to how well they fulfill the directives and duties of their position within the government hierarchy. The performance of employees is monitored by the checks and balances of a regular corporate culture. Should anyone not act according to their position, senior officers can fire him/her based on incompetence.
Not to be underestimated or overlooked: all government executives, managers and employees have been freed from the rivalries and rifts of party alliances. By simplifying the purpose and scope of government action, by subduing special interest groups so they have no position to pursue favor, government and its employees are able to pursue their roles more objectively.
Unlike the quagmire of today’s politics this would be a limited government characterized by focus, discipline and harmony. Each and every individual, from the chief executives to the clerks, is focused on one thing and one thing only: just as a private corporation is committed to increasing shareholder value, the mandate of a corporate government is committed to refining and increasing individual value.
If a corporation like General Electric can in the span of more than a century turn over all its staff multiple times and still remain committed to increasing shareholder value, I believe a corporate government can do the same to increase individual value.
Financing
The final step of transition to the establishment of a corporate government would involve how its operations are financed. The argument runs like this:
The legitimate role of government is to protect individuals from those who initiate the use of physical force. Taxation is a form of coercion and an initiation of force. On this basis, government cannot tax -– i.e., violate --individual sovereignty to fund its operations.
What it can do in place of taxation: the business of protecting individual rights includes the security and trade of property. It is here government could charge user fees for its services -- particularly with business contracts.
If businesses want their contracts to be enforceable in a government court of law, which would be in their interest in case of dispute or fraud, they would build into the contract a fixed amount or small percentage paid to the government for assured enforcement.
As business trade totals trillions of dollars every year, a small percentage of this would adequately pay for all the activities of a limited government in time of peace. As disputes between individuals involve much smaller sums of property it is conceivable the fees generated from business contracts would more than pay for the expense of personal use, thereby making government services freely available to all individual citizens, no matter their financial standing.
In time of military defense explicitly defined emergency taxation measures could be implemented to cover expenses. Donations would also be accepted. This may sound peculiar but individuals stand to lose a lot more than a donation if the country gets overrun by an enemy.
Changing the financing of government would be the last step of transition to securing individual freedom and a limited government. It would “be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.” (Ayn Rand)
Summary
“Peace is our passion … Commerce with all nations, alliance with none.”
“That government is best which governs least … a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” (Quotes by Thomas Jefferson)
Under the directives of a corporate-styled government present day politicians would be reduced to hired employees, carrying out the limited but crucial mandate of a secularized constitution to safeguard the rights of free individuals.
With government as referee it would be the courts -– not politicians -– that decide legal precedents. It would be the responsibility of the courts to objectively interpret and propose new law based on the individual’s right to life.
The Legislative branch takes its cue from the courts, amending and creating laws when judged essential. The Executive branch is responsible to uphold the decisions and laws of the Constitution, securing individual rights.
By this means political parties and the political party election process can be declared illegal, outlawed, to fade into history.
No longer daily burdened by loathsome ‘democratic’ politics individuals would be free to pursue what men have sought -- and fought -- for centuries, to simply live and experience life to the utmost of their ability.