Comments on: Debate: A Charter for Government

By: 2nd Draft: A Charter for Government (feedback requested) : Paul McKeever

2nd Draft: A Charter for Government (feedback requested) : Paul McKeever — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:29:02 +0000

[...] with an expression of thanks to all who took the time to read, think about, and comment upon, the first draft of the Charter for Government. In particular, I would like to thank David Odden over at [...]

By: Nathan Terry

Nathan Terry — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:16:28 +0000

I think you need to add “Rational” to the definitions section. When actions in the document are described as being rational, they are easily demagogued by people who will define one person’s rationality as possibly different than another’s. As a simple example, it’s too easy to justify one person’s theft from another as being rationalized because they needed it more than the victim.

The objecivist definition of rational needs to be laid out so that it can be referred back to and to keep the reader from inserting their own definition.

By: Paul McKeever

Paul McKeever — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:44:08 +0000

Just a bit more context for everyone: the purpose of the Charter is not to function as a constitution for an actual government. Rather, it is to flesh-out the things that a political organization’s policy-makers believe.

By: Ralf

Ralf — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:23:35 +0000

I think that identification by a strictly logical process of thought and physical evidence is too limited a way of verifying true beliefs. I suppose the context here is what is useful or can be used by government and that calls for a more cautious approach as it would impact on other people than oneself.
However: the question open to me is this, and is valid I think for Objectivism in general: feelings are not tools of cognition, true enough. But how then can you prove that you are happy? You can neither by a logical process neither by physical evidence. Yet happiness can be a fact of ones reality and can be real.

Having said that: if your goal is to set up principles for government, then this is probably less relevant in that context.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:46:39 +0000

First, let me say excellent first draft.

Second, this draft is testimony to how far government has degenerated from principles established during the Enlightenment.

Third, as part of your definitions, Justice should be defined as it is a foundational virtue of government.

Fourth, upon a first read, I see some potential context issues that may require exceptions, but will give that issue further thought as I see that you have done something to accommodate self-defense.

Finally, I look forward to see how you go beyond Mason to incorporate Adams’ principles on constitutional governmental structure.

By: ABV Rao

ABV Rao — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:37:21 +0000

I have long been an ardent follower of yours. Please clarify what a government should do about 1.Natural resources like rivers, mines, forests and 2.How infrastructure like roads and ports are to be built

Thanks

By: Amlan Gupta

Amlan Gupta — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:41:30 +0000

Hi Paul,

This is a very interesting document. My brother and I have had many discussions about what a government founded on Objectivist principles would look like in practice. Part of this discussion has been to imagine the Constitution of such a state.

What you have written above is a start of such a document i.e. the basic principles. One of the key elements that we have thought about is how to limit the growth and power of government. The US constitution and others that have followed its example, did this to some extent but one could learn from the lessons of the US and build in much more restrictions on to governments.

As you continue this effort, we would be very interested in seeing how it develops and perhaps even assisting in some ways.

Amlan

By: Justas

Justas — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:52:28 +0000

This Charter looks well and neat, but you should also note that government is run by individuals. so how comes that individuals at government must not act as individuals out of government? Example: if all individuals behave selfishly, what stops government’s individuals for getting bribed? I understand that this question may sound silly, but that’s the first question any skeptic may ask.