Debate: A Charter for Government
January 18, 2009 by Paul McKeever
The following is a work-in-progress. I am not at liberty to say, at this point, the use to which the following document might be put, so I name it, provisionally, “A Charter for Government”.
I am interested in any meaningful comments, criticisms, or suggestions you may have. No matter what may be your personal philosophy, and no matter what might be your personal beliefs, I would like to hear from you. Please submit your comments in the comments below, on this blog (if you are a first-time commenter, I will have to approve your first comment manually…please be patient, it’s worth it, to avoid spam). Insults and flame-bait will be discarded: please avoid ad hominem attacks toward me or toward other commenters, but do not be afraid to express a judgment that something in the document is true/false, good/evil, virtuous/vicious.
– FIRST DRAFT –
Definitions
1. In this Charter:
Reality means: that which exists.
Fact of Reality means: something that is true about Reality.
True belief or claim means: one consistent with the Facts of Reality, as identified by a strictly logical process of thought about that for which there ultimately exists physical evidence that has been perceived by a human being.
Arbitrary belief or claim means: one for which no physical evidence has been perceived by a human being.
False belief or claim means: one that is contrary to the Facts of Reality because it is illogical, or because it is contrary to physical evidence as a determined by a strictly logical process of thought.
Government means: a number of governed individuals who, jointly or severally, have and rationally exercise the authority to make, interpret, and enforce objective laws.
Reality
2. The conclusions, decisions, actions, words, deeds, policies, proposals, laws and regulations of government always must be founded solely upon, and always must be consistent with, True beliefs and claims.
3. Government must never express or imply any False or Arbitrary belief or claim.
4. Government must never expressly or implicitly sanction, and must never cause or allow itself appear to sanction, in any way, any False or Arbitrary belief or claim.
Reason
5. Government must never attempt to discourage or prevent any individual from thinking or acting rationally and must never condemn or punish any individual for thinking or acting rationally.
6. Government must never attempt to persuade or coerce any individual to think or act irrationally, and must never praise or reward any individual for thinking or acting irrationally.
7. Government must never condemn or punish any individual for his rational thoughts, words or deeds.
8. Government must never praise or reward any individual for his irrational thoughts, words or deeds.
Self
9. Government must never attempt to persuade or coerce any individual to make other individuals’ survival, relief, or happiness a higher value or priority than his own survival, relief and happiness.
10. Government must never in any way attempt to condemn or punish any individual for making his own survival, relief and happiness his highest purpose or priority.
11. Government must never attempt to praise or reward any individual for making other individuals’ survival, relief, or happiness a higher purpose or priority than his own survival, relief and happiness.
Consent
12. Government must use force to ensure that no individual does anything to another individual’s body without the latter individual’s consent (i.e., that no individual violates another individual’s life).
13. Government must not violate any individual’s life.
14. Government must not use force to penalize in any way an individual’s rational attempt to defend against another individual’s attempt to violate the former individual’s life.
15. Government must, and only government may, use force in a retaliatory manner to ensure justice prevails when an individual has done something to another individual’s body without the latter individual’s consent.
16. Government must use force to ensure that no individual restricts or directs another individual’s actions without the latter individual’s consent (i.e., that no individual violates another individual’s liberty).
17. Government must not violate any individual’s liberty.
18. Government must not use force to penalize in any way an individual’s rational attempt to defend against another individual’s attempt to violate the former individual’s liberty.
19. Government must, and only government may, use force in a retaliatory manner to ensure justice prevails when an individual has violated another individual’s liberty.
20. Government must use force to ensure that no person does with a thing that which a property right allows only another person to do with the thing, unless the former person has the latter person’s consent so to do it (i.e., that no person violates another person’s property).
21. Government must not violate any person’s property.
22. Government must not use force to penalize in any way a person’s rational attempt to defend against another person’s attempt to violate the former person’s property.
23. Government must, and only government may, use force in a retaliatory manner to ensure justice prevails when a person has violated another person’s property.
Justice
24. To ensure justice prevails, when a person has violated another person’s life, liberty or property, Government shall impose a negative consequence of no greater or lesser magnitude than that which resulted from the violation.
Law
25. All laws must be objective and objectively justifiable so that individuals know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law requires or forbids persons to do and why; what constitutes a wrong, an offence, or a crime; and how force will be used against a person who commits a wrong, offence or crime.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
[…] 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 […]