- This topic has 2 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
The Freecharter: A Constitution for a Society of Lasting LibertyThis is an interesting model constitution I ran across. It seems to embody almost all the libertarian precepts. I don?t think it would work, but it is a good effort. The author calls it the Freecharter and the method of Government Ivestmentocracy. Essentially, you buy your votes in this government. Even people that don?t buy votes are protected, they just don?t have a say in running the country. Novel concept but unworkable in my opinion. i bet Ron Paul would love this.
It's an interesting concept, though probably not surprising it's got its own potential for problems. Scalia said that the Soviet constitution was beautiful-sounding and all, but the reason why it failed was due to a failure to adequately separate powers. I think that in the end, words in a Constitution won't really matter as much in the long run as the people who interpret them. Would the Founding Fathers recognize America today as guided by the constitution they crafted? Probably not, and I think much of this has to do with the change in interpretation of words.Also, I wonder what would prevent a group of wealthy individuals from creating a form of oligarchy.
Would an oligarchy of the wealthy be such a bad thing? I wonder, especially given the prevailing liberal views of the world. There could be no return of the robber barons and horrible conditions of the 19th century, at least not in the west.My biggest objection to the provisions in this document are the defense provisions. The author apparently assumes that everybody else in the world would leave us alone if we have no designs on them or theirs. History shows that is an attitude that leads to conquest by someone else. Businessmen can always find something better than defense to spend on, they only want defense spending when it is too late anyway.
True, an oligarchy might note be a bad thing, but then again I'm not sure they'd be concerned with protecting basic human rights…something which is normally within the realm of traditional government.I think that every form of government has its drawbacks. Perhaps the answer is to find the form of government which would would pose the lowest threat to the people? I dunno.
I actually kind of like our current form of Government. I just wish they stuck with the literal letter of the constitution instead of continually trying to interpret it.
I think Heinlein had it right. I think it is in Farnham's Freehold that he writes that
an armed society is a safe society and one that is secure in its freedoms.
It is hard to take basic rights away from an armed citizenry. Watch what happens to gun rights, when they go so do the rest of our freedoms. The sad part is that people will part with their guns voluntarily because propagandists will convince them that giving up their guns is a civic duty and will lead to a safer society.
I do think that our form of government is low-risk to the populace. I agree with the part on gun rights and I think it's a way for the people to hedge their bets on the American experiment.
The government as enumerated in the constitution and as currently existing are two different things entirely. Therein lies my biggest issue with the current government. Bob Dole used to wave around a copy of the 10th article of the constitution it is the federal government ignoring that article and abusing the commerce clause that has gotten us where we are today.
That is true. I wonder what our nation would look like today had the Founding Fathers been much more limiting in Congress' power to regulate commerce among the states. No doubt states would look much more like they did during the early days of the republic.
The country would probably look a lot like it did before 1861 and relations between the states and federal governments would look similar. Minimal federal intrusion into state affairs, the way it should be. The more I think the healthier my respect for southern leaders of the Antebellum south becomes apart from their support for slavery. Slavery would have died as an institution anyway, indeed, I have read studies showing it was already starting to die in the south before the war.
