My OperaA Very Unpolished Post, From Another Blog
Monday, May 18, 2009 3:33:43 AM
Here are my premises...
1. Freedom/liberty is protecting/respecting individual rights.
2. Rights properly defined are the only things that are obligatory between men.
3. That there has never been a nation with a constitution that has been explicit enough to protect those rights. That always some clause in all constitutions in existence that people follow have been flawed because they allow either interpretation because the clauses have vague words.
4. That a representational democracy is the only form of government that can withhold these rights ONLY when they have been defined for every aspect of objective law.
5. That if we could be in the power to write a constitution and that was the one that was ratified by a majority then if would have to be done in such a way that no clause could be vague enough to be weakened by interpretation.
6. That the fact that most men and women live by a altruist/ collectivist code of morality that they can not be trusted to keep proper rights, I give you the history of humankind as evidence.
7. I define rights the same way Ayn Rand did. i am a objectivist. Just a newbie.
8. That there should be meritocracy in government.
9. I believe that there should be checks and balance between the branches of government.
10. That the United States Constituation gives to much power to all branches even though they are seperated.
11. That Senators should have to take very hard and strenous tests and have so much education and be barred from office if they have ever done such and such thing. The tests would be desighned to keep out certain kinds of mentalities. So would all government employees. That's the meritocracy part.
12. That the goverment should be Objectivists in ideology via the clear dectates of the constution without discrenating at certain levels. (a senator would have to be a objectivist but the police cheif could be a Christian, Sikh or Jew, whatever)
13. That the method selecting representatives should be restricted by certain objective parameters. That they would have to have so much merit.
14. That their would be a unicameral legislature.
15. That their should be professional voters and electoral collage at the local and national level. (their would be no states to clamor for "state rights") and would vote for all members of government without campaigns.
16. That the president would be very restricted in what they could do. That they would be free to do their role but there would be very strict and objective limits to that role. They could not interact with any special interest groups that are political. Screened for any activity that goes against the national interest. For example that if they were ever Marxist even if the came clean.
17. That a doctrine of national self interest would be wrote into the constitution and it would fall on the legislature to formulate and monitor the political zeitgeist of other nations and as well as the presidents backed by military intelligence and appropriate military (intelligence agencies,) civilian (think tanks).
18. That since the constitution would be so explicit and thorough then that would be the "ultimate check and balance".
This is the start of it. I want feedback. So then my idea is the mixture in a non-contradictory fashion of "meritocracy" "republic" "laisez-faire capitalism protected by the constitution"...aka a Meritocratic Capitalist Republic.
1. Freedom/liberty is protecting/respecting individual rights.
2. Rights properly defined are the only things that are obligatory between men.
3. That there has never been a nation with a constitution that has been explicit enough to protect those rights. That always some clause in all constitutions in existence that people follow have been flawed because they allow either interpretation because the clauses have vague words.
4. That a representational democracy is the only form of government that can withhold these rights ONLY when they have been defined for every aspect of objective law.
5. That if we could be in the power to write a constitution and that was the one that was ratified by a majority then if would have to be done in such a way that no clause could be vague enough to be weakened by interpretation.
6. That the fact that most men and women live by a altruist/ collectivist code of morality that they can not be trusted to keep proper rights, I give you the history of humankind as evidence.
7. I define rights the same way Ayn Rand did. i am a objectivist. Just a newbie.
8. That there should be meritocracy in government.
9. I believe that there should be checks and balance between the branches of government.
10. That the United States Constituation gives to much power to all branches even though they are seperated.
11. That Senators should have to take very hard and strenous tests and have so much education and be barred from office if they have ever done such and such thing. The tests would be desighned to keep out certain kinds of mentalities. So would all government employees. That's the meritocracy part.
12. That the goverment should be Objectivists in ideology via the clear dectates of the constution without discrenating at certain levels. (a senator would have to be a objectivist but the police cheif could be a Christian, Sikh or Jew, whatever)
13. That the method selecting representatives should be restricted by certain objective parameters. That they would have to have so much merit.
14. That their would be a unicameral legislature.
15. That their should be professional voters and electoral collage at the local and national level. (their would be no states to clamor for "state rights") and would vote for all members of government without campaigns.
16. That the president would be very restricted in what they could do. That they would be free to do their role but there would be very strict and objective limits to that role. They could not interact with any special interest groups that are political. Screened for any activity that goes against the national interest. For example that if they were ever Marxist even if the came clean.
17. That a doctrine of national self interest would be wrote into the constitution and it would fall on the legislature to formulate and monitor the political zeitgeist of other nations and as well as the presidents backed by military intelligence and appropriate military (intelligence agencies,) civilian (think tanks).
18. That since the constitution would be so explicit and thorough then that would be the "ultimate check and balance".
This is the start of it. I want feedback. So then my idea is the mixture in a non-contradictory fashion of "meritocracy" "republic" "laisez-faire capitalism protected by the constitution"...aka a Meritocratic Capitalist Republic.
Dandovish # Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:34:54 AM
ChristopherCherring109 # Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:42:49 PM
ChristopherCherring109 # Saturday, June 6, 2009 3:31:30 AM
JRSJrsharp70 # Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:21:20 PM
For example, I would have to ask you first to define the proper role of government in society. Once you have done that, you may want to change some of your statements.
If you truly understand Rand's work, then you understand that your premises for any given statement must lead to one answer which is inherently the most rational. You make quite a few very specific comments that require either a GREAT deal of thought and reasoning, or taking information for granted from another source.
I'll be the first to admit that without reliable sources of information, we would have to live a great deal of our life in thought... however it should be noted that you can live your life on an ASSUMPTION of correctness in an idea or statement, making sure to always remember that you are evaluating the truth in those actions by their outcomes. Once the outcomes do not match your idea of the action, you must begin to evaluate your premise further.
So my point is, a lot of these statements, while I feel are mostly true, ought to be left unsaid, and you should stick to the core ideas that you hold and have genuinely evaluated (as you will continuously as you age). This accomplishes 2 things: 1) you avoid arguments in which you are unprepared to defend your thesis, and 2) you are able to expand on them through experience, and not heresay.
Ericringoshu # Thursday, September 3, 2009 4:57:08 PM
You seem to place a lot of importance to a laissez-faire style economy which is where I would disagree. For example, how would you control big companies from leading unethical business practices towards it's employees or balance the competition between them and small businesses? With the current economic practice, many world powers have agreed that reform must be made to regulate the banking system. Multinationals can suck large amounts of income that may actually damage the economy or put the government at a disadvantage. What about welfare? Private or public management of human resources? Looking forward to see your opinion on those subjects, though I recognize you mainly focus on government structure.
It would also be interesting to see what the foreign policy would be like of a Meritocratic Capitalist Republic. After all, it's clearly unjust to apply good concepts for domestic policy and treat differently the relations with other nations. What would be this republic's position towards the UN? I know I'm talking here about foreign policy which is not what you're focusing on. I agree that domestic conditions should be cleared up first before managing external relations, but they will meet at one point.
More directly to what you wrote, what do you mean by professional voters? Also, #17 hints a bit on a more hostile position towards foreign policy. Instead of international cooperation, national self-interest is put first. I am guessing this republic would not believe growing formations of unions in a continental scale such as the European Union, the African Union, etc. Such ideals could lead to imperialism, or neo-colonialism like the case of Puerto Rico and other Latinamerican countries.
Otherwise it's a good take on the many changes governments around the world should make for more efficient and just management, which is something that I really like about your ideas
Gina RogersStellarGirl77 # Monday, January 3, 2011 10:56:46 PM