Another Form of Government for Your Consideration

I have been considering the failures and the promise of the US Federal system of government and over the past several years have been considering what the most perfect system of government would be.

Here is the culmination of that effort for your consideration and discussion. And no, I don't think it's perfect at all, just better that what's rolling over us all right now. So, without further ado, here it is:

An Objectivist Government: A Framework
Core Principle: Individual Rights and Limited Government

An Objectivist government would be strictly limited in scope, its sole function being the protection of individual rights.

This is based on the fundamental principle that individuals have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the government's only legitimate role is to protect these rights.  

Key Characteristics:
Limited Government: The government would be small, efficient, and focused on core functions:

National defense: Protecting against foreign aggression.
Law enforcement: Protecting individual rights and property from domestic criminals.
Courts: Resolving disputes between individuals according to objective laws.
Infrastructure: Providing essential public goods like roads and transportation systems, funded through user fees or private enterprise.
Individual Rights: These would be enshrined in a constitution and strictly protected:

Freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly.
Right to own property without interference.
Right to contract freely.
Right to defend oneself and one's property.
Free Market Economy: The government would not interfere in the economy. Economic decisions would be made by individuals and businesses, free from government regulation and control.

No subsidies, bailouts, or corporate welfare.
Low taxes to minimize government intrusion into individual income.
Minimal environmental regulations, focusing on protecting property rights.
Rule of Law: The government would be bound by clear, objective laws applied equally to all citizens.

No special privileges or exemptions for any individual or group.
Independent judiciary to ensure impartial application of the law.
Limited Welfare: Social welfare programs would be minimal or non-existent. Charity and private organizations would be responsible for helping the less fortunate.

Challenges and Considerations:
Public Goods: Determining the appropriate level of government involvement in providing public goods like roads and infrastructure is a complex issue. User fees or private provision could be explored.
National Defense: Balancing the need for a strong military with the principle of limited government is a challenge.
Law Enforcement: Ensuring that law enforcement agencies do not overstep their bounds and respect individual rights is crucial.
Transition: Implementing such a radical shift in government would require careful planning and public education.

So let me know what you think.

a reply to: LetsGoViking

How does a society attain any semblance of objectivity when so much division exists? It can only end up with the majority rules.

a reply to: quintessentone

Division always occurs. It's the framework that strives to be Objective. There will always be haters and naysayers, but a framework must be laid down in spite of it, if we wish to move forward towards some semblance of personal freedom.
I have less freedom of choice and action today than I had in 1970, so it's not getting better. Have to start somewhere

a reply to: LetsGoViking

you should carve all this into some stones, make it several different languages, and put them on a hill in Georgia.

a reply to: network dude

Have to reach out to my Bohemian Grove friends and see if they will fund that!
Great idea! lol /sarc

originally posted by: LetsGoViking
a reply to: quintessentone

Division always occurs. It's the framework that strives to be Objective. There will always be haters and naysayers, but a framework must be laid down in spite of it, if we wish to move forward towards some semblance of personal freedom.
I have less freedom of choice and action today than I had in 1970, so it's not getting better. Have to start somewhere

Freedom is a slippery slope because your idea of what your personal freedom should be may encroach on another's idea of what their personal freedom should be.

I like the system I have right here in the US which cannot be found anywhere else on earth, maybe try your government somewhere else. Best of luck to you.

a reply to: LetsGoViking

Where is the imaginary money to come from to kick start this framework?

We should make a law that makes anyone conning people or doing things to swindle citizens out of money go to jail. Automatically almost all the politicians we have would be in jail so it would be easy to start a new government.

I guess if you put stock in the majority.

Thats why true democracy is always flawed. A constitutional republic is much better.

That’s why freedom of speech is essential and the most fundamental of all freedom.


So you can say hay! That guy is impeding my freedoms! That “x” is bad and you hate it.
Essential
a reply to: quintessentone

originally posted by: some_stupid_name
I like the system I have right here in the US which cannot be found anywhere else on earth, maybe try your government somewhere else. Best of luck to you.

Not sure if you noticed, but this is the system of Government idealized by Thomas, et al. What we have in the US today is a far cry from the American Government defined by Founding Fathers. I just tried to simply the structure to be more conducive to personal freedom and less government control over our lives, to see what people would think.

It's been an eye opening experience so far.

a reply to: LetsGoViking

I'm digging what you're shoveling for sure. Sounds like the setup for a Republic. It's how most will start and none will end. But I believe our technology and culture has moved beyond a republican form of government. The economic arguments today are the same as millennia ago. The war between Athens and Sparta was a conflict of Athenian "free-market democracy" and Spartan "centralized authoritarianism". Sound familiar?

What I believe we need to do is utilize current technology to have each individual Sovereign of the world participate in the marketplace using direct Energy Exchange. Money, in all its forms and denominations, is nothing more than the record of an energy exchange between two entities. Let's use computers to calculate that exchange. Not cryptocurrency, as that is even more fiat than existing fiat currency. Calculate the direct energy exchange between entities and you will have a more adaptable, sustainable, and efficient system.

As far as governing, once reaching the age of Sovereignty (I'd say 25 cuz that's when the average human brain finally "gels" into place), each Sovereign would join a Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Caucus of Experts. These various Caucuses would be composed of the Owners, Staff, and Users of the various products that are generated in the system, and the Caucuses would interact with one another using a Universal Energy Exchange.

This system would remove money and thus most of the problems associated with localizing energy value to a specific item or set of items. Energy would instead be broken down and measured in three elements: Conversion, Transportation, and Maintenance. To avoid centralization of power in a single entity, the Energy Exchange would be divided into numerous Sectors based upon longitude and latitude lines. Each Sector would then be divided into four Quadrants.

This hybridized socio-economic system is called Sovereignosis. It is designed to reduce the conflict between the two major existing economic offerings (I.e. capitalism vs socialism) and create a system that can be applied if and when we become a multi-planet species. Still has lots of work to be done and I'd love to chat with anyone who thinks this system sounds fun.

But if we were forming a Republic today rather than reforming a crumbling empire, then you'd have my vote for sure

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: LetsGoViking

How does a society attain any semblance of objectivity when so much division exists? It can only end up with the majority rules.

Let The Majority rule themselves by choice. Leave everybody else alone and unburdened. 😃

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: LetsGoViking

Where is the imaginary money to come from to kick start this framework?

Let The Majority dig up their own Gold and Silver! 😀

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: LetsGoViking

How does a society attain any semblance of objectivity when so much division exists? It can only end up with the majority rules.

Let The Majority rule themselves by choice. Leave everybody else alone and unburdened. 😃

In my view, the States would act almost as independent countries appealing to the Fed only in matters of interstate commerce and general defense. They could choose how they wished the state to be governed by popular vote. The States could not restrict personal freedoms or freedom of travel (i.e., from one state to another). That way each state pretty much gets what the people of that state want, and the ones that don't like it are free to leave to another state that more closely aligns with their personal beliefs.

a reply to: LetsGoViking

If you are in Montana you do know you basically described the USA right?

Are you saying that if we follow and defend the US Constitution it would be a perfect government? I agree. It's made us the greatest of all the countries that have existed on this planet. Our only issues come from people trying to change that.

a reply to: Blaine91555

As I said earlier,
"Not sure if you noticed, but this is the system of Government idealized by Jefferson, et al. What we have in the US today is a far cry from the American Government defined by Founding Fathers."

The Founding Father's designed an almost perfect form of government, but shadowy powers have corrupted it now to better serve the Elite rather than the People. It's been a slow degradation over the past 100 years and is now picking up pace and becoming more noticeable. So I have wondered, how do you design a government that gets us more on Jefferson's page and less on Soros' page?

a reply to: LetsGoViking

Yes, we have drifted off Center, but not beyond salvation. What's wrong now is we have forgotten how to communicate in a productive way.

The answer is not to hate America but instead to love America enough to get past the hate. As I watch videos and read what I see are people who believe lies about each other and who do not communicate. In reality, the radicals are a tiny minority and the majority is silent. We must communicate in a better way. We can have our cake and eat it too if we simply learn to respect each other.

I know what I'm saying is probably impossible, but we will never solve things by fighting and arguing. We need to engage in constructive, not destructive behavior.

In my lifetime the best leaders have been Moderates like JFK, Reagan to a lesser degree the older Bush and Bill Clinton (who oddly enough is nothing like his wife in political matters). Just my opinion for what it's worth.

originally posted by: LetsGoViking
Not sure if you noticed, but this is the system of Government idealized by Thomas, et al. What we have in the US today is a far cry from the American Government defined by Founding Fathers.

Always wondered what the Founding Fathers would do, if we brought them to today in a time machine, and showed them what their republic became.

Would they:

A. Fine-tune the Constitution to close the loop holes and prevent the abuses, or:
B. Conclude it'd be better just to pay the British taxes?

a reply to: LetsGoViking

a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, can not be attained when you have people that spend a quarter to one hundred percent of their working life in office. be it city, county, state, federal, the bureaucracies and the courts.