From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Wed Apr 07 1999 - 13:41:26 MDT
Since I can see I'm not having much luck getting my point across, I'm going
to go back to square one in this post. I'd like to start by briefly
outlining the kind of scheme I would actually be in favor of. This will
hopefully serve to reassure those of you who have decided I'm some kind of
closet fascist, and it should also serve as a reference point for comparing
what is possible under anarchy to what is possible under a minimal State.
So, my current best idea for building a libertarian State:
The State would consist of two levels of government (local districts and a
national government), both governed by the same constitution. The whole
structure would rely on the concept of enumerated powers limited by
individual rights. Powers would be divided roughly as follows:
National Government
Chief Executive - Acts as CEO of the national government and commander in
chief of the national military. Responsible for the conduct of foreign
policy.
National Legislature - Does *not* have a general legislative power. It sets
budgets, levies taxes, and votes on whether to accept treaties negotiated by
the chief executive. It can review and annul laws passed by the Districts,
but has very limited lawmaking abilities of its own (it can regulate
international trade and travel, but nothing else). The legislature would
only meet for a few months out of the year.
National Judiciary - A court system empowered to hear appeals from the
District courts, and to try cases involving national law (which is pretty
much limited to tax evasion and issues involving international trade). Any
court at the national level can strike down a law as unconstitutional, and
the supreme court also has the power to hear peremptory challenges to a law
(i.e. you don't have to wait until there is a trial going to challenge a
law).
District governments would follow the same pattern, except that their
legislatures would have a general power to amend their criminal and civil
codes. They would have no authority to regulate trade (except via taxes),
or to fund public works.
Bill of Rights - The constitution would enumerate a significant body of
rights that are to be protected against infringement, including both basic
freedoms (of speech, property, association, travel and contract) and
procedural rights (protection against self-incrimination, no ex post facto
laws, and so on). The few allowable exceptions to these rights (i.e.
military secrets in time of war) would be explicitly spelled out, and an
absolutist interpretation would otherwise be encouraged.
In general, I think this pattern works for populations of up to several tens
of millions (for a larger nation, add an intervening mechanism to allow
groups of districts to be represented by a single individual in the national
legislature). The key feature is that the Districts should be relatively
small and fairly numerous, so that they effectively must compete for
citizens and businesses. The national government has the power to restrain
a District that tries to pass unconstitutional laws, but has little ability
to pass such laws itself.
Now, obviously this is not an ideal society - we would still have taxes
(although they usually be very low), and the State would still have some
minimal ability to regulate our lives. However, it is far better than
anything that has ever actually existed, and we can see that it would be at
least as stable as any other form of government. With a bit of careful
attention to the details of how it is implemented, we could get something
substantially more stable than the original situation in the U.S. - which
means it will easily last longer than we are likely to need a human
government.
To my mind, the major advantage of anarcho-capitalism over this approach is
that you would not have to move to a different area to change the laws you
live under. From an ideological viewpoint it also has the advantage that
PPA payments are in theory voluntary, while taxes are not (although in
practice there is little difference, since not having any kind of legal
protection is not a realistic option).
Can we agree on this much?
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:30 MST