Politics

Now I'm turning to the subject of what sort of political institutions one should consent to.  Thomas Jefferson pointed out that government derives its due powers from the consent of the governed.  Others have suggested that it would be impossible for any government to function without that consent.  It is necessary that people at least tolerate the institutions that govern them.  Otherwise those institutions could not function.

It is not the case that we should look at the institutions that our "founding fathers" set up as reflecting the will of the people.  Our constitution was not written by the people, not even the ones living at the time.  It was written by elected legislators.  "We the legislators of the United States of America..." would be a more accurate, though less eloquent and idealistic, beginning to the preamble to our constitution.  At the time women and slaves were excluded from the vote.  Even if they had been included and ignoring the conflicts between the interests of elected officials and the ones who vote for them (or, in the case of a minority, against them), this does not justify our consent today, although the survival of those institutions over time may be taken as a point in their favor.

First I begin with the individual since it is individuals who will have to decide whether to consent or not.  This decision will depend in part on whether others are likely to consent or not, or rather on whether or not each individual sees them as likely to consent.  This will motivate the individual to favor abstract principles in determining who should govern, as opposed to having each individual support their own dictatorship.  Each individual will want to retain control over their own person and will want to cooperate with others in setting up abstract principles that are to govern the people they are likely to interact with.  A natural consequence of this is that those same institutions will govern them as well.

I believe that under current conditions it is unrealistic to expect that a large proportion of society will support pure capitalism.  Likewise it is unrealistic to expect people to support pure socialism.  We will, however, want to set up some set of rules to determine how we are to treat those parts of the material world that are not part of anyone's person.  Some parts are to be treated as a common well from which any may draw, subject to certain rules set by the group as a whole.  Others are to be treated as individual property, each part under the exclusive control of a single person which can be transferred either to another individual or the group as a whole only in accordance with the wish of that individual or in order to satisfy some abstract principle that the group has decided on.

People are part of natural groups, for the purpose of government based on whether they are likely to interact in such a way that one person would have the ability to directly effect the person of another or on whether they are likely to have conflicts over control of certain parts of the material world that are not part of anyone's person.  I, along with an overwhelming majority, support the traditional approach of dividing the world into geographic zones, where exclusive jurisdiction is given to governments in each zone and aggression on the part of governments is prohibited.

I strongly support the features of our constitution that guarantee certain rights to individuals.  Freedom of speech, the press and religion.  In addition to this there are protections against unreasonable seizure of one's person or property and ones that are not part of the due process of law, which I regard as a guarantee that any transfer of assets, confiscation or arrest of a person must be in order to satisfy some abstract principle which the group has decided on as a whole.

Now the people in each of these zones will have to determine a process where they can determine which course of action will be considered the will of the group as a whole.  A simple majority in an election is generally considered suitable for most purposes.  However, in the case of some constitutional protections of individual rights we will want these to be harder to override.  Hence the people will want to place certain protections of individual rights in their constitutions and specify a somewhat more cumbersome process for altering those protections.

People may want a more complex set of laws than they are willing to specify directly through a system of elections.  In addition, they may want to delegate legislative decisions to people who are more competent to make such evaluations.  Similarly it might be desirable for the people to select others who will administer the law and act as judges.  That is traditionally described as filling the legislative, judicial and executive powers of government.  I'm not entirely sure that people will necessarily see the need to have a sufficiently complex set of laws to justify delegation.  In any case, I wouldn't constitutionally rule it out.  As for the other two functions of government I see no viable alternative than to delegate them.

Any such delegation should be set up so as to select legislatures, executives and judges that are willing and able to govern wisely and in the interest of the governed.  I would support exams to test ability and a system of elections to hold them accountable, so that they will be willing to serve the people.

In previous posts I have described how I believe the legislative and executive functions of government should operate.  I support a parliamentary system.  Those wishing to serve in parliament should take an exam.  The people will vote on which proportion of the parliament should retain office.  The requisite number should be dismissed at random and replaced by randomly selected candidates who have passed the qualifying exam.  Alternately they could be replaced by those who got the highest scores.  The random feature was placed here so as to prevent the parliament from altering the exam in order to prevent their replacement.  I do not support a separate president because I believe the office gives too much power to a single individual.

Now judges could also be selected by a similar process.  People could vote on whether a judge retains office.  If not, that judge would be replaced by the individual who got the highest score on a qualifying exam excluding the judge who was just dismissed.

I oppose the current practice of delegating changes in the constitution regarding individual rights and the way the people delegate authority.  It is entirely irrational to give those in power exclusive control over alterations on limits to that power.  Similarly it is unwise to give them control over changes in the method that the people will use to replace them.  If the people want to make it more cumbersome to make changes to these rules, we can always require a supermajority instead of a simple majority.  I believe that this is a feature of constitutions that exists only because they were written by legislators instead of the people and one that does not merit our consent.