Contract Government
Republics are confusing as are democracy’s. That is because tyrants want it that way. They have nothing much in common. They have been so confused with each other that the terminology is no longer very helpful in describing them to other people. So I am introdusing the term contract government. I hope that it is taken up by others. It means the same thing as constitutional government but separates out the political connotations of that term. That is important because it allows clear thinking on the subject.
People can only be free to live their lives and practice capitalism with contract government. With a democracy you always have to think about what the government and other people think every time you make an economic move. That is neither capitalism or freedom. It is tyranny of a majority that could be current or of one of many that are long gone and may even be totally ridiculous.
Only in freedom with a contract government can capitalism and wealth be created. We can only sneak production in in a democracy. It eventually becomes an underground activity subject to immediate theft.
Having a government by contract is fine – as long as the people who will be bound by the terms of the contract have some say in what the terms of the contract will be, and whether or not the contract will be adopted.
But, why would a people ever accept the terms of a contract that does not allow some degree of democratic influence over the government?
And without such influence, how does the contract get modified when it becomes clear that modification is necessary, e.g. when new scientific evidence makes it clear that production of a certain pollutant needs to be regulated)? A contract is useless if it is not enforceable. Defying its own legal mandate, as well as a Supreme Court order, Bush’s EPA refused to regulate CO2. To get the EPA to start regulating CO2, the people had to rise up and get a new president elected who would order the EPA to do that… Without democracy, action could not be assured. (And even with it, we are still waiting to see what they will finally do.)
Republican democracy can be thought of as a contract where the people say, “We agree to not rise up with pitchforks and guillotines and forcibly depose our leaders (or un-elect them), as long as those leaders agree to act in good faith and take good care of our common interests.”
The implicit threat of violence (as happened in Revolutionary France) is a powerful deterrent that (usually) keeps the government well enough in line that actual violence is not required, instead, we have a more peaceful process by which leaders (or parties) fail to get re-elected.
Report This Comment
The people are not bound by the contract. The government is. The law and the jury determine what is acceptable for the people to do.
If you call democratic influence the people voting on the individual new laws I agree with the democratic part. They should of course be clearly written and extensively debated first.
As far as representative government is concerned I think that has proven to be a total failure. Look at the debt and the wars politicians start to remain your Representative and the fact that they can not really represent you without in many ways going against the welfare of others who have voted for them.
I do not consider it a contract if it needs force to be enforced. Such a government should be dissolved and a new one formed.
I do think that the government should be funded by selling it’s services and not by force. Defensive force would sell. Offensive would not be very successfully. There is not enough profit in it.
There are other questions to discuss the nutrient CO^2 in.
Report This Comment