Interpretation Amendment
Section 1
Interpretation of the constitution shall begin with the purpose of government, that of securing the individual's rights to life, liberty and property (the means to the pursuit of happiness), and that these rights are not privileges granted by the government, but rights with which all individuals are born.
Section 2
These individual rights are not fully defined in this constitution, for it is impossible to list them all.
Section 3
The powers of the government are exhaustively defined in this constitution, and none are to be identified as "implied" or as new or modified powers because of a "compelling need" of the government. Of all interests, the interests of individuals must be deemed as the most compelling.
Section 4
All acts presented for passage into law before Congress shall be examined based on the presumption of liberty. Just as in a criminal trial the accused is presumed innocent and must be proven guilty, in the legislative process, the presumption must be that any proposed law is not needed until proof is presented. While no crime is in question in the latter process, nor punishment, any of the innumerable individual rights may be at stake. The proposed act, if enacted, may impinge on, constrain, limit, infringe on, abridge or deny individuals' rights to life, liberty and property.
Section 5
Such process to ensure the presumption of liberty must place the burden of proof on the government, to establish that the interest at stake is individual rights, and that any act proposed secures such rights without impairing the rights of others.
Other proposed amendments.
HUMOR:
A fellow walks into the bank, introduces himself and says "I am here to talk about a loan."
"Great," says the banker, "How much are you willing to lend us?"
Art Cassian on CNBC, July 2, 2009
What we are For and what we are Against
We at AdaByron.net espouse a philosophy that stands firmly opposed to collectivist and religious nonsense, but rather a philosophy that recognizes the world around us as fully real, that affirms that man's consciousness can know what that world is through the use of reason. Unless you are asleep or seriously drugged, the world you see around you is what we affirm as existing. Moreover, all existing things have a specific identity and entails specific causalities. Furthermore, we hold that man is unique among animals in requiring the use of reason to survive, rather than relying on automatic acts to acquire food and fend off enemies.
For the full article, go to For and Against
Capitalism Magazine
Financing Government Without Taxation, by James Rolph Edwards, Professor of Economics, Montana State University-Northern
From Reason to Freedom
Weekly free-thinking magazine promoting thinking for oneself, thus helping to create a free, benevolent society:
Some of my postings:
Words and Referents
Bank Socialism
Saints in the Lobby
Troubling clauses
The Burden of gov't
What we are For and what we are Against
We at AdaByron.net espouse a philosophy that stands firmly opposed to collectivist and religious nonsense, but rather a philosophy that recognizes the world around us as fully real, that affirms that man's consciousness can know what that world is through the use of reason. Unless you are asleep or seriously drugged, the world you see around you is what we affirm as existing. Moreover, all existing things have a specific identity and entails specific causalities. Furthermore, we hold that man is unique among animals in requiring the use of reason to survive, rather than relying on automatic acts to acquire food and fend off enemies.
In order for man to be able to use reason to survive and flourish he must be free. It must be recognized that every man has property in his body and the product of his mind and effort, that he has unlimited individual rights within the bounds of everyone else having the same rights. He must be allowed to do whatever he finds productive or conducive to his survival and happiness, using what he owns, as long as he does no physical harm to other men, including fraud (an indirect form of harm). No one has the right to initiate force or fraud. However, retaliatory force is an individual human right.
Only one right is alienated by man living in society: the right to the use of force. Man must delegate the use of retaliatory force to the government. The government's purpose is to defend individual rights, to provide police, courts and national defense. A man may use retaliatory force in defense of his life and property when the police are not present and able to help him. In order that society can function rationally, all men must delegate their right and power to identify the person who does harm, apprehend him, stop the harmful act, assess the evidence and determine guilt or innocence, and, if necessary, render the criminal harmless, if the police cannot respond in time, i.e., in an emergency.
Based on this, we advocate:
- Investing in yourself, your human capital, also store up earnings in safe investments for your future when you become less productive
- Spending your earnings first of all on yourself and the close ones in your life, those whom you value; generosity to others, whom you do not know, is less important
- Laissez faire capitalism, under the same law against force and fraud
- Open borders (provided the immigrant or visitor has no criminal record)
- The right to do with our property and lives anything our survival and happiness requires as long as it does not physically harm any one else
- Liability for damages if our acts do physically harm someone else
- The right to retain the full reward of our work, the use of our brains and effort
- All capitalistic acts between consenting adults
- A monetary system based on assets, preferably gold
- A government that serves one purpose: defending individual rights
- An objective legal system:
- Which establishes laws rather than deciding any issues on an ad hoc basis
- Whose laws are enacted by the established legislative body of the nation, according to clear rules.
- Whose legislative process is based on the presumption of liberty rather than the presumption of constitutionality (a process is required that ensures that the proposed act will improve the safeguarding of individual rights without impairing anyone else's rights, rather than presuming that the legislative body may enact any law it wills, placing the burden of proof on the affected parties).
- Whose laws are clearly defined, unambiguous, universal, impartial and predictive, making clear what conduct is forbidden and why
- Whose laws are contextual (there are situations where killing is permitted), straightforward and as simple as possible
- Which publishes its laws — the legal system makes written rules and makes them known to everyone
- Whose laws are tied to reality by individual rights (the reality of "the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival."
- Whose laws are prospective rather than retroactive
- Whose laws are understandable and are not conducive to subjective and arbitrary interpretation
- Whose laws are consistent and never contradictory
- Whose laws require conduct that is within the capability of the affected party
- Whose laws area stable enough that people can orient their conduct accordingly
- Whose laws require a congruence between rules as announced and their actual administration
- Whose laws are applied equally to all persons and whose reciprocal obligations of the government are recognized and honored (where police and courts fully comply with their aspect of the rules).
We reject and condemn
- Taxes
- Government intervention of any kind, in economics, education, scientific research, the arts, what you do with your body or property as long as you do not physically harm or defraud others
- Anti-trust legislation and all other laws that entail subjectivity in application
- Entangling alliances and treaties with other countries
- Tariffs and restrictions on trade
- Permitting or establishing monopolies
- Subsidies for favored people or industries
- All regulation (see laws against physical harm and fraud, above)
- Fiat money, made of paper, based on debt
Aristotle defined the five reasons why gold is the best possible money in the 4th century B.C. To wit, it is durable, divisible, convenient, consistent, and has value in and of itself. Aristotle failed to mention a sixth reason: it cannot be created out of thin air.
And von Mises would add yet another reason: among all goods it is the most marketable.
Does this philosophy amount to common sense? To a large extent it does, but it does so without the contradictions that are common in "common sense." It does so by accepting that people must act according to self-interest in order to live. But it does not accept it in the sense that "might makes right" and that you should do whatever seems to be in your interest regardless of what happens to other people. It does so by accepting the concept that we are human and therefore cannot live up to a code of values that requires sacrifice, but need to live by a code that fulfils the requirements for life as a human.
Some selfless "saint" may be a model of behavior to some people and give them something to "reach for." However the problem is that no human being can reach it, without ending their lives prematurely. That model requires that you sacrifice yourself for whoever comes before you that needs something more than you do.
So you end up moaning, while accepting altruism, that "I'm only human."
The problem with that is that the saint's morality was not designed for humans living on earth. Altruism is the ultimate anti-morality. Rational self-interest is the morality of life.