The Constitution of Galt's Gulch

[syrakusos]

In Fahrenheit 451 Montag tried to explain that inside each of these books is a man. The actual "Freeman's Constitution" for Laissez Faire City, an ill-fated venture, intended for Peru and then translated to Costa Rica, runs about ten pages. Much of that is commentary on the five Articles. The other 154 pages reveal the man who wrote the charter.

The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch by Wolf Devoon. ( n.d., n.p., n. c)

(A mere $8.09 on Amazon here.)

It is no surprise that he is a lawyer. Of the 55 delegate framers of the second Constitution of the United States, 35 had some kind of legal training. John Adams (not a signer) defended the Redcoats who were accused of the Boston Massacre when no one else would. If you want a society of laws, not of men, then you need lawyers, not mere men. We like to make fun of them. "Q; What is black and brown and looks good on a lawyer? A: A Doberman Pinscher." But if you want a society of laws, you need people who do not repeat themselves.

Devoon is clear and concise, even when he is rhapsodic. After being divorced by the second of his four wives, he walked hundreds (if not thousands) of miles between two small villages in Scotland. Adversity builds character. And Devoon wears his heart on his sleeve. In contradistinction to Thomas Jefferson, and Jefferson Davis, and William Jefferson Clinton, at least, we have no mysteries. The work is also salted with references to the anarcho-capitalist subspecies of libertarian culture. Within that matrix are very many gems of cogent insight and paradigmatic outlook. If you seek a guru to follow, this is not the man. If you are looking for someone to spend an evening with, sipping coffee and brandy, and cracking the nut of human nature, here he is.

And this is just one book.

If nothing else, lawyers learn to write - and unlike other doctoral candidates, they actually earn a living by it. Certainly Devoon does.

"The law labors longest and most diligently on behalf of those who rightly seek its protection from those who wrongly think themselves above it." -- Wolf Devoon.

[BaalChatzaf]

I hate to be a party pooper, but no constitution truly lasts more than three generations. Our constitution which laid a a Federal government with the most sovereignty lying with the States swooned and died sometime after the Civil War and before the 20 th century. The last coffin nail was the direct election of senators by the people of the state they represented, thus cutting state government completely out of the loop.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

I hate to be a party pooper, but no constitution truly lasts more than three generations. Our constitution which laid a a Federal government with the most sovereignty lying with the States swooned and died sometime after the Civil War and before the 20 th century. The last coffin nail was the direct election of senators by the people of the state they represented, thus cutting state government completely out of the loop.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Without reading the document in question, it's natural to assume that it resembles something else, which it doesn't.

"The Freeman's Constitution does not ordain or establish a state. Rather, it is the organizational law of the laissez faire bar. It gives practicing lawyers the right to convene and the duty to pay for courts of first instance, and judges must command the confidence of a majority of their professional colleagues to remain on the bench." [p. 126]

[syrakusos]

I hate to be a party pooper, but no constitution truly lasts more than three generations.

How many constitutions have you examined? The "English" constitution is unwritten, so analyzing that requires some work. Genoa was a republic and it had many "constitutions" none of what was formally called that. Rather, each was just a new way of organizing the town's business or balancing political forces, or accepting foreign rule.

Your use of "truly" also allows you a lot of room for discourse.

Without reading the document in question, it's natural to assume that it resembles something else, which it doesn't.

Where would we be if it were necessary to have the facts before making a comment?

This is from my review on "Rebirth of Reason."

Some Objectivists will have a hard time understanding Devoon's political heuristic. In an interview with her lawyer, Henry Mark Holzer, Ayn Rand cited ancient Rome as an example of objective law. It was flawed; certainly it was not Objectivist law for human rights and property rights. But the law was written down, publicized, and applied the same to everyone in every case. For Rand, political oppression was not the iron laws, but their flexibility at the whim of a bureaucrat who could grant a favor or withhold one. The constitution for this Galt's Gulch established courts of law, and nothing more. Legislation is not law. Administration is not law. All law is bench-made because in cases of private law (tort), claimants overwhelmingly offer novel arguments. If the case could have been easily settled, it would not have come to court. In English law, the state is only another plaintiff; sometimes (too rarely) a defendant. Devoon expects most significant cases to be settled as equity law. He does not address criminal law; and only natural persons have standing in court.

[Wolf DeVoon]

This is from my review on "Rebirth of Reason."

Some Objectivists will have a hard time understanding Devoon's political heuristic. In an interview with her lawyer, Henry Mark Holzer, Ayn Rand cited ancient Rome as an example of objective law. It was flawed; certainly it was not Objectivist law for human rights and property rights. But the law was written down, publicized, and applied the same to everyone in every case. For Rand, political oppression was not the iron laws, but their flexibility at the whim of a bureaucrat who could grant a favor or withhold one. The constitution for this Galt's Gulch established courts of law, and nothing more. Legislation is not law. Administration is not law. All law is bench-made because in cases of private law (tort), claimants overwhelmingly offer novel arguments. If the case could have been easily settled, it would not have come to court. In English law, the state is only another plaintiff; sometimes (too rarely) a defendant. Devoon expects most significant cases to be settled as equity law. He does not address criminal law; and only natural persons have standing in court.

A little footnote. Cops are natural persons, too.

"From time to time, the Supreme Court may establish, regulate, fund, and appoint officers to an investigative agency or custodial facilities for the humane detention of persons accused of felony..." [Art. IV, The Police Power, p.128]

[BaalChatzaf]

I hate to be a party pooper, but no constitution truly lasts more than three generations. Our constitution which laid a a Federal government with the most sovereignty lying with the States swooned and died sometime after the Civil War and before the 20 th century. The last coffin nail was the direct election of senators by the people of the state they represented, thus cutting state government completely out of the loop.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Without reading the document in question, it's natural to assume that it resembles something else, which it doesn't.

"The Freeman's Constitution does not ordain or establish a state. Rather, it is the organizational law of the laissez faire bar. It gives practicing lawyers the right to convene and the duty to pay for courts of first instance, and judges must command the confidence of a majority of their professional colleagues to remain on the bench." [p. 126]

A constitution is words. What is the nature of the force that instantiates it? Is it a force accountable to other or is it thugs taking whatever control they want? Constitutions of any kind whether they ordain a State or a state of society are only as good as the quality of their enforcement. Words are not magic. Only actions can bring about what words describe or prescribe.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

A constitution is words. What is the nature of the force that instantiates it? Is it a force accountable to other or is it thugs taking whatever control they want? Constitutions of any kind whether they ordain a State or a state of society are only as good as the quality of their enforcement. Words are not magic. Only actions can bring about what words describe or prescribe.

"The law is mostly voluntary, folks. I acknowledged this openly and emphatically in my essay 'Government Is A Quack Faith-Healer'. If there is to be law and order, you yourselves will be the police of it." [p.132]

“The power exerted by a legal regime consists less in the force that it can bring to bear against violators of its rules than in its capacity to persuade people that the world described in its images and categories is the only attainable world in which a sane person would want to live.” [Robert Gordon, quoted in the Preamble, p.122]

You might as well say that the proofs of geometry are just words.

[BaalChatzaf]

A constitution is words. What is the nature of the force that instantiates it? Is it a force accountable to other or is it thugs taking whatever control they want? Constitutions of any kind whether they ordain a State or a state of society are only as good as the quality of their enforcement. Words are not magic. Only actions can bring about what words describe or prescribe.

"The law is mostly voluntary, folks. I acknowledged this openly and emphatically in my essay 'Government Is A Quack Faith-Healer'. If there is to be law and order, you yourselves will be the police of it." [p.132]

“The power exerted by a legal regime consists less in the force that it can bring to bear against violators of its rules than in its capacity to persuade people that the world described in its images and categories is the only attainable world in which a sane person would want to live.” [Robert Gordon, quoted in the Preamble, p.122]

You might as well say that the proofs of geometry are just words.

No. Because proofs last and constitutions do not. We are still using Euclid's proof of Pythagoras theorem and applying it after 2300 years. Do you have a constitution that has held up that well?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

We are still using Euclid's proof of Pythagoras theorem and applying it after 2300 years. Do you have a constitution that has held up that well?

Not quite that long. The rule of law (no summary punishment, equality, fair trial) dates from Magna Carta in 1215: “No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseized or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimized, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and by the law of the land.”

Lex Aquilia of 286 BC may be regarded as the root of modern tort law... Roman jurists clearly separated the legal right to use a thing (ownership) from the factual ability to use and manipulate the thing (possession). They also found the distinction between contract and tort as sources of legal obligations. [Wikipedia]

Common prototypes of bills of exchange and promissory notes originated in China. There, in the 8th century during the reign of the Tang Dynasty, they used special instruments called feitsyan for the safe transfer of money over long distances. [Negotiable Instrument]

[syrakusos]

No. Because proofs last and constitutions do not. We are still using Euclid's proof of Pythagoras theorem and applying it after 2300 years. Do you have a constitution that has held up that well?

Ba'al Chatzaf

1700 Years before Pythagoras, and 1500 before Euclid.

"It opens with four laws intended to prevent men from bring-ing suit or accusations against their neighbors without cause, for example: If anyone bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death. This enactment corresponds to the Deuteronomic law which declares that a false witness shall be punished for the crime which he falsely imputed to another (Deut. I9: I6-21). The regulation regarding the responsibility of judges is more ..."

"The Recently Discovered Civil Code of Hammurabi," Author(s): Charles Foster Kent Source: The Biblical World, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Mar., 1903), pp. 175-190

A reproduction of the original cuneiform:

TEXT OF THE CODE OF HAMMURABI, KING OF BABYLON (ABOUT 2250 B. C.). EDITED BY ROBERT FRANCIS HARPER

"Text of the Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon (About 2250 B. C.)" Author(s): Robert Francis Harper and A. H. Godbey Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Oct., 1903), pp. 1-84

"The Laws of Hammurabi," Author(s): George E. Vincent Source: The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 9, No. 6 (May, 1904), pp. 737-754

"Notes on the Code of Ḫammurabi,"Author(s): C. H. W. Johns Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jan., 1903), pp. 96-107

The Code of Hamurabi was one of several Sumerian legal texts discovered long after a discontinuous period, a lacuna, in which the only remnant of them was in the Old Testament or Jewish Bible. But if we accept those old Jewish copies as valid preservations of a living tradition, then they long antedate Euclidean geometry.

[BaalChatzaf]

No. Because proofs last and constitutions do not. We are still using Euclid's proof of Pythagoras theorem and applying it after 2300 years. Do you have a constitution that has held up that well?

Ba'al Chatzaf

1700 Years before Pythagoras, and 1500 before Euclid.

"It opens with four laws intended to prevent men from bring-ing suit or accusations against their neighbors without cause, for example: If anyone bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death. This enactment corresponds to the Deuteronomic law which declares that a false witness shall be punished for the crime which he falsely imputed to another (Deut. I9: I6-21). The regulation regarding the responsibility of judges is more ..."

"The Recently Discovered Civil Code of Hammurabi," Author(s): Charles Foster Kent Source: The Biblical World, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Mar., 1903), pp. 175-190

A reproduction of the original cuneiform:

TEXT OF THE CODE OF HAMMURABI, KING OF BABYLON (ABOUT 2250 B. C.). EDITED BY ROBERT FRANCIS HARPER

"Text of the Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon (About 2250 B. C.)" Author(s): Robert Francis Harper and A. H. Godbey Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Oct., 1903), pp. 1-84

"The Laws of Hammurabi," Author(s): George E. Vincent Source: The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 9, No. 6 (May, 1904), pp. 737-754

"Notes on the Code of Ḫammurabi,"Author(s): C. H. W. Johns Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jan., 1903), pp. 96-107

The Code of Hamurabi was one of several Sumerian legal texts discovered long after a discontinuous period, a lacuna, in which the only remnant of them was in the Old Testament or Jewish Bible. But if we accept those old Jewish copies as valid preservations of a living tradition, then they long antedate Euclidean geometry.

Lovely. And did those laws have a continued existence in a state that persisted and enforced them?

That is every nice history. But Pythagoras' Theorem and its proof is still as fresh and current as last evening's 6:00 news.

Geometry never lapsed. Constitutions do. Right now the U.S. holds the track record for the longest existing constitution that is actual law and enforced among all the current nations of the world. It goes back to 1789. The theorems of Euclid, Eudoxus and Archimedes are all still current, all still true and never lapsed since they were written down and were never forgotten.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

Right now the U.S. holds the track record for the longest existing constitution that is actual law and enforced ... It goes back to 1789.

Fiddlesticks. Name a single provision of 1789 in force today.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I have to agree with Ba'al here. Constitutions and laws change whenever the people with the authority to change them find it expedient to do so. Even if old legal concepts are incorporated into new constitutions, a revolution or a coup can wipe out centuries of legal developments. History is written in iron and blood, and words on paper are just words on paper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8afaQFLSTH4

Selmy: "Those were the king's words."

Cersei: "We have a new king now."

[Wolf DeVoon]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by SoAMadDeathWish.

You don't get a vote.