Let's time warp back a bit.  The Founders of the New Republic of Venice are considering whether or not to put Patent and Copyright Laws into the Constitution.  On the one hand, the Founders wish to encourage progress in technology and the arts.  On the other hand, the Founders understand that they would be allowing the government to grant monopoly power (even though it is temporary) to private entities, and they wish to avoid the corruption that flows from special interests lobbying the government to gain these monopoly rights.  The also philosophically oppose copyright infringement laws that effectively grant one person control of another's property

 

What arguments for and against these laws can be submitted?

 

If no such laws are written in, would that mean that no useful innovations will occur in New Venice?

 

If such laws are written in, is that not a violation of the "anti-monopoly" stance of the Founders?

The money and banking in New Venice is unregulated.  There is no "legal tender", or government-sanctioned currency; all money is provided by private interests, albiet with a 100% commodity backing.  While there is no official name for the money, national custom names the currency of the Republic as "Basic Venitian Ducats", or BVDs.  And while there is no official fixed amount of gold as the underlying asset for all currency, the large and well-regarded banks use a ratio of 1 ounce of gold = 100 BVDs.

 

Questions for this blog entry include: 

Should the government mandate a uniform amount of gold to act as a basis for all currency issued by private interests?

Should the government mandate that all currency be backed solely by gold, or can other commodites, or even fiat money be used?

 

 

Since there are no banking regulations, the practice of "Fractional Reserve Banking" occurs, which contributes to the business cycle that The Republic of New Venice experiences.

Should the government mandate that all banks resort to 100% Reserve Banking?

 

Please put "Money" or "Banking" in the post title, based upon what question you wish to comment.

If one has read my other blog, The Blogging Cavalier, then one would recognize that I'm a supporter of the Fair Tax legislation.  But in the Repulic of New Venice, the tax system is a Lump Sum Tax.  Every individual living in its boundaries must pay a tax of 5 ounces of pure gold to the government of New Venice.  There's no other tax allowed; no property tax, no income tax, no sales tax, no corporate tax, no excise taxes, no inheritence tax.

 

I invite suggestions for any alternate tax system ("No taxes at all" is not an option, though, unless you explain how a "fee for use" system could work).  For suggestions of this type, please put "Alternate" in the title of the post.

 

I also invite suggestions for enforcement of the payment of the tax.  Currently, there is a tax agency that randomly audits individuals.  Please put "Enforcement" in the title of your post for any suggestions relating to how the government could enforce this tax with the least amount of liberty violation as possible.  For example, one could posit that if one doesn't pay the tax, he is not pursued or audited by the government, but if he has some business with the government, the business cannot be concluded until he has paid the tax.  Suppose that his residence has been burglarized, and he calls the police.  The police check to see if he has paid his tax before they begin their investigation.  This, of course, would not work in an emergency situation, but would be for situations where normal government duties (marriage licenses, birth certificates, title deeds, etc.) would be sought.

This will be a continual work-in-progress post, I think.

 

The constitution of the Republic of New Venice, paraphrased:

 

The government is composed of three branches: a bi-cameral legislature, an executive officer and his staff, and a judiciary that acts as the highest appeals court of the nation (sound familiar?)

 

The government has these responsibilities:

1.)  To adjudicate contract disputes between private entities

2.)  To raise, fund, and maintain a national security force.

3.)  To investigate, prosecute, and punish violent crimes.

4.)  To investigate, prosecute, and punish violations against private property rights.

 

The government has these monopoly powers:

1.)  The power to execute those guilty of violent crimes.

2.)  The power to tax individuals living within its borders to fund its operations.

3.)  The power to coordinate the military for the purposes of defending against foreign invasion.

 

 

The government is restricted in what powers it has: 

1.)  It cannot abrogate an individual's right to own and use property, other than requiring payment of the tax.

2.)  It cannot abrogate an individual's right to associate or dissassociate with any other individual or group.

3.)  It cannot abrogate an individual's right to a personal belief system, nor mandate any belief system on any individual.

 

If one lived in a state of anarcho-capitalism, what would it be like?  Could such a state exist in reality, or is it only an ideal to which we strive to move as close as possible?  I started this blog as a thinking exercise, dealing with objections to why the anarcho-capitalist state could succeed.  This will be a patchwork quilt of sorts (philosophically speaking), as I will touch on certain ideas as they occur to me, rather than go through a structured topical list.  I intend for this to be an airing of ideas, and why some objections are correct (or not).

 

From what I've seen, the advocates of anarcho-capitalism and Austro-libertarianism detest the State to the point that they do not involve themselves in the political process;  they rely on education rather than seeking to influence the government through political means to achieve their ideas.  In my opinion, such a course of non-action is not likely to succeed, since I observe that it is human nature to desire the State to have control; not necessarily of one's own life, but over the lives of neighbors and countrymen whom one envies or despises.

 

But the idea of a minimalist State is intriguing, and I wish to explore the arguments for and against, by putting up objections that either I've heard elsewhere, or have considered myself.

 

Imagine that one lives in an island nation named "The Republic of New Venice", which has a Constitution that severely limits the power of the government.  What if....