|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
The Functions and Mechanisms of the Protectorate The Champion Corps What means will the Protector have in hand should the usurpers refuse to acknowledge his veto (which no elected organization can legitimately challenge)? The answer: a supremely equipped military contingent subordinate to his office and empowered to enforce Protective Decrees in domestic and foreign matters alike. This organization (call it the Champion Corps) will function via the Protector's ability to declare limited martial law. The term defines a condition under which no innocent persons' liberties can be subverted or suspended, but the full range of options is allocated in response to forceful protests, internal and external terrorism, as well as officials who actively (as opposed to through mere speech) refuse to recognize the Protector's veto of any given bill and continue to enforce it as if it were law. However, limited martial law is powerless against any action not defined to be forceful, i.e. intrusive upon the rights of others. Holding a placard, however distasteful, is not initiation of force; smashing a window, or lying in front of traffic on a public or private roadway, in the disgraceful manner of certain protesters against the Iraq War, is. Acting in defiance of veto is initiation of force by definition; it implements a law not yet sanctioned as harmless to the laissez-faire economy. "The Champion Corps" denotes the Protector's contingent fittingly, as it must contain the country's most elite military personnel, skilled in commando raids, hostage rescues, riot control, and even assassination when necessary. Its soldiers must also be authorized to direct any military or police person, unit, piece of equipment, or facility when limited martial law is declared, or when the Protector's life or property are endangered. The President should remain Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces but the Champion Corps and continue to direct them as his administration deems most prudent; there is no fault in permitting the majority to determine the person most qualified to fulfill the law-delimited military management task. Yet when the majority, through its elected executive, resolves to alter the purpose of military deployment from national security to legalized murder/expropriation, the law must possess a clause of automatic removal of the military from the President's command. Should the President order, say, the nationalization of an industry, and dispatch armed divisions to occupy its plants and evict its proprietors, the Protector's orders alone should suffice to turn the soldiers one-hundred-eighty degrees, toward the White House if necessary. Any soldier who subversively continues to execute the nationalization edict automatically commits high treason and deserves immediate termination by either the Champion Corps or army/police units serving the Protector. Judicial Reassignment As mentioned in "The Betrayal of Checks and Balances," the Judicial Branch must discard the indirect influence of majority vote and simultaneously become a vehicle of objective, rigid, and immutable laws, as opposed to "flexible" paradigms and "community standards." The Supreme Court and District Courts must epitomize the spirit present at the country's founding rather than during the reign of whatever administration appointed the bulk of its justices. Both aims can be accomplished by removing from the President justice-appointing authority to any judicial organization. This power should transfer to the Protectorate Branch. Justices can continue to serve lifetime terms, since, in the principles upheld by his office, every Protector must be an impersonal robot strictly adhering to the law for direction. Thus, the "political bias" of Protector B will not differ from that of Protector A preceding him; it will remain objective, laissez-faire, and Constitutionalist (which is especially reinforced by the fact that Protector B is a student, protégé, and ideological sympathizer of Protector A, else he would not have endured his many decades of training under his predecessor's guidance). There need be no fear of a past majority "paradigm" becoming entrenched due to the old judges remaining when the new Protector assumes office, nor trepidation at the institutionalization of the present majority "paradigm" via the judges' replacement by the Protector. The Protectorate functions independently of majoritarian views. The Protector does not need the majority to be elected or re-elected, and he can defy it with impunity to the point of severe unpopularity. Should the majority or its representatives seek any other methods but discourse and peaceful activism to unseat him, they shall incur the legal and legitimate wrath of the Champion Corps. What if one or many justice(s) displease the Protector by a certain decision, which he considers violating of individual rights? It would be imprudent to permit the implementation of retaliatory force immediately, long as the justice's ruling was not blatantly tyrannical (as a man's imprisonment for spreading written speech using his private property to willing correspondents) and no irreversible damage was inflicted (as death or mutilation of the convicted-or release of an acquitted man who then committed another crime). A legal mechanism for sacking a judge must exist, and, in this case, it should include a majority-based check to ensure that justice is indeed served and the Protector's wish rests on more than mere personal antipathies or indignation. Both Protector and judge(s) should present their cases before a bicameral Congressional committee whose decision will bindingly determine whether to apply the sack. The principle against double jeopardy must be fully exercised here, and no judge brought to such a hearing more than once for the same offense. This system quite generously treats the judges; they need only one man's recognition to be appointed, but a far ampler consensus to be removed from office. The Right of Coup d'État Should-- as even the aptest of men can misjudgingly overestimate another's character-- the merit of a Protector's successor prove illusory upon his assumption of the office and he, against the principles fundamental to capitalistic society, usurps mechanisms which rightfully should be let alone, it is not merely an option but an imperative for a man of greater merit to demonstrate said quality through a retaliatory revolt against the despot. Afterward he, as the liberator, is entitled to the Protectorate and the role of unfettered human progress's guardian. The statutes themselves should clearly document such a situation whenever it occurs. Preceding the actualization of a Protectorate, the government must become economically divorced, and the law codes rewritten, with portions devoted to exhaustively classifying general actions and particular instances as economic intervention. These well-publicized laws should be accessible to any citizen, who, with minimal intellect, would be able to determine whether or not the Protector had abrogated his guardian function. Should the Champion Corps be used to nationalize instead of crushing nationalization efforts, the Second Amendment will pre-empt dictatorship. Gun control laws must be annulled in any legitimately free economy, and the populace become able to assemble full-fledged militias and discard a treasonous Protector. An Amendment clause, permitting the military and even the Champion Corps to revolt if the Protector has authorized economic intervention, should supplement the Constitution. Coup d'état, extensively decried by the left, is a far more humane method of deposing tyrants than a full-scale revolution, being least likely to claim the lives of innocent bystanders or even "human shields." Targeted, like a smart weapon, only at the government guilty of violation, it performs negligible damage to nationwide commerce, transportation, communication, and other features of peaceful daily life. Napoleon's 1799 takeover of the scheming Directory, which had plotted to arrest and perhaps guillotine him (as was its custom with promising young generals) in reward for his brilliant military exploits in defending France at Toulon, in Italy, and in Egypt, was virtually bloodless. So was a recent power seizure from a quasi-Islamist government by American ally Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. During perhaps the most famous coup of all, the Chilean 1973 Salvador Allende deposition (precisely an action that a Protector would undertake against a vilely immoral executive thug like Allende), General Pinochet had initially been able to spill the blood only of the criminal president and his defenders. Only after the fact did Pinochet crudely err by terrorizing his political opponents, ruining an otherwise stainless laissez-faire defender's reputation. If the laws permit possession of firearms and participation in training circles and private militias, then it will be possible for a citizen commando squad to neutralize a usurping Protector via a highly concentrated, coordinated, and delimited operation. Afterward, the position of Protector shall pass to whomever the rebels elect. This will be a limited majority ballot only among those who had wielded arms against the tyrant, thus representing no paradigm, but rather the spirit of liberty unraveled in full via men's highest possible devotion. Implementation Laissez-faire meritocracy will not come overnight, nor is all its parts' simultaneous emergence desirable. To establish a Protectorate before the full liberalization of the economy and a thorough statutory cleansing/editing would be imprudent, empowering the Protector to commit actions opposite the intent of his office. Moreover, the question will doubtless be posed: how shall the first Protector be selected? The following skeletally outlines how the institution of laissez-faire meritocracy should proceed in the manner most conductive to individual liberty and economic progress.
We shall now address Item 5. Were this system instituted in 1787, no question would have been of who should, as leader of the prior rebellion against tyranny, assume the leadership of the Protectorate. Alas, heroes of such magnitude are conspicuously lacking in our country today, and any objective criterion underlying the selection of a guardian is not fully embodied by any public figure. These criteria should include
In a meritocracy, the Protector should epitomize merit, accomplishment, and personal virtue. Thus, it logically culminates this system to have the best of men delegated its most essential task. Post creation of the necessary legal groundwork for a Protectorate, Congress should issue a nationwide call for candidates to the position, developing also a series of evaluative events, pertaining to all five aforementioned categories, in which the contenders would compete. Committees should be formed to vigorously discuss judgment criteria for any particular performance and its comparison to those of other applicants. Possible tests may include riot simulation or examination on the intricacies of a given philosophy or legal principle. In other evaluations, as of wealth and physical fitness, the applicant's medical record and financial history should suffice to admit him; in these realms it is inessential that he be superior to the rest (the Protectorate should not be restricted to Bill Gates or Arnold Schwarzenegger), just that he fulfill minimum guidelines. This event would be, hopefully, a one-time endeavor and historical landmark. Afterward, the Protectorate will sustain itself, maintaining able succession from within.
Discuss this Article [an error occurred while processing this directive] |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
