About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Commentary

The Protectorate: The Ultimate Check
by G. Stolyarov II

During the summer of 2002, I had had the pleasure of touring through Canada with a guide who was one of the most ingenious, industrious, and rationally selfish men I had ever met. A Ph. D. and author of thirty-two inventions during his early life in the Soviet Union, he had refused an American firm's offer of employment on the grounds of his outrage that his name would not be included as that of the author of his work in the company's records and advertisement, attaining instead his present profession and working for over fourteen hours per day in order to plan the most intriguing possible routes, historical presentations, and trip logistics. He was extensively read in both standard and "alternative" interpretations of history, and often presented them side by side for comparison. At the beginning of the ten-day-long tour, he posed a question to the entire group for ponderance: "Why do Canadians still keep-- and express staunch pride in-a Queen?" Queen Elizabeth possesses virtually no de facto power in Canada, and even her official representative, the Governor-General, serves the purpose of merely rubber-stamping the proposals accepted by Parliament. Most tourists' guesses over those ten days, including my own, ranged from the "need to represent and recollect upon Canada's past through a concrete" (a more subtle variant of traditionalism), to the Canadians' sheer fancy for the luster and glamour of royalty. On the route back, however, after we had been decently acquainted with both the physical and theoretical structures of Canada's government, the guide at last revealed a most enlightening answer.

There is no seizure of power as dangerous as a legal usurpation, with the sanction of the majority, of the coercive mechanisms of the state for the purpose of violating individual rights. In 1933, this was the path which had brought dictatorship to Adolf Hitler and near-dictatorship to Franklin Roosevelt. Both men held their posts until their deaths in 1945, with ample opportunities to intrude upon individual sovereignty at home and abroad. No superior authority had been able to intercede and pre-empt Hitler's suspension of Germany's flawed enough constitution, nor to forcefully halt his hunt against "enemies of the state" following the government-staged Reichstag fire shortly after Hitler's assumption of chancellorship. Similarly, in a freer land with greater public vigilance, there was yet no systematic opposition to Roosevelt's finally successful attempt to seize control of the Supreme Court in a move that preceded the institution of perhaps the three most disastrous initiatives in U.S. history, welfare, social security, and "fair" labor standards, which continue to be responsible for the bulk of the country's domestic perils, as a "pie" over which pressure groups can squabble by promising larger shares of it to their constituents at the expense of everyone else.

"Eternal vigilance" must come not only from the masses, for whom, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "rebellion against a tyrant is obedience to God." (Replace "God" with "Man's Nature" to receive a fully Objectivist statement.) It must come from an agency which can freely and legally sack, remove, and penalize usurping legislators and executives, but may do so in a severely delimited context, with its use of force not exceeding the boundaries of the crime committed, not breaching the liberties of the innocent, nor relying on mere subjective judgment but on specific statutory definition to execute this power. Prior to the actual implementation of physical force, this agency must possess the capacity of resorting to peaceful correction, via the power of irrevocable veto of any measure passed through the Legislative and Executive branches, and affirmed, either out of timidity or Presidential lapdog status, by the Judicial. Should this fail to quell the power grabs of the "representatives of the majority," this agency must possess a cadre of enforcers of its will. In Canada (and Great Britain), though this power had never been employed as thoroughly as was needed during the period of figurehead monarchy, the latter possesses the de facto ability of irrevocable veto via the simple refusal to rubber-stamp a given proposal. The public's culturally dominant loyalty to the crown would render the enforcement of such a counterbalance guaranteed, if not through an official military or police body, then by a militia of concerned citizens. Based on the British model (though with certain significant modifications), a full-fledged laissez-faire meritocracy must adopt a fourth branch of government. This new branch herein contrived shall be termed the Protectorate branch for the sole purpose which it is intended to serve, to protect the laissez-faire economy from infiltration by regulators and the government from infestation by crooks.

The Protectorate cannot be headed by a multiplicity of persons. The state of the Supreme Court, which does have the theoretical power of irrevocable veto (via the unconstitutionality declaration), is testimony to this criterion. Whenever an agency is headed by many, be it nine or two, it is all too easy for a demagogue to suggest, for the sake of a power play, the amplification of that quantity. This has been the case even in Imperial Rome after its leadership's split into two "Emperors" of the East and West. This had occurred prior to its fracture into two separate Empires in 395, and, even a century earlier, led the Emperor Diocletian to employ this precedent to form a "tetrarchy," and double the number of ruling figures in the country. It was the tetrarchy, under Diocletian's devious ventriloquism, that was able to institute some of the most draconian regulations in Roman history, including the forced assumption by each man of the career of his father and thus the creation of the second most vicious official caste system the world had ever seen. In almost every body of multiple equally-empowered members, some attempt, successful or failed, had at one time been made to increase its number. Some such enhancements are justified, as in the case of a territorially expanding country that requires new slots for representation, others, especially in the field of law interpretation, are devastating. If the Protectorate is to resemble a hydra in composition, then we may someday experience the phenomenon of a minority of its leaders disagreeing with the majority on whether or not to veto a proposition or employ physical force against a violator. Yet, in the realm of usurping legislature, the benefit of the doubt must always reside on the side of guilt; unless a law is proven to be "innocent" of hindering the free market and individual rights, it cannot be admitted into the lives of citizens, for it must be ascertained without question that no sly bureaucrat is attempting to smuggle into it the beginnings of regulatory authority. Not even a condition of unanimity for the approval of any given piece of legislature would suffice here, for, in the event that the mechanism of fair government is endangered, the extensive disputes required to convince the dissenting members of the organization would not be practicable under the imperative to act with lightning swiftness lest the usurpers consolidate their forces into an impenetrable web, upheld by a constituency prepared to riot or even commit outright violence at their masters' bidding (as Hitler, for example, had prepared, a decade ahead of his seizure of power, while the Democratic Party has been erecting it, in the form of welfare recipients, militant hippies, and privileged union members, for three-quarters of a century). The Protectorate must be headed by a single individual, to be known as the Protector.

There is a symbolic distinction between this title and that of the British Queen in that it assumes none of the worn atavistic trappings of absolute monarchy and does not pride itself on flaunting the same reference as was bestowed upon an older variant of tyrants. If I had been alive in 1787 and suggested for George Washington to assume the title of Protector (instead of King, as was advised by many), I am confident that he would have consented and thus alleviated from the earliest point the causes of the decay which had managed to plunge America into its present condition. The old Kings' power was positive and regulatory. The power of the Protector shall be purely negative and reactive. Moreover, the Protectorate does not entitle itself to the glamour and celebrity status with which the British figurehead monarchy has been hounded (at the public's expense), especially in the recent decade.

Hence, one of the essential safeguards of laissez-faire meritocracy lies in its assignment of the pinnacle of power. There is required a man of ultimate merit, who would not possess regulatory authority himself, but would hold veto power over any intervenient piece of legislation proposed or promulgated by a lower-level administrative body. (This is in addition to the President's conditional veto power and the Supreme Court's power of declaring unconstitutionality.) Such is to be the optimal deterrent against attempts to subvert the laissez-faire economy and a stern check against abuses of power by the corrupt. The Protector cannot be elected like the other positions, for the majority, even with a sound philosophical base, can be undercut over a period of years by sweet-talking demagogical influences, as had occurred within the United States time and again, exemplified by the Roosevelt cousins, the Kennedys, and the Clintons. Simultaneously, the Protector cannot be a mere family dynast in place due to an accident of genetics.

The only solution, therefore, is an appointment by the previous Protector, who would also be a man of ingenious skills and infrequently found understanding as well as-which is desirable-remarkable accomplishment in another field of activity, of a successor deemed as worthy in serving as the guardian of a meritocracy. The position would be occupied for life, but nevertheless incur the same limits standing alone as that of any lower-level official. Economic control, in other words, is denied even the Protector, though he should be permitted and encouraged (but not through the use of public funds) to pursue a private economic endeavor detached from the affairs of government and thereby gain a stake in the economy he was sworn to protect. The lifetime occupation of the post is desirable due to the consistency that it bestows upon the reactive mechanism. The Protector would be able to, first, establish a vast record of experience and tactical judgment, second, to train a successor for a lengthier time during his more aged years using the entire repository of his amplified knowledge, and, third, eliminate the ability of pressure groups to capitalize on a proximate alteration in leadership in order to elevate their own minions. Though, given that a man owes no unwanted positive service obligations to his society, the Protector should be permitted to resign at will, under the condition that he has appointed a successor to the position.

The Protector should be permitted to create a network of subordinates as intricate and vast as his post requires. A single man could never fully attend to the logistics, mechanisms, and observations that are absolutely indispensable to the Protectorate. What is essential, however, is that the Protectorate have only a single guiding mind which decides its purpose, while leaving all other members to resolve the means toward accomplishing it.

How the United States would go about establishing a Protectorate and assuring it sound means of enforcement, as well as ample counterbalances to possible abuses of power, will be a matter for a subsequent essay.

Sanctions: 5Sanctions: 5 Sanction this ArticleEditMark as your favorite article

Discuss this Article (17 messages)