Only taxpayers should vote? How about only BONDHOLDERS should vote? Moreover, not "one man one vote" but (as in business) one share one vote.

That was one of the solutions in "The Secret of the League: the story of a social war" a novel from 1907 about the rich going on strike against socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_...

This presumes that America is worth saving. The other option is to start our own Galt's Gulch. As a professor who co-founded and sold two companies, I'm still awaitng my invitation.

My imperfect idea about the checkbox assumes that America is worth saving. At this point, that is debatable. The difference between us and those in Atlas Shrugged is that there isn't a viable alternative yet to move to. If there were (is?) a Galt's Gulch to actually move to, I am still not aware of its existence. Until then, I am like Quentin Daniels (eventually Galt's assistant) toiling away at Florida (instead of Utah) Institute of Technology.

Agreed. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are counter to AR values.

The tax form idea came probably because I was just finishing my taxes and intentionally bypassed the "Do I want to donate $3 to politically candidates?". There would have to be some means of saying that we aren't going to accept government money from an accounting standpoint. But you're right in one respect. It would be like painting a target on yourself. I am past the point where I care about that anymore. I'm still waiting for a Galt's Gulch to actually move to.

Has anyone seen Neil Smith's New Covenant? It showed up the first time in his book "The Gallatin Divergence".
I think it's a good start for discussion. Now, of course, I have to find my [signed] copy and give you the language.
tomorrow is another day!
Your question is good - something to start with is always better than a blank piece of paper looking at you, saying "well? get on with it!"

checkbox on a tax form? umm...tax form? Like I fll it out and send it in and include a payment....or else?

no, no, no, no, no.
did I say "over my dead body" yet?

Under an Objectivist constitution, speaking strictly for myself, there would be no income tax, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Those unable or unwilling to provide for themselves would have to depend on the charitable impulses of the productive.

To most people, "pirate" means "buccaneer."

And to the looters, of course he's a pirate.

A privateer, or privateersman, is a "licensed pirate." Or he is if his license lets him plunder enemy shipping.

So "piracy" is neither good nor evil. It depends on the motive and whose side the "pirate" is on.

The significance in a constitutional government is this: The United States Constitution grants to the Congress the power to issue privateers' licenses. I quote:

"The Congress shall have power...to declare war, to grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules governing capture on land and water."

"Letters of marque and reprisal" are the term in international law for privateering licenses.

Now Ragnar's case is a little special. The Gulch was "not a State of any kind," to quote John Galt. So Ragnar acted on his own cognizance. But if the Gulch had had a constitution, Ragnar would no doubt have had a privateering license

You might try to find "A Constitution for a Moral Government",1971.

The framers anticipated the situation that we are in today, as did de Tocqueville. The framers of the Constitution crafted the part of the Constitution that Mark Levin is trumpeting as the "relief valve" for just such a situation. The problem that we have now is that we lack enough people in federal or state government to take action consistent with the Constitution. In fact, the Constitutional lawyer-in-chief has violated most of the amendments to the Constitution, not to mention the original document. Yet, we lack statesmen (or women) who view the Constitution as more important than their own political objectives.

The right to vote was restricted to property owners back then, until it was changed through the amendment process. Women and African Americans should have the right to vote. However, regardless of anything else, only producers who have taken a pledge not to take Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc. should have the right to vote.

I especially agree with the last comment about how no one living today will be around to see a significant conversion to their thoughts. Would anyone consider buying an island or cruise ship for Gulchers? I will gladly contribute, but can't buy the whole thing myself.

Only producers should have a vote. This would be enabled by a checkbox on a tax form saying that one would not accept money from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Violation of the checked box would be punishable by fine, revocation of voting priveleges, and perhaps jail time.

It is treasonous to Gulchers, but probably not worthy of capital punishment. Revocation of voting priveleges and political office, plus a particularly heavy fine ($1 million?), should be sufficient.

The current one doesn't work because it has been followed since prior to 1913 and probably since prior to 1896. Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged that money goes to those capable of possessing it (a paraphrase). One should note that the time of America's greatest expansion was from 1865 to 1896, not coincidentally the time it best followed the constitution (or at least when those who violated it had the least impact).

I am an objectivist teaching chemical, biomedical, and materials engineering at Florida Tech. It's not exactly the Patrick Henry University, but being a private university (now in the world's top 200) with no tenure and minimal politics, it's as close to what you will find other than Hillsdale College. I fund most of my own research, helped start two companies and a nanotech minor program, and work with companies rather than government.

If one's vote is proportional to what one pays in taxes, it makes voting more like a shareholder's meeting for a corporation. Right now, the taxing and voting situation has a Marxian "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" feel to it. As a man of ability, I reject Marx and all his successors.