We each value differently. Some of us don’t value a surplus of material goods, i.e. accumulated wealth, at all. While others’ valuations are almost entirely socially comparative–such that a thing has only as much value as it has for a certain select group–and the more of such a thing the better.
If an immoral act is one that, were everyone to engage in it, the world would be left a worse place–an act that would thus at least indirectly harm the innocent–how would the accumulation of wealth–above and beyond a satisfaction of the necessities of life–rank morally? Since we long ago ensured that future generations will no longer have to struggle against the ravages of nature itself, nor face any real threat of invasion, does not our continued, compulsive accumulation of material wealth for its own sake cause more harm to our environment than good to our society?
Evolution has yielded at least two primary offspring survival strategies: The individuals within a species, or sub-species, may increase the likelihood of passing down their genes to future generations by either having as many offspring as nature can sustain; or by having only a few offspring very well provided for.
But in a species as generally successful as the human being has been, if success for many is at least unconsciously measured by the highest number of children marginally provided for–or even by the extent of wealth secured to only a very few children–then the consequent accumulation of humans and of wealth, which must come through the exploitation of a finite supply of natural resources, may well end up doing the world and its future generations more harm than good–all owing to a lack of awareness of strong drives inherited from eons passed.
The mere mention of a direct democracy surely stirs within the minds of many Americans a series of nightmarish scenes–tumultuous masses scaling and toppling capital monuments to titans of industry–invading then our very homes in search of the unearned and the over-prized–finally, triumphantly passing amongst themselves roughly equal shares in a newly confiscated wealth–a Michael Moore-as-Robespierre bloody revolution.
And were this proposed Constitution not just the democratization of our polity, but equally a redistribution of our wealth, this reflexive, fearful overreaction would indeed be justified. Surely it would then contemplate the very grimmest Orwellian purge to rid the nation not only of “undue ownership,” but of the inherited talent–or the accidental ambition to develop that talent–that so often manifests itself in wide disparities of wealth in a capitalistic society.
Shall we be rid of capitalism then? Make everyone an equal owner in all things? If we were to adopt such a plan, long before a requisite human beneficence were enshrined within our figurative constitutions, we would surely invite far more harm than good. It would be immoral to blindly forsake the protections afforded us by our current system, absent a realistic, improved alternative.
Amendment XII – Any self-sovereign, adult citizen shall be welcome to purchase or to lease property, or to contract services or employment, private or public, subject to equivalent qualifications and on equal terms. But no contract entered into with a minor, or made by force or fraud, shall be enforceable by law.
Yet neither ought we give free reign to capitalism, particularly in light of the learned and inherited drives we as humans seem so far from transcending. Simply to unleash the free market because it is the most efficient use of available resources yet begs the question: How much of this can we take? One who acts without moral awareness, let alone an ideal, is closer to a robot than a sentient being.
No corporation reporting no current earnings or profit, or a loss, shall award raises, bonuses or other extraordinary emoluments to its executives, for or during the same fiscal period, unless with the express, contemporaneous assent of all of its owners.
(from Amendment XIII)
The presented document is therefore designed to foster a greater understanding of the morality of conscientiousness, specifically with regard to harm done to the innocent. Thus, it preserves the protections of life and property inherent to a moral society; it limits to local precincts the scope of our political ambitions; and it maximizes the public accountability placed upon both our leaders and upon ourselves.
Citizens shall retain the right to form workers unions whenever the labor at issue is a service for which any citizen can refuse to pay by refusing the service itself and the product of such service.
(The above provision effectively abolishes public service workers unions, which use the power of the state to exact payments for services from tax-paying citizens who do not need or use those services.)
Lawful unions shall retain the right to strike whenever an interruption in work would not endanger public safety, withhold labor for which a prospective striker was previously paid, or withhold a service or product for which a person cannot lawfully refuse to pay.
(from Amendment XIII)
Money is just a medium through which we express subjective valuations. On-the-spot bartering and trading had its limitations; thus we exchange paper symbols of value that we trust will hold their worth until we exchange them again in the future. If the number of these paper symbols were vastly increased, and not everyone received their proportionate share, then some consumers would be enriched relative to others. They could then outbid the rest for goods or services; and pay back debts with paper that would no longer buy what it did when it was first lent.
When gold coins were the currency, they had a value all their own, with a supply that could not easily be manipulated. Later, when new paper bills were limited in number to the supply of exchangeable gold, this too helped to stabilize the value of the paper. What we have today, of course, affords us no such safeguarding of the value of this paper: The Federal Reserve may print new money at will; and banks may lend out most of the money they were entrusted to hold available in deposit.
Whether or not a new system of indirect value exchange might be adopted upon ratification of this Constitution–or yet a return to a barter and trade economy–will be entirely up to the People themselves–and to their Secretary of the Treasury, whom they entrust with the authority to stabilize the currency–and whom they have the power to replace every year.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall have the power to assess and collect the fees and revenues enumerated by this Constitution; to issue one-year Treasury notes on the credit of the United States; to pay the debts and expenses of the United States; to coin or print money, stabilize the value thereof, and of foreign money; to fix the standard of weights and measures; to establish uniform guidelines on the subject of bankruptcies; and to safeguard against the devaluation and counterfeiting of the securities and current money of the United States. But no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations authorized by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
(from Amendment XI)
The overarching goal of this document is a moral one in nature–not one intended to optimize the free exchange of goods and services–so as to perpetuate unconscious evolutionary drives–nor to impose an economic equalization among the ingenious and the disingenuous alike–but to curb the harm we do to the innocents of today and tomorrow, and thus secure unto the greatest majority of us all an enduring, moral way of life.