This is, you know, the “outside the box” category.
Some time ago – quite a lot of time, actually – we decided to float the idea of a “jubilee” constitutional amendment. We felt there was no end game to the debt trap our country and indeed the world was in. We liked a gold standard for sound money. We objected to central banks, and the basically socialist-collectivist, yet oddly oligarchical political regime they fostered.
There were many drawbacks, however. One was intrinsic: it took a lot of verbiage to get the idea out. It would have been the longest constitutional amendment ever. That is not good, because (for example) each additional word is fuel for judicial mischief undermining the whole thing.
Another was extrinsic. People who felt they had lived a virtuous life and had been financially responsible and paid their debts objected, often emphatically, to the idea of an across the board debt forgiveness for those who have been less responsible and virtuous. This one is, we think, close to insurmountable. The objection does not withstand even a modicum of sober and logical reflection but it has a stubborn, if irrational, political power.
Stubborn and irrational political power, it should go without saying, is the worst possible way to be governed. It’s a synonym for tyranny.
But let us move on. We think that by scaling back our ambition regarding what, precisely, we might accomplish with a constitutional amendment we can effectively address the intrinsic problem. We have another idea, in other words. And more specifically, in far fewer words. This amendment would not accomplish nearly so much as the jubilee amendment but it would accomplish something very significant – far more than, say, what a lot of people seem to believe a Trump administration ever would. Or could.
The goal here is to secure the places people reside – that is, their actual real estate and dwelling, their “homes” – so that they can never be involuntarily taken away. This is a profound change from the regime we currently live under, where the security of one’s home is always in doubt. We consider that current regime – how shall we put this – extremely unhealthy. Morally, politically, socially, personally, emotionally and rationally. We submit that “natural reason” – our preferred method for viewing and interacting with the world around us – regards the “home” primarily as a stable and secure place for people to live, and that a political regime that undermines this principle of natural reason is fundamentally dysfunctional and induces cognitive dissonance among the rulers and populace alike.
So undoing that dysfunction would be no small thing.
We set forth the text of the amendment below, all two sentences. We invite commentary from interested readers. All three of them. We especially appreciate commentary directed to a) whether the reader thinks the amendment will accomplish the goal set forth; b) any significant problems the amendment has; and c) any objections to the goal along with any alternative goals the reader believes would be more suitable.
HOMESTEAD AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Neither the United States nor any State shall tax residential real property, or permit the encumbrance of residential real property by reason of any debt. Neither the United States nor any State shall evict any person from their principal residence for non-payment of rent.