I don't know how you read my post and said I don't think we have moral rights. You sounded angry and when people are they don't listen to reason.
Yes, true, but not without a representative speaking for others and authorizing the political enforcement of the direct vote in the first place. If one person wouldn't otherwise support what is being voted on, then they must have been spoken for, twice, actually. Once to decide that the issue to be decided on is to be made by vote and second, to subsequently politically enforce the vote.)
(Just to be clear on something: When I say, 'Spoken for,' I mean the individuals opinion is politically respected as the final say in law; this is in addition to a 'right to free speech.' So the minority in a direct democracy is being spoken for by the majority.)
(There is no difference between a 'Republic' and a 'Direct Democracy.' If america was a direct democracy would all 300,000,000 people get to count all 300,000,000 votes? No? So someone must speak for others and the others must take someone else's word on election results. Functionally, the two ideas are the same thing.)
So. . .suppose two people (objectivists presumably) on an undeveloped land decided to equally contribute to the construction of a building. I would submit they don't need a written constitution to know there is an equal moral right to the building (just like you don't need a legislature to know murder is wrong). I also submit if people taking the initiative to cooperate in forming any and all desired collectively owned/used projects/services, a social order could be established and grow up around these ideas with out the help of any political leaders convening to represent anyone.
Rights are then delegated to someone else and that is the weakness exploited by today's politicians. It says right in the constitution: people will be represented by a representative. As if it is a benefit, like you will be able to get Obamacare.
The issue here is: Can a social order be developed around these moral laws without having any leader(s) who speak for others, convene? I think yes. And, if so, then that would be an example of a social order not needing a constitutional government empowering politicians. Rights would be protected via a different strategy.
(In a constitution, rights are attempted to be protected by written promises by people legally permitted to cancel promises when and if they get away with it. If functions of government are taken care of directly by the ownership of citizens, rights are protected when no one is legally authorized to infringe on them in the first place.)
Here is another way to look at it. Suppose a person living in a monarchy wants a speed limit on a stretch of road changed. What does their social order tell them to do? Essentially, they go a representative in parliament. The representative is in a bad mood and says, "Up yours," and that's the end of it. A citizen-to-citizen discussion of the matter would not help because it is not the way the system is set up.
This country has a different system. When the same situation occurs in america the citizen would get a better hearing from the legislature and, if needed, could also benefit from discussion the issue with other citizens.
Under your idea (if I understand it) if I contribute $100.00 to a government that spends $1,000,000 then I get 1/10,000 of a vote. The constitution says I get the same 1 vote you do if I don't get off my mother's couch (so to speak). I'm saying the constitution would have to be stood on its head before that happens.
I say it is unconstitutional because there would be a different citizen-to-citizen relationship within the system. Such a relationship is not laid out - even if better. 'The system,' i.e. how citizens relate to each other in getting things done (including constructing courthouses, police buildings, and the military), itself, would be different.
(I will agree, outside of political reality, a fictional story could be imagined where legislatures within a constitutional republic are reasoned with and triumphantly in the end of the story decide to change the system to do this.)
I don't mind the idea, I would just extend the concept individually to each service government provides and prorate it likewise. So if I contribute 73 cents to a library fund with half a million dollars I get that amount of involvement, if $102.57 to a fire department with a budget of $756,938.93 then I get that much say in decision making if I choose.