Posted by
Non-Average Joe on Tuesday, December 22, 2009 6:16:27 PM
This is my second blog on townhall. My first was fine, however, I wanted to approach it a little differently. So, if you want to read more of my stuff, check out the old posts at yworiginal.blogtownhall.com
The following is my standard introduction to my philosophy regarding the proper arrangement of individuals within a society. It should be noted that I address several axiomatic positions which are hotly debated, even amongst conservatives. I hold no monopoly on logic, nor should my logic necessarily make better sense to someone else than his own interpretation of the evidence and facts. This is not universalism. It is a viewpoint springing from a below statement, that all individuals are sovereign and thus, may establish their own opinions. Men may disagree freely.
I will argue my viewpoints, however, defend my beliefs, and assert those concepts that I suppose ought to be better considered by any who take the time to read them. I hope I can effectively denote the subtleties within my philosophy, and demonstrate how many things which, for the individual, are proper in guidance, are not tools to be implemented on a grand scale, over the will of others. There is nuance, but there is also beautiful simplicity. Please take care to understand my philosophy in fullness, rather than isolate a particular note I make and then suppose that to be something that the rest of my statements indicate it is not.
Essentially, I'm saying this: much of my viewpoint springs from ideals which some would say are religious in nature. I argue they are logical and observational in nature, as any belief in anything must necessarily be supported by logic and observation, otherwise, such belief is the fancy of myth. However, I also make statements which may parallel other viewpoints, that secularists, deists, atheists, and many others may accept on the face. Once again, I do not argue for universalism, but I do not believe that the proper arrangement of society is a wisdom exclusively bestowed upon those whose spiritual ideals are identical to my own.
For instance: in order for humans to have been a created being of God, and for those creatures to be able to coexist, believers and non-believers alike, within a society of temporal and moderate harmony, some level of acceptance for disagreement must naturally accompany the great majority of humans, and for those purposes. Tolerance for disagreement is the first prerequisite of proselytization, so it stands to reason that a God commanding believers to offer the choice to others, without malice or threat, would have created a reason within all mankind which allows them to find common ground. Stable society may exist, amongst people who very much disagree on the existence or nature of God or gods or no god. This is one of those subjects within which can be found nuance as detailed as the Mandelbrot set and yet bear little result as to what is the proper course of governance on this Earth.
It seems fairly obvious to me that, for the purposes of creating societies and governments that exist here and now, men, by natural law, can derive justice, while some may believe in no origin for it but social convenience and human nature, and while others may believe its original author to be a divine being.
I believe there are two things central to the stability of a free
society; the sanctity of life and the sovereignty of the individual.
Neither of these moral bulwarks are superior or inferior to the other
and the development of policy and belief stem from the two ideals
remaining hand-in-hand. I also believe that these ideals are primarily
defended as virtuous by the study of natural law and its in teaching and their establishment by God.
Taking logic from those views I have concluded definitively the following.
-The classification of people by political party is fallacious. There is only a classification of political power. There is freedom and tyranny. Tyrants wield
an authority of control while freedom-minded people wield nothing but a
desire to maintain liberty. Liberty is an absence of force or coercion in the life of each individual.
No one, who believes in freedom, forces anything upon anyone or from
anyone unless that person has first violated the natural agreement of
liberty to which such force is necessary to defend these rights.
-There is no perfection on Earth. Humanity is blessed with a stunningly
diverse array of people, in thought as much as anything else. No
arrangement will work perfectly to everyone's complete and satisfactory
benefit. What we must seek is the best arrangement whereby people can
coexist and attain their unique or common objectives for themselves. It has been profoundly demonstrated that the overall effect of this self-focused activity is, in the largest common part, a benefit to all others in achieving their own goals, on the whole.
-This diversity of humanity exposes an individuality which cannot be
reconciled with any collective ideal. Humans all eat, breathe, drink,
think, decide, act, speak, plan, engage, dress, etc as individuals. The only instances of
collective ideals are in those cases where men unionize their similar
ideals to amass greater power by threat or by peer pressure. Each goal
which drove each member to join such a unionized force remains an
individual objective. Therefore, each individual owns the right to
decide for his own being, what contracts to participate in, what faith
to hold, what desires to establish, etc and wields that right over no other man. I will refer to this principle as the 'contract of the individual'.
-Property is the manifestation of a person's choices and effort. The right to own property is absolute, since the nature of the individual's ownership of himself is absolute, and not subject to repeal based upon popular demand or fiat. Redistribution of wealth through theft or monetary chicanery or progressive taxation and recurring taxation is immoral, discouraging to an economy, and an initiator of a snowball
effect which functions against production, societal values, and
morality. An owner has total discretion as to
where, when, how, and why to distribute, destroy, dispose, dispense,
stock, save, or reserve any property owned, created, received in
transaction or gift, or discovered.
-People, therefore,
have a right to defense of one's self and one's property as well as the
persons or property to which one feels obligated in defense,
familial contractual, neighborly, or otherwise, thus the right to items which
can best
assist that defense against any threat cannot morally be withheld by
law. This is identical to violation of contract. The nature of humanity
is the contract of the individual, once again. Further, the burden of evidence upon banning any property is on its threat to the great portion of the people. Certain things may not be morally banned at will or whim, since that banning, if without proof of any dire threat to the rights of the greater amount of men, is a violation of the individual right to the property one produces. (I plan on clarifying these two statements later on in a much more extensive explanation)
-The right to freely associate is a crucial and basic principal to mankind and may not be restricted without the bound person having
prior violations of the similar rights against someone else. This applies not
only to political parties and movements but also to labor, contract, and sales. An
employer has an absolute right to determine who will or will not work for them and
why someone will or will not work for them. A worker has the absolute
right to determine who they will work for by formulating mutually voluntary contracts with
whomever they wish for any rate or reason. A salesman has sole
discretion as to whom they will sell to and for whatever reasons. A
customer has the right to decide where they expend their value for any
reason at all. Contracts to these ends, formulated between agents of the economy are binding and must be upheld by the law.
-Life is as valuable a commodity to the individual as the objectives he completes for himself with that life. It cannot be
violated without just cause (self defense) or consent (that is, for
example, as a person may give consent for dangerous assignment by
contract for work with a construction company whose specialty is high steel). However,
it is not a violation of one person's life that another person's
property remains intact. Suppose a man may die without charitable
contribution from good citizens. He still has no right to prop up his
own life by stealing from another man, whether or not that man can
afford the abuse, whether or not the abuser sends government to act in
his stead. One life is not morally protected in the trampling of another.
-Willful violation of the right to one's own life or one's own property
repeals all these rights for the violator and thus they subjugate
themselves to the necessary steps for a civil society of ordered
liberty to maintain it's precarious stance or to an individual's right
to self defense. This is identical to violation of contract, nullifying the contract's
obligations to the violator. The nature of humanity is the contract of
the individual, once again. After all, why would anyone chose to be a part of a society wherein violators of the societal principals are not subsequently excluded from the protections those principles afford?
-Travel is as necessary as the rest of the rights. A person who is free
to do as he pleases (rights circumscribed by the identical rights of
others) but only permitted to be so in a certain, confined area, has no rights at
all. With the ability to travel comes increased abilities to associate,
contract, and transact. Therefore, no restrictions may be placed upon
mobility except for those to ensure mobility is not a direct threat to
the other rights. This is why we have drivers' licenses and we search
people before they board aircraft among other things as well as allowing private land owners to maintain sovereignty over that land.
-The Constitution is, in originalist principal, for the restriction of government to its sole and declared duties which are to stop force and redress fraud.
Freedom-minded people do not need governing in any sense except in the adjudication of disputes. The diversity
of mankind not only demands a system where people are not subject to
collective will, but requires a government to preserve the natural
rights of mankind from those who wish to impose unnatural violations of
humanity. Those violations vary from petty crime to invasion from an
enemy force. Thus, government has a function in an imperfect society,
not to create perfection, but to protect against force
and reestablish justice of as much imperfection as possible. In that
sense, government is the greatest threat to liberty and must be
governed, itself, and harshly. That is the purpose for the Constitution
of the United States of America; to limit by its charter the federal government.
-Freedom of advocacy and speech is necessary, however, not as wide open
as commonly thought. Harassment and public endangerment circumscribe
this right which is otherwise unencumbered.
-A nation of ordered liberty must be a republic of some sort. All other
forms of governance are fundamentally at odds with liberty in their
inability to reign in the absolute power of mob rule. A republic can
only serve as a bulwark against this for so long, until the mob
overrules the minority (or vice versa) or until, as is also currently happening, the
society loses all moral navigation and boundaries. Yet, we cannot
simply throw the only baby out with the bathwater.
I may amend and append these statements further as necessary but the ideals are sound, though incomplete.