I found this on the website freedomforceinternational.org. I found it to be just about in line with what I believe. Please read and comment.
THE CREED OF FREEDOM
INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights
are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to
grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal
liberty.
I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the
state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right
to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the
servant of society.
SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter
its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary
functions of a just state is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the
majority.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by
voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood
are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by
coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving
of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through
coercion of law.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national
origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion.
Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or
popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.
PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not
aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for
some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are
those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of
freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful
enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to
protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That state is best which
governs least.
5 comments:
I just feel like the state is potentially the greatest agent of positive social change in the world, and that we shouldn't throw that away just because of (understandable) fears that people can't wield that kind of power properly.
Let's get to the point where we can trust our government rather than just running away, eh?
Correction. Make that second greatest.
The trouble is that the state is also the potential greatest agent of negative social change.
So you just toss it as an option altogether? I don't understand why the system is fundamentally unfixable. I've no doubt it's flawed, but just to give up on a tool like that?
I mean really, we talk about private giving as the best alternative to welfare, but private giving needs some organization to be really effective. And, you know, any organization would have to be big. Real big. Like the size of a small government. Only this one wouldn't have elected representatives.
I just don't get why government has to go altogether. I mean, there's a ton of things most people seem to have no problem giving them control over. How on Earth can we trust them with the military (which literally holds the lives of millions of people in its hands, all controlled by government officials), but not trust them to provide healthcare for our people. It's ok to give them education (which affects literally every person in this country), but not to allow them to provide social security for the elderly unable to provide for themselves?
I dunno, I'm certainly not totally convinced either way, and the think the right option lies somewhere in moderation. But just tossing out the greatest organizational tool we have seems to me like a massive waste.
Hey, let's keep up this conversation in an e-mail, huh?
Post a Comment