This article comes from TCS Daily. Onle of my new favorite sites. I have included my comments in italics.
This is the first request for comment from the Ideological Affirmation Task Force. It covers the ideology of Libertarianism, though not in detail or in an enhaustive way.
IATF RFC Number 1, version 0.2: Who We Are
Economic Principles
1. We weave a thread of self-reliance into a sturdy fabric of interdependence. By respecting the law, we reinforce impersonal justice. By competing intensely and fairly in an impersonal global market, we raise our standard of living through specialization and innovation. By upholding Constitutional principles for limited government, we sustain our individual freedom.
This first principle underlines all Libertarian thought. The idea of self-reliance backed by a culture held together by interdependent systems. One of these systems is the free market, another is the social network of families and friends we all are part of (even if some of us may not like the particular social network we find ourselves in). These systems allow a society to thrive without any sort of government management, only arbitration.
2. We are creative and pro-active in helping one another. We do not have the patience to wait for government, nor do we want to be lulled into passivity by the promise of government. Instead, to solve those problems that require collective action, we form voluntary associations, including civic groups, corporations, clubs, standards-setting bodies, consumer information services, and charitable foundations.
The individual, we are told, is incapable of enacting positive change within society, therefore the most powerful group, i.e. the government are asked to take on this responsibility instead. What this does is allow the population to remove all feeling of responsibility for their society. “If things are so bad, then we need a new party in government”. This is pure lethargy, people need to take ultimate personal responsibility for their own quality of life.
3. Government must be kept in its place. We hold government officials to high standards of competence, honesty, and fairness. However, we do not confuse government with family. We do not confuse government with religion. We do not confuse government with business. We are conscious that any expansion of government responsibility, however well-intended, crowds out those institutions that are the true bulwark of our society.
Government is necessary as an arbiter of disputes within society. This means that it is there purely to provide a legal framework for society. Government are not our family, church or businesses. They should not proscribe how we are to live, nor should they provide the products and services we choose to make use of.
4. We celebrate the successes of others. We are glad when an entrepreneur becomes wealthy by finding a way to fill a customer need. We are glad when an immigrant family climbs the ladder of success. We are glad when people living in other countries make economic progress and spur us to innovate and improve.
Unlike socialist and communist thought, we do not persecute the successful members of society for their success. Socialist ideology believes that should someone find themselves able to build a greater than average wealth, they must necessarily have stolen it from poorer members of society.
Through an understanding of economics, it is clear that wealth is not a limited resource. If it were then where were the trillions of dollars worth of products and services we can plainly see today, when the human race evolved?
Ethical Principles
5. Government cannot legislate morality, but it does mess with the incentives. Those incentives should never be tilted against the institution of the family whose mission is to raise children to be fine, upstanding citizens.
This is very simple. The Government cannot proscribe how we live. An example of this is education. By creating a national curriculum, written and controlled by government, with laws in place to prosecute anyone not following it. The population is fed only that information deemed appropriate by the government. Through this control, government can breed a population of willing automatons happy to do its bidding, believing that the government is always correct.
6. We maintain an ongoing conversation about morality and ethics. This conversation is informed by the Ten Commandments and Biblical scripture. It is informed by the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. It is vital to continue the conversation, even when consensus is difficult.
While I do not believe that this point has been explained properly, it does have merit. Morality and ethics are not to be proscribed. Moral and ethical considerations are something we all have to deal with on a daily basis. The morality of a society is the combination of the individual morality of its individuals. If we do not like the morality of our nation, we can only go as far as to ensure we are individually moral according to our own definition.
7. Like new businesses, new moral ideals can revitalize our society, even though many of them fail. For example, we recognize that we are a better people without racial segregation or barriers to the education and career opportunities for women. However, we judge some social experiments to be failures, including eugenics, Communism, and nihilistic cultural relativism.
International Principles
Again, this point needs to be properly explained. Moral ideas can indeed revolutionise society. However, that must only come from a mass movement of naturally changing morality within society. It cannot be imposed by government for the good of the people.
8. Our ideology does not have to be sustained by military suppression. Although it can inspire people to fight against tyranny, ultimately our ideology allows us to live in peace.
A military is to be built and maintained by government (The only legal holders and users of physical force). But only in a defensive capability. The US and UK military are a good example of this. The invasion of Iraq was a political decision, not a military one, and cannot therefore be seen as an aggressive military. This simply stresses the point for limited government power.
9. We believe that people all over the world yearn for liberty, and for them we stand as a beacon and a champion. But we recognize that freedom is not ours to give when community leaders are not ready to seize the opportunity that it offers.
The ultimate wealth is freedom. Without freedom wealth and happiness are not possible. A society that is not free, cannot thrive. Therefore any government action must only be allowed to go ahead if it is proven not to limit freedom. Freedom of course is only constrained in as far as e are free to do anything which does not directly or indirectly harm another individual. Simply, I can punch the air in celebration, but I cannot punch someone in the face.
10. When foreign leaders issue threats against us, we take them at their word and act accordingly.
This appears to be tagged on the end as support for the war on terror. I personally agree with the statement. A society must be at liberty to tackle any threat to its existence. The existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is not a relevant fact. The threat issued by Saddam Husain to wage war on the Western world was enough to provoke retaliatory reaction. We hold the same true in national Law. Threat of violence is highly illegal, as is the act of violence itself. We cannot hold fire until fired upon (especially in the nuclear age).
This is the first request for comment from the Ideological Affirmation Task Force. It covers the ideology of Libertarianism, though not in detail or in an enhaustive way.
IATF RFC Number 1, version 0.2: Who We Are
Economic Principles
1. We weave a thread of self-reliance into a sturdy fabric of interdependence. By respecting the law, we reinforce impersonal justice. By competing intensely and fairly in an impersonal global market, we raise our standard of living through specialization and innovation. By upholding Constitutional principles for limited government, we sustain our individual freedom.
This first principle underlines all Libertarian thought. The idea of self-reliance backed by a culture held together by interdependent systems. One of these systems is the free market, another is the social network of families and friends we all are part of (even if some of us may not like the particular social network we find ourselves in). These systems allow a society to thrive without any sort of government management, only arbitration.
2. We are creative and pro-active in helping one another. We do not have the patience to wait for government, nor do we want to be lulled into passivity by the promise of government. Instead, to solve those problems that require collective action, we form voluntary associations, including civic groups, corporations, clubs, standards-setting bodies, consumer information services, and charitable foundations.
The individual, we are told, is incapable of enacting positive change within society, therefore the most powerful group, i.e. the government are asked to take on this responsibility instead. What this does is allow the population to remove all feeling of responsibility for their society. “If things are so bad, then we need a new party in government”. This is pure lethargy, people need to take ultimate personal responsibility for their own quality of life.
3. Government must be kept in its place. We hold government officials to high standards of competence, honesty, and fairness. However, we do not confuse government with family. We do not confuse government with religion. We do not confuse government with business. We are conscious that any expansion of government responsibility, however well-intended, crowds out those institutions that are the true bulwark of our society.
Government is necessary as an arbiter of disputes within society. This means that it is there purely to provide a legal framework for society. Government are not our family, church or businesses. They should not proscribe how we are to live, nor should they provide the products and services we choose to make use of.
4. We celebrate the successes of others. We are glad when an entrepreneur becomes wealthy by finding a way to fill a customer need. We are glad when an immigrant family climbs the ladder of success. We are glad when people living in other countries make economic progress and spur us to innovate and improve.
Unlike socialist and communist thought, we do not persecute the successful members of society for their success. Socialist ideology believes that should someone find themselves able to build a greater than average wealth, they must necessarily have stolen it from poorer members of society.
Through an understanding of economics, it is clear that wealth is not a limited resource. If it were then where were the trillions of dollars worth of products and services we can plainly see today, when the human race evolved?
Ethical Principles
5. Government cannot legislate morality, but it does mess with the incentives. Those incentives should never be tilted against the institution of the family whose mission is to raise children to be fine, upstanding citizens.
This is very simple. The Government cannot proscribe how we live. An example of this is education. By creating a national curriculum, written and controlled by government, with laws in place to prosecute anyone not following it. The population is fed only that information deemed appropriate by the government. Through this control, government can breed a population of willing automatons happy to do its bidding, believing that the government is always correct.
6. We maintain an ongoing conversation about morality and ethics. This conversation is informed by the Ten Commandments and Biblical scripture. It is informed by the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. It is vital to continue the conversation, even when consensus is difficult.
While I do not believe that this point has been explained properly, it does have merit. Morality and ethics are not to be proscribed. Moral and ethical considerations are something we all have to deal with on a daily basis. The morality of a society is the combination of the individual morality of its individuals. If we do not like the morality of our nation, we can only go as far as to ensure we are individually moral according to our own definition.
7. Like new businesses, new moral ideals can revitalize our society, even though many of them fail. For example, we recognize that we are a better people without racial segregation or barriers to the education and career opportunities for women. However, we judge some social experiments to be failures, including eugenics, Communism, and nihilistic cultural relativism.
International Principles
Again, this point needs to be properly explained. Moral ideas can indeed revolutionise society. However, that must only come from a mass movement of naturally changing morality within society. It cannot be imposed by government for the good of the people.
8. Our ideology does not have to be sustained by military suppression. Although it can inspire people to fight against tyranny, ultimately our ideology allows us to live in peace.
A military is to be built and maintained by government (The only legal holders and users of physical force). But only in a defensive capability. The US and UK military are a good example of this. The invasion of Iraq was a political decision, not a military one, and cannot therefore be seen as an aggressive military. This simply stresses the point for limited government power.
9. We believe that people all over the world yearn for liberty, and for them we stand as a beacon and a champion. But we recognize that freedom is not ours to give when community leaders are not ready to seize the opportunity that it offers.
The ultimate wealth is freedom. Without freedom wealth and happiness are not possible. A society that is not free, cannot thrive. Therefore any government action must only be allowed to go ahead if it is proven not to limit freedom. Freedom of course is only constrained in as far as e are free to do anything which does not directly or indirectly harm another individual. Simply, I can punch the air in celebration, but I cannot punch someone in the face.
10. When foreign leaders issue threats against us, we take them at their word and act accordingly.
This appears to be tagged on the end as support for the war on terror. I personally agree with the statement. A society must be at liberty to tackle any threat to its existence. The existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is not a relevant fact. The threat issued by Saddam Husain to wage war on the Western world was enough to provoke retaliatory reaction. We hold the same true in national Law. Threat of violence is highly illegal, as is the act of violence itself. We cannot hold fire until fired upon (especially in the nuclear age).
posted by Dan at 4:04 PM
2 comments
