First Principles
First Principles
Awhile back I suggested that I wanted to write a series of posts about why I believe as I do. I want to offer it as an explanation of core values, and why I tend to support the Right while attacking the Left. The various versions of this Blog have seen some heated exchanges, and while I don’t regret the passion, at times I do regret the lack of focus on the core rather than the particulars of the daily issues.
Politics, at times, can be a sport. It is a particularly nasty sport, but one that advances ideas. While I enjoy that aspect of it as much as anyone else, I also try to keep in mind the ideas, which trump all other concerns. Having ‘my man’ in office is meaningless if the price of victory is the compromise of values. Unfortunately, it is growing more difficult to have both purity of philosophy coincide with electoral victory.
Now that I think about it, I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed it.
My ideas, which will be laid out here on the blog, push me towards Conservatism. Unfortunately, this provides few choices in terms of political affiliation. The Republican Party is the most viable organization that even partially supports my values, so I end up closing ranks on election day. But I’m not always happy about it. Various other minor parties, like the Libertarians, have better ideas but pollute themselves with the crackpot fringe.
So I do what I can to advance the party that might not do what I want, but will at least do less harm than the others.
First Principles
The core of political philosophy should evolve from fundamental premises. Without these ideas, political affiliation makes about as much sense as loyalty to a particular sports franchise – satisfying, but arbitrary. I can’t recommend arbitrary selection when one establishes a set of ideas to govern your life.
The core principle for this post is Autonomy. It can best be summed up in a line from Ayn Rand’s opus, Atlas Shrugged (paraphrased).
I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for me.
Put another way: Men are free, and that freedom should not be abridged. Men own themselves, and by extension, they own that which they produce.
The simple concept leads to far reach conclusions.
Man lives for the sake of himself, and his own happiness is sufficient reason to justify his acts, if such justification could possibly be required (and I don’t think it does). Man is free to act as he pleases, and no one can issue a claim to a part of his life, his labor or his time without his consent.
Some have tried to say that this perspective leads to anarchy and chaos, with Men happily doing whatever pleases them without limit of law. I answer with the second half of the above statement. You are free to do as you please, provided you never infringe upon another Man. You can’t enslave, harness or appropriate the time, property or person of another. The task of government is to assure that this never happens.
Society has no power or claim on Man. You cannot reach into another Man’s pocket for money and use collective need as a justification. A collection of Men cannot morally impose upon a singular Man. Nor can a single Man impose a claim on all of Men. A Man in need has no right to expect the larger body of Men to provide for him, nor can a needy mob expect a Man to bend to their will and serve. There is no moral premise for slavery.
Need in itself is meaningless. It carries no sanction or authority. Yet need is used by many to justify the enslavement of others. This is called taxation. A Man’s labor, time and wealth are taken from him to serve the ‘need’ of others, without his consent or permission. While taxation is lawful, it is not moral. No amount of need or law will ever turn involuntary taxation into a virtuous practice. But we live in a world that worships ‘need’ over freedom.
The fundamental premise of self-ownership precludes the morality of those that believe in redistribution of wealth or the creed of ‘the greater good’. The Left tends to believe in the power of Society over the Individual, and they extend the claim that ‘need’ is sufficient to compel the enslavement of a portion of Man (and those on this side are free to enter into debate and state their own opinions).
So we have progressive taxation (enslavement of the productive under progressive harsher circumstances, dictated by their ability to endure it). We have taxation of property (whereby no piece of land can ever be owned free and clear, without a monthly tithe to the government). We have an entire code of regulations designed to bend Men to the servitude of Men they will never know, nor see, yet serves as their master by virtue of their need.
In abstract terms, the productive are condemned as a circumstance of their ability, while the unproductive are elevated by the circumstance of their need.
Therefore, the principle of Self-Ownership dictates my resistance to every social program of government.
This should not be misconstrued as a callous disregard of the poor or displaced. Those people ‘need’ help, but that need isn’t sufficient to force anyone to act. Those that CHOSE to act are free to do so, as are those that CHOSE to do nothing. The morality of either position is not relevant to anyone but the person making the choice. I personally feel that I have a self-interest in helping, and self-interest is the only sensible motivation for any action. (I’m sure that will require some explanation at a later time).
The nasty edge of political debate cuts deep when one ignores the premise and assigns darker motives to opposition or support of any program. Because I stand opposed to social programs does not mean I don’t care about people in need, yet it is difficult to have rational debate when one is charged with being callous and cruel. Helping people is fine, but FORCING people to help people is not a solution.
Slavery in any form, either as a slave or as a master, is anathema to the human desire to be free. Those that are forced to serve are unhappy. Those that accept the service of slaves are self-destructive. Social dependency is a poison, to both parties. To sustain either position is immoral, and should be stopped. A government trafficking in slavery is unjust, and no amount of compassion can disguise the flawed premise.
Those on the Left do not see themselves as slavers. I’m sure they think they are doing good things. Unfortunately, this does not change the truth of what their policies support. Therefore, this is one of many reasons I oppose them.
Other principles coming in later posts….
Filed under: Personal
Of course I agree fully. I think you might have said too much atually, because most other principles can flow from this one.
I commend the spirit of trying to define your principles so concretely. If only everyone would and could do this, we wouldn’t have so many problems. It is when people refuse to think about their principles and to truly ask why they think as they do that evils like progressive taxation occur. How many people would favor such a scheme if they knew it as slavery?
Keep up the good work!
You are free to do as you please, provided you never infringe upon another Man.
I like this idea, but I don’t think this follows the philosophy of the Right.
President Bush pushed very hard not too long ago to pass a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Does a marriage between two loving people infringe upon another Man? According to the Right, no it doesn’t… unless they are of the same gender. Then it does more than just infringe upon another Man: It “threatens the sanctity of marriage.”
That’s the thought of the Right. Is this one of your core beliefs? If so, please explain this to me.
Long post on this coming….standby.
Sounds good. I look forward to that post.I have another question, but first, a few notes:1. I have read and understand your philosophy on taxes, i.e. that they are a form of slavery. I don’t share this philosophy, but I do understand it.2. I have also read and understand your position on governmental aide and social programs, i.e. that it is wrong to force people into helping less fortunate people. I won’t call you out as callous or insensitive for feeling that way.That said, here’s my question: How does this core belief ( you are free to do as you please, provided you never infringe upon another Man ) shape your opinion on the drug war?Here’s why I ask: According to Rolling Stone magazine, “[t]he government spends an estimated $4 billion a year arresting and prosecuting marijuana crimes — more than it spends on treating addiction for all drugs — and more and more of those busts are for possession rather than dealing” (cited source).According to this May 2005 report, “Few marijuana arrests are for serious offending: of the 734,000 marijuana arrests in 2000, only 41,000 (6%) resulted in a felony conviction.” Also, [m]arijuana arrests increased by 113% between 1990 and 2002, while overall arrests decreased by 3%.” According to the graphs in this report, starting in the early- to mid-1990′s, drug enforcement on marijuana has steadily increased from roughly 30% of all drug enforcement policy to about 45% today. Meanwhile, enforcement on the harder and much more dangerous drugs of heroin and cocaine has dropped from 55% to 30%. These were the dangerous drugs that the War on Drugs was originally all about. Now the focus is on marijuana, a drug that the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Bureau of Mortality Statistics admits has never killed a single person (one cited source, another cited source, yet another source.)
This past June, an amendment to stop arresting medical marijuana patients was put up to a vote in the House of Representatives. (This amendment wouldn’t have legalized recreational use; it’s only goal was to allow people who are prescribed medical marijuana to follow their doctor’s advice without being arrested.) This amendment failed 161-264. Among those who voted in favor of the amendment were 145 Democrats, 1 Independent, and a mere 15 Republicans. That means roughly 72% of Democrats voted in favor of the amendment. Compare that to only 6.5% of Republicans.
The message I hope I have given here is that when it comes to using marijuana – whether for recreational or medical purposes – Americans are NOT free to do as they please. Using marijuana doesn’t infringe upon anybody else. In fact, it doesn’t even hurt the person using it!
Here’s something else you stated in this post: “You can’t enslave, harness or appropriate the time, property or person of another. The task of government is to assure that this never happens.” On this issue, however, the government is NOT assuring that one’s property is not harnessed. In fact, the government itself IS DOING the harnessing of this substance.
As the voting pattern shows, the Republican Party, i.e. the more conservative party, is largely responsible for keeping marijuana illegal and imprisoning those who possess even the most minute amounts of it.
As the drug enforcement trends show, it was right around the time when Republicans gained control of the federal legislature that arrests for marijuana rose, while arrests for harder, more dangerous drugs of heroin and cocaine dropped. In fact, the year was 1996 when the number of marijuana arrests surpassed the number of heroin/cocaine arrests. 1996 was the second session of the 104th Congress – the same Congress that marked the turnover of power from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority. Coincidence? Think about it.
Now to ask you my first question: Do you share the conservative viewpoint that marijuana, a non-lethal, natural substance, should be illegal in our country? If so, please explain.
As I said above, I understand your philosophy on taxation being a form of enslavement, and the immorality of forcing people to provide aide to the needy. However, like it or not, that is how our country currently operates. I highly doubt that taxation will be overthrown in my lifetime. As long as people like you and me are paying taxes, I’ll be using my energy to see that our tax dollars are at least spent wisely and used for beneficial purposes, like governmental social programs, than for unbeneficial purposes, like premeditated wars against sovereign nations. As that July 28th Rolling Stone article stated, “The government spends an estimated $4 billion a year arresting and prosecuting marijuana crimes — more than it spends on treating addiction for all drugs.” In addition, President Bush’s appointed drug czar, John Walters, has asked for obscene amounts of money to be used in public schools to provide drug testing for student athletes, and sometimes entire student bodies. That’s all fine and dandy except when you take into consideration that crack, cocaine, and other, harder drugs go undetected in these drug tests, as those drugs don’t stay in the body very long at all. Marijuana, however, can be detected in one’s system months after contact. In other words, these drug tests are really just marijuana tests, and marijuana is not a dangerous drug. Two million tax dollars were spent in 2004 by members of the Bush Administration. This year, that amount increased five-fold to $10 million. Now walters is pushing to ger $25 million for next year to spend on these worthless tests.
So here’s my second question (there are several parts to it): Putting aside your indifference to taxation as a whole, do you share this conservative viewpoint of spending billions of tax dollars a year to arrest people for what is most likely possession (not trafficking) of trace amounts (less than a gram) of marijuana? Does it make sense to you that far more tax revenue is spent to arrest and imprison people for possessing a little bit of harmless marijuana than is spent to treat those with addictions to hard drugs? That is what an overwhelming percentage of conservatives and Republicans – two terms you’ve used to describe yourself – think about this issue. Do you think it fits your core beliefs? If so, explain how.
By the way – and I’m not suggesting you would do this – but please do not charge me with being a pot head for presenting this information. As you wrote earlier, “[b]ecause I stand opposed to social programs does not mean I don’t care about people in need, yet it is difficult to have rational debate when one is charged with being callous and cruel.” Likewise, it is difficult to have rational debate when one is charged with being pot head, druggie, or whatever other terms there are. I did not take the easy way out by decrying that you are callous and cruel for showing opposition to social programs. I expect to receive the same respect in your reply to me here, and not calling me out as a druggie for advocating the legalization of marijuana.
Thank you, Todd. I eagerly await your replies.
[...] First Principles, Continued. Posted in All at 10:45 pm by Todd W Please see this post for an explanation of what has gone before. After my last post, where I began to lay out the principles tha [...]