"We Believe ..."
A Draft Document for Discussion
Please read the following statement of ideas, then contribute your ideas or criticisms to the discussion below.
We believe …
* In the capacity for reasoned choice as the most valuable individual attribute; from it we derive our right and strength to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force; from it we create the voluntary associations which form the mortar of civil society; from it we derive the moral character of our people; freedom guarantees us an optimistic destiny.
* In capitalism with its allocation of resources by the free play of supply and demand; capitalism provides greatest reward and incentive for effort, is the most productive supplier of human needs, and has proven the foremost eradicator of poverty.
* In parliamentary democracy deriving its authority from free elections; concerting its energies to defending the great human freedoms to worship, to speak, to choose, to enjoy independence, to own property, to freely associate, to gain knowledge; whereas the improper influence of government by selfish interest groups and other collective forces is the greatest menace to freedom.
* In the mandate of government to protect individual freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the administration of justice and the orchestration of national defence; but where government accumulates power beyond these moderate mandates, it tends to corrupt public administration for sectional ends, entice public authorities to spend beyond their means, and ultimately diminish the liberties of all citizens.
* In self-reliance; the moral and material strengths of our nation are diminished when the freedom to choose is supplanted by the vain value judgements of social engineers; and when government takes from one citizen to bestow on another, it destroys the incentive of the first, the dignity of the second and the moral autonomy of both.
* In the separation of powers between arms of government to ensure that the state operates within a franchise of limited powers which the people have granted to it.
* In market economies, which build individual ambition, initiative, belief in fair exchange, trust in mutual obligations, ethics, diligence, and, most importantly, foster a creative and enterprising culture; accordingly the business of government should – whenever possible - utilise the industrious and progressive forces of the market.
* In the self-imposed discipline of the free individual, which should not be suppressed by the tyranny of a heavily regulated order; the greatest community efforts can only be made when voluntary co-operation and self-sacrifice come in aid of and lend character to the performance of ordinary legal duties; the free spirit of mankind must prevail.
* In the duties connoted by individual rights; those who will not accept responsibility when they infringe upon the liberties of their fellows must be brought to account, under the impartial application of justice which acts firmly in the right.
* In the defence of the national sovereignty and constitutional heritage of all democracies which must both be secure against internal and external aggression; history shows periods of freedom are rare and can only exist when free citizens concertedly defend their rights, expand the frontiers of free trade across the globe, and stress victory – not supine coexistence – over the enemies of human liberty.
[Draft document only.]
Contribute to the Online Debate:
To add to the discussion below, enter your thoughts here and press send.
Online Comments & Debate:
H. Robinson writes:
On the whole, I think this is good, if a tad repetitive in parts. There are some really great quotes: “[Redistribution] destroys the incentive of the first, the dignity of the second and the moral autonomy of both” – I love it! One mild criticism is that it could perhaps be better organized – like near like etc – so that it conceptually flows, but on the whole its appears to be a fairly representative, fair and uncontroversial document.
"Selfish Interest Groups"
“Whereas the improper influence of government by selfish interest groups and other collective forces is the greatest menace to freedom”.
This sounds somewhat clichéd and trite. I have some concerns with such blanket condemnation of ‘collective forces’. It seems to me that people cooperating voluntarily to better their interests are an essential element of ‘civil society’ and ‘community action’, and liberals do themselves a lot of harm by labelling all community groups ‘interest groups’ and dismissing them out of hand. This is public choice theory out of control, and there are two reasons why I am I concerned about it.
Firstly, such claims simply reinforce the popular misconception that we free-marketeers have an atomistic, ‘no such thing as society’ view of the world. I suggest that rather unilaterally condemning groups that are merely exercising the right to free speech, we realize that the real blame lies with the governments (of both political persuasions) who co-opt and fund these organizations (rather than listening to their ideas) with the aim of silencing or appeasing them. Controlling the government’s ability to deliver selective handouts spending is the far more important then crushing collective action.
Secondly, I should remind you that our politicians can be pretty arbitrary in the way they apply the ‘interest group’ label. Why is it that we oppose granting access to lobbyists from some environmental groups, while at the same time consulting widely amongst the ‘business community’? Would we really want a government that listens to nobody on either side?
‘Social engineers’
Personal freedoms are certainly important to those who, like me, are on the libertarian side of politics. And I certainly agree that spending time and money crushing entrenched social norms in the name of ‘improving the world’ is a gross abuse of political power.
Unfortunately, however, a majority of the Australian Liberal Party seems to distinguish contradictorily between economic social engineering and personal social engineering. Many will argue that taking a person's money in the name of redistribution is wrong, but that that curtailing the ways in which he spends that money in the name of ‘public morality’ (eg. by banning the movies "Romance" or "Lolita") is perfectly justified. Such ‘liberals’ would be nothing short of hypocritical if they voted for a statement that condemns ‘vain value judgments’!
Besides, surely there is a more precise, less jargonistic, term than ‘social engineers’?
‘Separation of powers’
Although this seems relatively innocuous, it’s worth pointing out that this is an American concept that I (as a supporter of a more radical republic) admire, but that many in the Australian Liberal Party probably do not. The Westminster system involves a fusion of powers: not only is the executive is drawn from the legislature, but the latter is rendered virtually powerless. A commitment to a true separation of powers in therefore a commitment to a new (and in my mind, improved) system of government.
‘Self-sacrifice’
I understand what you are getting at here, but ‘self sacrifice’ is an unfortunate choice of words – more at home in Fascist or far left political philosophy than in liberal thought. Just who are we sacrificing what for? State? Volk? Ourselves?
The Market
Hmm…well, I agree with most of what you say about the economic system. Yes, capitalism and the market economy is a proven ameliorator of poverty etc and the government should definitely defer to the ‘invisible hand’ in economic matters. However, I would be careful about drawing from the market's operation positive moral characteristics – after all, ‘diligence’, ‘competition’ etc are very subjective values and for every shining example of personal ambition, there is a faded one. Also, keep in mind that such ambiguous terms as ‘belief in fair exchange’ mean nothing – ‘fair’ means so little that the same line is regularly used to support socialist parties!
Also, I think this should be more closely associated with the belief in capitalism in paragraph 2.
‘Victory – not sublime co-existence’
I agree completely – liberty cannot survive in a single, isolated nation. However, I suspect that many other liberals would disagree with the confrontational tenor of this statement. Can we reconcile a strong, interventionist military with limited government? It would be interesting to discuss this at a political convention.
Well, that’s about all I can come up with at this hour
- H. Robinson (28/1/00, 8:54pm)