|
|
| [basher20] Diary of Basher20 Updated/Posted: 2004-12-14 16:47:31 |
As someone whose views, both socio-political, and religious generally fall into the portion of the spectrum that the members of this group label “neo-cons” I would like to take this occasion to outline what my positions are. This is not intended as flame-bait, nor do I, as I hope you will see, mean to disparage anyone else’s beliefs, nor insult anyone personally. I do not ask that you agree with me, only that any discussions of these ideas refrain from name-calling and other personal attacks.
First of all, I accept that this movement is founded on a set of revolutionary ideas. The were first expressed most eloquently by Thomas Jefferson as “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, that to preserve these rights, governments are established among men, deriving their just power form the consent of the governed.”
There are several guiding principles that flow out of these ideas, which I will attempt to detail below. In developing these ideas, we attempt to look to history, reason, and our closely held moral values.
We believe that history has shown that out of all the economic systems devised and attempted by man, the one that in the long run (over several generations) produces the greatest chance of a high and rising standard of living for the greatest number of people is Free Market Capitalism. There is little evidence that any other system that ignores or attempts to refute the principles of scarcity, relative value, and the laws of supply and demand can efficiently determine the distribution of resources through a society. The government’s role in the economy is to insure that there is sufficient transparency in all markets for both consumers and producers to determine fair market prices for goods, services, and labor.
We believe that history has also shown that over the long run, Representative Democracy creates the most satisfying equilibrium between individual freedom and societal stability. We further believe that all people have the right and implicit duty to attempt to influence their governments to act in accord with their personal beliefs. This happens at the ballot box, but also happens in the media, in lobbying efforts both organized and individual.
We believe that rights belong to individuals. No group should claim, nor be awarded any more rights than would be extended to any of the members individually. This is not to say that there will always be an equality of outcomes; people will by dint of circumstance always be blessed with different talents, abilities and resources. Yet all should have equal opportunity to maximize their own standard of living given their resources and the constraints of the society in which they live.
We believe in moral absolutism. There are such things as good and evil. Not all people are by their nature willing to extend to others the same rights and privileges that they would themselves claim. In order to maximize the well being of the largest number of people, society as a whole must be protected from those who would by force seek to deny these fundamental rights in which we believe to others.
These beliefs lead us to certain policies.
In the realm of foreign policy, we believe that the United States is uniquely positioned by means of our economic and military strength to first defend Democracy where it exists, and secondly to extend it to where it does not. This means that the United States should actively intervene to the extent possible in order to secure these rights to all people, wherever in the world they may be. There is almost no historical example of one representative democracy going to war against another. Democracies find a common value in resolving their disputes peaceably. Thus it is in the best interest of those who desire peace on earth to attempt to move all nations toward this as a goal.
In the realm of economic policy, we believe that the role of government should be to ensure transparency and efficiency in markets and act as referee in disputes. The government should not attempt to by regulation set the price of any good, service, or labor at any point above or below its equilibrium market price. To do so will lessen the ability of the economy as a whole to maximize production of the goods and services that all people desire to increase their standard of living.
In the realm of social policy, we believe that all people should be able to live in such a way as they wish, provided that they do not infringe the rights of others. They also have the right to express themselves and attempt to influence society as a whole to act in accordance with their beliefs.
In the area of environmental policy, we believe that pollution is the inevitable byproduct of turning raw materials into the goods and services that increase our standards of living. The social and monetary costs of reducing pollution need to be balanced against the social and monetary costs of foregoing the production that the pollution would result from. This is a difficult question as very often the costs and benefits are disparate in location and time, and in the end, we believe that the free market will still be the best judge of where this balance will be drawn.
Finally, I would like to address our beliefs about God and Religion. We believe that the Judeo-Christian morality that has evolved over the past two millennia is the best model man has developed for structuring a civil society. There is also little doubt that much of the philosophy of the movement arises out of the Protestant Work Ethic. However, there is a wide range of theologies practiced within the movement. I have personally met people who hold to these ideas who are LDS, Pentecostal Christian, Mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish. I’m sure that this does not represent the entire spectrum of belief. To say that the statements of any one religious leader, such as Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell are representative of the views of all “neo-cons” is no more correct than to say that Louis Farrakhan or Jessie Jackson represent the views of all Blacks.
We generally believe, with some admitted exceptions, in the virtue of tolerance. Do not, however, confuse this with acceptance. We respect the right of anyone to believe what he or she wishes, provided they extend to us the same. We do though reserve the right to state that we disagree, and to remove you from our social circle if we feel that the differences in our beliefs and attitudes is too great to be discussed civilly.
This does not in any way condone the use of violence, threats, or intimidation against those who do not agree with us. To do so is to turn our back on the very principle of universal rights which we hold dear.
|
|
|
|
|
