TTI Forums

I have recently started to help for a group of local people who are trying to influence/change local government through educating politicians and (more importantly) getting ourselves elected as well. We have been working out rules, procedures and aims. In doing so we are also defining the philosophy of the group, or "core values" if you will. We are currently called the "Council of Sovereign Americans", a name which I thoroughly approve of. During our last meeting, the founding member of the group proposed adopting something called "The Creed of Freedom", originally written by a group called Freedom Force International. I was blown away with this document, how well it was received, and also with how nobody in the room had ever heard of Objectivism (and only 1 had heard of Ayn Rand). Anyways, I am going to post the creed here and would welcome any comments on it. As it stands I honestly cannot think of it conflicting with Objectivism in any way, and would like to know if there are some things that might be (as I can bring them up as changes if I choose before adopting it officially). Thanks for your time!

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 government derives its power solely from the governed. 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 just government 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 GOVERNMENT
I believe that the proper role of government 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 government 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 government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

There are 3 following "commandments of freedom", which I am not sure they are wanting to adopt yet. They are:

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the assumed rights of the group.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
Do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.


Thanks again for reading. There are a number of prominent businessmen in our city who are involved already and this is being taken very seriously, so anything that can make its foundation better would be greatly appreciated!

It looks pretty good.

The only problem I have is with tolerance here.

Capt Spectacular wrote: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.

Just because you have to be careful with modern use of this word.

I would press on Ayn Rand's philosophy very hard for them, because the state the right conclusion, but they really need to know the proof and argument for each on of them, otherwise, it's doomed to slip and fall.

I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. 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.

Problematic. How does this allow for judicial, police, and military systems?

Quote:
I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. 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.

Problematic. How does this allow for judicial, police, and military systems?

It is a bit of a contradiction. In the meetings I have found though they heavily reference the constitution (which I am quite Ok with), and the right to keep and bear arms (self protection) is very evident in it. In giving the government the right to self protection, it would have to be JUST that, self protection (not offensive, as is stated in the proper role of government spot). As for how it works out with the judicial system..... well, I'd have to think on that a while .

The only problem I have is with tolerance here.

Capt Spectacular wrote:
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.


Just because you have to be careful with modern use of this word.

I would press on Ayn Rand's philosophy very hard for them, because the state the right conclusion, but they really need to know the proof and argument for each on of them, otherwise, it's doomed to slip and fall.

Oh man, when they read the word aloud in introducing this it made me cringe a bit. It really is one of my least favorite words currently in the English language. I will bring it up in the next meeting. As you say, the modern use of the word "tolerance" really has been hijacked. I find it often means "accepting behavior you feel is unacceptable because someone is different sexually/racially then you, and telling them you don't think having 10 kids to raise their subsidised living income(or other such behavior) would be very intolerant of their "culture".