I'll put them under the fold, with running commentary, my thoughts are in bold...
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.
I am not sure I have grasped what it all means.
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.
Agree fully.
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.
I disagree with the last sentence. Many expansions of government, for instance tax incentives and foundation law, boost civil society. Relative to current political debates, however, I am on Arnold’s side.
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.
Fully agree.
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.
I don’t think all incentives should favor families, for instance higher education should be priced, unlike in much of Europe, and divorce should be fairly easy.
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.
The Ten Commandments are pretty tricky, first there are eleven of them presented in the Bible, second they are presented in three different versions, third I would consider worshipping graven idols.
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.
A mouthful. What about non-nihilistic cultural relativism? Does that have a place? Do arranged Indian marriages count as eugenics?
International Principles
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.
What is "military suppression"? The U.S. military should not have to suppress American citizens but it should try to prevent China from taking over Taiwan. I doubt if permanent peace is possible, though I wish it were.
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.
I am never sure how many people really yearn for liberty. I wish more of them did.
10. When foreign leaders issue threats against us, we take them at their word and act accordingly.
I am not sure words are the best way of reading true intentions. Many threats are issued for domestic consumption, or are best ignored. Some real villains stay pretty silent.
This is Tyler answering, by the way, not Tyrone. I feel what is missing is a more explicit platform about the importance of long-run economic growth, plus there should be greater consideration given to dealing with catastrophic events such as pandemics, natural disasters, nuclear terrorism, and so on.
By upholding Constitutional principles for limited government, we sustain our individual freedom.
If Kling voted for Bush in ’04, post-Padilla policy, the above is clearly crap, and he ought to spare himself the energy and others the irritation. I have no idea how he voted.
I find it hard to take seriously any argument which invokes the Ten Commandments without actually listing them. If someone lists them, and argues for legal defense of, for instance, “honor thy father and thy mother lest ye die”, then I seriously think that they are a crank.
50 years ago the idea that you can not legislate morality was commonly used as an argument against civil rights legislation.
The “legislating morality” line has been problematic to me for some time, even as I continue to argue against it. The problem I run into is always that at any stage, you are in some way legislating morality, although it tends to be a social rather than religious moral code. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc… could all easily fall under the realm of “morality” in the religious sense (in fact, they’re all mentioned in the ten commandments), yet are also all (to some extent) illegal in any secular society, as they would also be in a theocracy. Therefore, I would suggest that we do away with the phrase “legislating morality,” since (save for the nihilists among us, if there does exist any with sincerity) we all tend to be in favor of it in some form. Of course, what is meant here is an entitlement to privacy with regards to how we practice religion and interract with one another in certain contexts, but I can’t help but think there’s a better way to say it.
d.cous.: “You can’t legislate solutions to moral issues when there are substantial minority positions (or, in the more extreme cases, near equally sized plurality positions).”
Nathan Zook, I don’t know what to be more surprised at: your curmudgeonly “young people these days” attitude, or your fascination with the mythical perception of the government as “The Oracle of Morality.” As someone from a younger generation, I assure you I understand why racism is condemned. And so do my peers. Where could you possibly get the idea that younger generations don’t understand that? I think you’ll find that there is less racism with each passing generation in America, and not just because the government tells us it is wrong. (Aren’t young people infamous for rebelling and doing what the government/The Man/older generations don’t want them to do?)
Are you saying that people who discriminate never got to fully explain their position? The government never game them a chance to explain themselves? Or that young whippersnappers these days just don’t know…
I don’t think the government should promote a specific vision of family over other possible models. I don’t think the nuclear family model is the best fit for such a mobile labour force. Preferable to let the market come up with something better.
d.cous: …at any stage, you are in some way legislating morality, although it tends to be a social rather than religious moral code. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc… could all easily fall under the realm of “morality” in the religious sense
But if the rationale behind a law is to maintain social order (e.g. people shouldn’t steal because capitalism needs a working property rights system), then that’s not really legislating morality. To be sure, you can still sneak in a lot of morality legislation via thin rationalizations (e.g. anything relating to marriages), but I think it’s still a good start to force lawmakers to at least come up with a non-moral rationale for the law.
BTW, I believe Tyler favors easy divorce because of this.
After living in several countries around the world I am convinced that just about nobody yearns for liberty, and a substantial number fear and hate it.
That sneaky bastard Kling is just trying to justify Iran and North Korea getting nuclear weapons to defend themselves!
Except for the bit about the Ten Commandments, aren’t Kling’s principles just warmed over Milton Friedman, written with a lot less verve?
Fine, snoopy, but it’s still a moral position.
Fling93 – this is really just a matter of semantics – you’re applying the term “morality” to anything akin to traditional Judeo-Christian no-no’s. i’m using the term more broadly because, at the end of the day, I don’t think the distinctions can be drawn. Running red lights in our society is immoral because we think it is immoral to put other’s lives at risk for no reason. Again, we legislate with an eye to producing some good/preventing some bad. Identifying these goods and bads is an exercise in morality – in fact, even determining what “self-interest” is requires moral thinking. You and I probably broadly agree on matters of legislation, which simply means we broadly share the same moral view. We colloquially make the distinction between morality and legality, because there are some areas of morality that we don’t think should be enforced by the state. But that doesn’t mean that all laws aren’t based on a moral vision – and this is why I agree w/ d.cous that the phrase should be dropped.
If you are interested in Tax incentivies, I have a suggestion to make do look up Online Shopping for interesting tax idea, and guidelines.
The missing element in every human ‘solution’ is
an accurate definition of the creature.
The way we define ‘human’ determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future. Many
problems in human experience are the result of false
and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised
in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.
Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe.
The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human
reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the
intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it
perceives and measures values.
Humanism makes man his own standard of measure.
However, as with all measuring systems, a standard
must be greater than the value measured. Based on
preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal
nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-
tites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.
Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament,
cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist
lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or trans-
cendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with
foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lack-
ing foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and
is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, collectivism,
averages, and regression – and worse. Humanism is an
unworthy worship.
The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-
ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-
ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-
sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and
thereby lack what only the Bible has:
1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.
The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival
equipment for today and the future. Only the Creator,
who made us in His own image, is qualified to define
us accurately.
Human is earth’s Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by
nature and nature’s God a creature of Choice – and of
Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive
characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural
foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-
spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-
ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the
universe.
That human institution which is structured on the
principle, “…all men are endowed by their Creator with
…Liberty…,” is a system with its roots in the natural
Order of the universe. The opponents of such a system are
necessarily engaged in a losing contest with nature and
nature’s God. Biblical principles are still today the
foundation under Western Civilization and the American
way of life. To the advent of a new season we commend the
present generation and the “multitudes in the valley of
decision.”
Let us proclaim it. Behold!
The Season of Generation-Choicemaker Joel 3:14 KJV
thank you very much
Comments on this entry are closed.