Principles to Think On

In this election season, I think it is essential that we explore the underlying principles upon which each one of us should be basing our choices, and upon which we build our views and interpret the policies of the various candidates. What follows is a brief overview of my own principles. It builds upon the two previous posts, which lay the framework for my worldview.

My conception of humanity means that every human life is unique and valuable. This will manifest itself as a protection of individual rights and freedoms. As a unique individual, each person has right to choose their religious beliefs and to express their thoughts through publication and gatherings. Every person has the right to any thought they wish to think, no matter how heinous we may view it. When introduced into the public realm, however, each person’s rights do not extend infinitely. There is a natural limit whereby their rights meet another individual, and beyond which they cannot further extend without harming that individual. Thus, while a person has the right to believe as they see fit, and to introduce their original thoughts into the marketplace of humanity, they lose this right if, for example, their religion is dedicated to the subjugation of women, or their speech is specifically meant to incite violence against Muslims.

With the freedom of protecting one’s individuality there comes also responsibility, where each person as a human is responsible for their own good. I reject, as a limitation of each person’s liberty, the idea that such things as health care, food and water, and employment are innate human rights, on both practical and rational grounds. Each individual is accountable for his or her own actions. Each is responsible for these actions, and to put into place a system where the government operates on the assumption that as humans we have a right to a physical good means that the government has an ethical duty to provide it for all. It must do this by constraining its individual’s choices, either through mandatory entrance into certain programs as a condition of citizenship, or through increased taxation. We reject the idea that government has the right to restrict our freedom (therefore harming us), in order to care for those who have, as self-conscious human beings, ignored their rational drive and done something such as engaging in risky sexual behavior as directed by their survival drive, and have acquired HIV. However, I acknowledge that this issue quickly descends into a gray area, and while I will attempt to clarify that in the following sections, I admit it that there will always be areas of confusion, which are best solved at the ballot box.

In order to escape a system of injustice, we must provide each of our citizens the tools necessary to engage their rational drive. As we examined in the tour of human history, it took humanity thousands of years to escape from the singular compulsion of the survival drive. This was accomplished through knowledge and through a ready supply of food. Thus the constitution will have within it the guarantee that each child receives an education and a secure physical environment (including food and safety). As children are not yet mature, and are still developing the self-awareness which allows them to access the rational drive, we are able to take certain decisions on the nature of the good for them, specifically that of education. This education must be one which teaches rational thought, and opens the mind for the rational drive. Thus it must teach such scientifically valid concepts as evolution and the currently accepted scientific theory of the earth’s origins. It will teach the distinction between man as subject and man as citizen. Man as citizen is the embodiment of the rational drive, and they should be taught that this can be fully expressed through voting and through government service. Man as subject is the embodiment of the survival drive, and students will learn that they must seek to harness it and utilize it only in certain instances.

I do not believe in home schooling, unless it conforms to the curriculum, and will likewise govern any private schools (they may teach religious explanations, but may not do so in a science class, and they must teach scientific theories). I do not advocate a Platonic system where the concept of parents is completely obsolete, but nor do I believe that parents have any rationally exclusive claim to determining the good for their child. If they are unwilling or unable to provide for them in a manner consist with giving them the ability to exercise the rational drive, then society will either remove the child from their custody or properly equip them to care for their child, on a situational basis.

This raises the important issue of where the government has a right to intervene, and here it is important to reiterate that the government is the ultimate guarantor of each individual’s innate rights. The clear conclusion is that the government will intervene to protect them, but will always seek not to infringe upon them. If these come in conflict, the future right of the child to be free will be upheld over that of the adult’s, as it is assumed that the adult has made a poor decision which has resulted in them infringing upon the child’s rights, whereas the child is blameless. In this way one can justify removing a child from the home of an abusive parent or a drug addict. One will always seek what is best for the child.

What if the person whose freedom is being violated is not a child, but an adult? For example, if a man is abusing his wife. Based on the principles so far, one might assume that, while we will arrest and jail the violator, we will not engage in pity towards the victim, as she likely entered this relationship as a conscious choice, and thus should bear the responsibility.Society is not so callous as to ignore that she is likely now in a state of reduced freedom, and her choices may be constrained by fear and emotional damage. While I assert that through proper education, these situations will be lessened, I acknowledge that their will always be manifestations of the survival drive, as we are human, and that these may manifest themselves in a way which leaves others in a state of reduced freedom. Society will thus cautiously proceed in such situations, at times attempting through the state to restore people to a state of freedom, at other times letting them bear the full responsibilities of their actions. The decision will be based on whether we feel the responsibility is theirs, or whether we find extenuating circumstances which have lessened their ability to make these choices.

A good example is that of a child born HIV positive; they are clearly completely innocent of the situation which they were born into, and deserve to be taken care of as best as the society within which they are born into can do. Clearly most cases lie in between this and the other HIV case mentioned above, such as when a young girl may become HIV positive by engaging in dangerous sexual behavior when she is not educated on the dangers, or not fully engaged in the decision-making process. Similar moral dilemmas can be found in the cases of drug users seeking to escape from awful lives, the mentally ill, or those who have become HIV positive through a longtime partner’s unfaithfulness. In these cases society does have a certain ethical responsibility to take care of its less fortunate, and government programs will be initiated to do so. However, these situations will be considerably lessened with a successful education program. All of our citizens, as humans, have the right to a fair trial if they are accused of a crime. Every person has the right to a trained defense attorney to advocate on their behalf, and that there is a burden of proof which the state must surpass before it has the right to take away anyone’s individual freedom. We are not legal experts, and as such are unsure of how to implement a system which would provide a defense disentangled from the trapping of wealth, and guarantee an equal defense to a person regardless of their material well-being; we would however actively search for and advocate such a system.