In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

The Creed of Freedom

n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
Disclaimer: This is not my written product.

It is written by G. Edward Griffin, Founder of "Freedom Force International".

He describes the Creed as follows: "Although I have authored the Creed, I cannot claim credit for it. Anyone familiar with the classical treatises on freedom will recognize that most of its concepts have been taken from the great thinkers and writers of the past. My role has been merely to read the literature, identify the concepts, organize them into logical sequence, and condense them
into a single page."

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

THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM
The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three general codes of conduct. I consider them to be The Three Commandments of Freedom:

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.

THE THREE PILLARS OF FREEDOM
Rights...Equality...Choice...

Another way of viewing these principles is to consider them as the three pillars of freedom. They are concepts that underlie the ideology of individualism, and individualism is the indispensable foundation of freedom.

Comments

  • USMCiNGENUSMCiNGEN Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I recently heard an argument made that influence on the function of government is best limited to those displaying the qualities of citizenship. At first I was ready to verbally go to war with the presenter, but actually found his argument quite persuasive. He suggested that no republic has survived destruction by democracy, because all have permitted recourse to a general population that over time becomes selfish in their abundance.

    He reasoned that all right is indeed intrinsic, bestowed upon man by God, but, like all The Creator's gifts, can be embraced or denied by individual men. Where as some men accept the personal responsibility of individual liberty others disregard it. A just government is obliged to prevent corruption by those who ignore their gift. As a consequence he suggested a republic is best construed amongst a casted society with infinite vertical mobility.

    He used terms I find rather fitting to describe the two castes, residents and citizens. In his definition, all citizens are residents as well, but that residents are not all citizens. The distinction being that citizens have displayed by their own actions that making their fellow countrymen free is their personal responsibility. As such, citizenship, is not awarded, granted, or given, but recognized. The only difference between a citizen and a resident in matters of law is that citizens alone may influence the actions of government and that citizens alone must bear the costs.

    I can imagine a republic in which only citizens vote and only citizens pay taxes. A society wherein citizenship is recognized by various forms of public service. For example a resident offering an oath after committing some predetermined number of years to service in the clergy, military, police, etc. would be automatically recognized a citizen. As such no resident, regardless of color, national origin, gender, poverty, etc. could ever be denied the burden of citizenship.

    What do you think of this argument? Could it ever be compatible with the classical American view of liberty?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,962 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    USMCiNGEN:

    Firstly, welcome to the forum.

    Secondly, it is, IMO, dangerous to have a checklist of who is and who is not a citizen. This has been tried repeatedly in the US, with poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. The obvious danger is that the criteria are set by someone, and can easily be twisted so as to mold the electorate into what that someone wants it to be.

    Many argue that there is legitimacy in insisting upon ownership of real estate or demonstrated net payment of taxes prior to eligibility to vote. There is merit in these positions in that one can easily argue that to have a responsible government you must first have voters who are vested in the outcome. It does, however, run counter to our founding principle of equality amongst men, and limits by definition the right of self-determination for those who are merely residents.

    We have crossed the great divide this past decade where less than half of eligible voters actually contribute financially to the cost of government. The results are disgustingly predictable, and predictably irresponsible.

    Our only defense is the restraints on the Federal Government found in the Constitution, but (obviously) the last 60+ years have shown that these restraints are not respected by Congressmen from either major party. This defense should be buttressed by our Court system, but as the appointment of individuals to the Federal Bench has become as political as any election, there is little hope for this method of redress either.

    We are thus left with a majority of the electorate who are, as some have started to call them, 'zero liability voters'. People who have no vested interest in government other than what they can get from it. This is a direct result of a misplaced interpretation of Griffin's 'Supremacy of the Individual' as it codifies (superficially) the benefits of freedom and liberty without their inherent responsibilities.

    The answer is not disenfranchisement of those that are determined to have not contributed. The answer is to return the Federal Government to its proscribed role.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,849 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Sounds like the movie.......Starship Troopers.
  • buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    +1

    "Service gaurantees Citizenship" - Starship Troopers, "Let's go kill some bugs".
  • buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:The answer is not disenfranchisement of those that are determined to have not contributed. The answer is to return the Federal Government to its proscribed role.

    I think this is the the primary answer to all issues facing our constitutional republic. Restricting govt to constitutional limits and sluggards will have to be responsible for thier own person or they will not survive.
Sign In or Register to comment.