1. The duty of the government is to protect the rights of the people, not the other way around.
2. The people have the right but not the obligation to dispense of their property as they see fit.
3. Borrowing from the 10th Amendment of the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
4. America was built on profit and loss, not profligacy and largess.
5. True laissez-faire capitalism is the surest way to prosperity; the middle path will always lead to socialism.
6. Entrepreneurs and competent business managers make our economy grow, not politicians.
7. For a man or a nation, the responsible fiscal path is to produce more than one consumes, and to spend less than one earns.
8. Every public dollar spent is a private dollar stolen. If a politician tells you that spending is “investment,” ask yourself if you would undertake that same investment with your own money.
9. Equality of condition is not the same as equality of opportunity; our laws are meant to preserve the latter.
10. The safety of American citizens is the single most important priority of the American government.
Sir-
I would strongly recommend courses in American History and American Military History. You list is quite exhaustive if you focusing on Regan principles. If you are reading American History through that lense you are quite accurate.
However a more realist reading of your arguments and the general contextual writings by the founding fathers themselves will negate many of your assumptions.
For example you argue that big government not focusing on the national defense is bad. I agree and so does the budget it is the single largest appropriation and we spend more dollars than China on national defense.
You argue that business is impacted. But the federalist papers which supports your position argues that ultimately that the state legistlatures and voters should have the power to check the control of the government. Here is where you argument breaks down. If your ‘values’ or ‘principles’ were so universal how do you justify the Clinton and W administrations. Both EXTREMELY socialist (one left one right). In both cases voters overwhelmingly put the same person back into office.
How do you justify that other candidates who have tried to follow in the Reagan traditions have been soundly defeated again and again.
I don’t want to sound negative but this sounds like a Regan utopian dream not rooted in the reality of the situation. The voting patterns of the country save the SE US disproves your list alone.
Clearly this is a well defined theory of life that if you live your life by it will bear some fruit. I just question whether the country supports you because legislative and voting patterns do not match.
Eric -
I appreciate the comments. First, on the issue of national defense, what I guess does not come across is that in talking about the government’s dedication to protecting its people, the emphasis is on protecting Americans, not attempting to spread its principles throughout the world, liberate others, etc. I don’t believe that the government should stand in the way of private individuals from supporting causes for freedom in other countries (or even going overseas and bearing arms if they so wish), but I do not believe it is our job to be the world police or to try to impose our philosophy on others. This is not to say that we should be isolationist – there are times where the best defense is a good offense, and to be sure the standards are difficult to judge, but if we took the case of Iraq for example, the justification that intelligence said that there were weapons that could be used by our enemies against us would justify us taking out certain locations or government officials. Trying to win the hearts and minds however and building a democratic state I do not believe were in the nation’s best interest however, nor was it necessary to protect AMERICAN citizens.
As for the fact that the country as a whole does not support me given the current state, I do not argue with that at all. What I am trying to do is a. write because it is cathartic in a time where the things I care about are being debauched, and b. attempt to influence people by getting them to think. Where I see the opportunity arising for these positions to take hold are when as things grow more and more socialist, they break down more and more, and the people ultimately seek a true alternative.
Remember however that a lot of this can be attributable to the progressive movement and democracy, and the founding fathers did not believe in a democracy but a republic. These are two distinct things that we should bear in mind when we talk about the US today.
I don’t argue that my values or principles are universal, just that there is a case for them, and that ultimately the current philosophy will fail. In our democracy, most people are ignorant of fundamental things like what the Constitution actually says, and what the proper role of government should be. If they cannot be swayed by logic, then ultimately they may be best swayed by seeing what happens when Big Brother controls their lives.
Hi Eric,
Which part of the 10 sounds like a Reagan utopian dream? The entire list sounds more like a manifesto of libertarianism, which is a far cry from modern, big government, mercantilist conservatism.
I tip my hat to you, Ben, you are on the right path.
Ben,
Thank you. I have searched for principled discussion of today’s troubling issues. Reason confirms the principles you list to be flawless, but not exhaustve. Others might be added, but cautiously. Even Reason has her eneies. Many great American Principles were not made explicit at our Founding. As example: ‘A Man may do anything not pohibited by Law, whereas Goverment may do only those tings required of it by Law.’ Thus, it is Government, not Man, who acts only by permission. With today’s ‘group rigts’ an ’special interests,’ Principle is what is missing from most agruments. Keep it up!
Michael A. Trenkle