Hello All
I am running for City Council, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
I am going to run a campaign based on Classical Liberalism and Laissez Faire Capitalism.
Our City has been experiencing a structural deficeit for almost 10 years now, and things have to change, let we get into the billions.
In any case I have a very rough draft of my philosophical statement - an advice, rewrites, etc. would be appreciated. I am also looking for case studies where Austrian/Laissez Faire policies have been enacted, and been successful - such as Hong Kong.
If anyone would be interested in helping to craft my policy as well, so please get in touch!
Very rough - Just cut and paste from Ray harvy and a piece on Classical Liberalism.
The political Philosophy of Redmond Weissenberger is based on Classical Liberalism.
What is Classical Liberalism?
Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements
of this philosophy is found in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the
case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only
had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John
Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People have rights apart from
government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them.
The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
Characteristics of Individual Rights
The Bill of Rights proclaims that individuals have “rights.” But what does it mean to have a
right? Are some rights fundamentally different from others? In the classical liberal tradition,
rights have several characteristics, including the following:
Rights Are Relational. Rights pertain to the moral responsibilities that people have to one
another. In particular, they refer to a zone of sovereignty within which individuals are entitled to
make choices without interference by others. In this way, rights serve as moral side-constraints
on the actions of other people. In a world consisting of only one individual, or in which people
never interacted, rights would not exist in the sense that there would be no one to claim a right
against and no one who could interfere with the exercise of any individual’s rights. Rights exist
because people do interact in pursuit of their own interests. Rights are also relational in another
sense: They limit the morally permissible actions government may take to interfere with the lives
of individuals who are governed.
Rights Imply Obligations. Rights sanction morally allowable actions. In the process, they create obligations for other people to refrain from preventing those actions. To say that "Joe has the
right to do X" implies all other people have an obligation not to interfere with Joe’s doing X. For
example, to say “Joe has a right to build a swing set in his backyard” implies that other people
are obliged not to interfere with Joe’s construction of the swing set.
Fundamental Rights Imply Negative Obligations. Joe's right to build a swing set obligates
others to stay out of the way. It does not obligate others to help Joe - by furnishing labor,
materials, etc. So, Joes’ right creates negative obligations for others, not positive ones. All
fundamental rights imply negative obligations in this way.
For example, the right to free speech implies a (negative) obligation on the part of others not to
interfere with your speaking. It does not create the (positive) obligation to provide you with a
platform, a microphone and an audience. The right to freedom of the press implies a (negative)
obligation for others not to interfere with your publishing. It does not create the (positive)
obligation to provide you with newsprint, ink and a printing press. The right to freedom of
assembly creates the (negative) obligation for others not to interfere with your association with
others. It does not create the (positive) obligation to furnish you with an assembly hall.
From primary rights (e.g., the rights to life, liberty and property) flow derivative rights. These are
new obligations that arise as people exercise their primary rights. Virtually all rights created
through trade, exchange or contract are derivative. For instance, Joe owns a motorcycle and
agrees to let Tom rent it for a period of time. Joe has a right to expect to get his motorcycle back
along with the agreed upon rental fee. Joe’s rights entail positive obligations on the part of Tom.
In terms of economic Policy – The guiding principle is Laissez-Nous Faire – Leave Us Alone.
Laissez faire means literally “Let do,” but in a political context it translates into “Let us do as we please.”
Embellished history has it that the term laissez faire was coined in 1680, during a meeting between Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the French finance minister, and a group of businessmen. Colbert had asked these men how the government
could best help the merchants and citizens, to which a wise fellow by the name of Le Gendre responded “Laissez-nous faire.” (“Leave us the hell alone!”)
Laissez-faire politics are not, however, a call for anything-goes hedonism, as is sometimes supposed.
Laissez faire is a call, rather, for a live-and-let-live society. Like all political theory, it rests hierarchically upon an ethical foundation, thus:
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the science of human action.
Politics (also known as the theory of government) is the science of human action in societies.
Governments are those political bodies that have the power to make and implement the laws of the land, and economics, as the great French economist Claude Frédéric Bastiat said, is the science of production and exchange.
To survive humans must produce.
To that end Redmond Weissenberger will strive to free the citizens and businessmen of this great city in order to allow for more generation and more freedom.
