Running for political office would like some advice in writing my Philiosophical Statement

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.

Big wall of text. I suggest you do some formatting.

Thank you for running for office! I plan to read your statement carefully and offer my suggestions, even though I have no political experience.

I have no idea what your target demographic is, so please, take my advice with many grains of salt.

If your audience is pursauded by arguments from Justice/Rights, then you're doing well. If your audience is pursauded by arguments from utility, then you are lacking. Most socialists are afraid that without government, there would be rampant poverty, racism, and inequality. Even most moderate supporters of government intervention are usually in favor of the minimum wage and anti discriminatory laws. They don't realize the consequences of these policies actually hurt the very people they are trying to protect. If you have a particular issue in mind, try looking it up in the mises.org daily articles. They cover just about every issue under the sun.

But instead of just telling socialists that their plans are wrong, you might consider trying to accomdate them within the market. For example, state-enforced universal healthcare is not compatible with the free market, but a voluntary pooling of resources for healthcare is. See this link for the way that healthcare used to be provided in the United States until it was taken over by the government. I'm sorry I can't find a Canada example, but I am sure you have something similar to our AMA.They may claim that they need to steal the rich people's money to have better healthcare, but once the argument gets to this point, you already have the moral high ground (in most people's eyes)

For more general statistics, this thread has some great graphs/tables. Sorry, again I think it is American. But if you like what you see you might be able to go pull up the same data for Canada.

Anyway, thank you for dedicating your time and energy improving civilization! Our best wishes to you. I'm sure you can find plenty of help on these forums.

 

You are not in one of the immigrant ridden areas I hope.  Just say,  "Viva la revolucion".

 

Caley McKibbin:

You are not in one of the immigrant ridden areas I hope.  Just say,  "Viva la revolucion".

 

Hello all

 

Thanks for your replies - I posted this about a month ago, so I was wondering when I would get some comments.

You can view my website at www.4r4w13.ca - I live in Toronto, Canada

My neighbourhood is the west end of parkdale high-park - very wasp

any advice you can give will be helpful!

The OLP Chairman was telling me a while ago that he might run for council later this year.  A serious campaign.  I guess in Scarborough.

Overall, I think you have spent too much time explaining the abstract concept of rights, and not enough time explaining the concrete benefits of laissez-faire policies. People are primarily economic beings - they are worried mostly about how to pay the bills, not whether their rights are being protected. So less abstract, more concrete - which is what you seem be looking for in the case studies you mentioned.

Use the United States as a case study! We had laissez-faire policies from the American Revolution up until about 1900, when Progressivism took over with the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Since then we have had growing debts and deficits, depressions caused by the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply, two World Wars, and our latest housing bubble and "great recession." Show how Austrian economists have predicted all these depressions, while "mainstream" economists can't explain them in a way that makes any sense.

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.

I like this introduction. I would replace the word "elected" with "decided" or "chose" just because "elected" brings to mind Democracy, elections, and majority rule. I would also quote the "We hold these truths to be self-evident......" passage from the Declaration. And I would point out that the Founding Fathers of America created a Republic to protect individual rights, not a Democracy and rule by the majority.

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.

I think this is the weakest portion of your statement. I think you could summarize the meaning of rights in a much shorter, simpler way. I can follow your argument, but I think many people would just get confused or would not care. So, look for a more succint summary of rights. If I find a good summary somewhere I'll post it.

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.

I like these examples. They a good job demonstrating the nature of negative liberty.

I'll post this for now.....more to come later.

 

My additional thoughts (finally):

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.

I think you should emphasize "primary" rights - the rights to life, liberty, and property. Most Republicans and Democrats believe that rights are somehow granted by government, and that it is government's job to provide for the people. A Classical Liberal candidate should emphasize that he believes that the rights to life, liberty, and property are intrinsic to each and every individual, and cannot be granted or taken away by government. Government derives its authority from the individual right to self-defense, and the primary job of government is to protect individual rights.

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.

Not sure you need any history. The definition of the term is enough. Most important is the clarification that "laissez-faire" is not "anything-goes hedonism" like you said. Also, it is important to dispell the myth of greedy capitalists exploiting poor, defenseless workers. Demonstrate how the poor actually benefit the most from a free market that efficiently allocates resources, not a market weighed down by "progressive" taxation, welfare, price controls, and minimum wage laws.

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.

Good ending. I would replace the word "generation" with "production." Bastiat has many great quotes from The Law you could take advantage of.

Also, G. Edward Griffin's Creed of Freedom is a great summary of Classical Liberal principles and the role of the state.

Good Luck!

 

 

Well Im a political scientist and let me offer some advice beyond just your message. Who knows? I may just point out something that wasn't considered. ^_^

First, test the waters. I'm not sure how this works in Canada but here in the US we go to our local election supervisors to check the results on past elections. If the only chance you have to beat your incumbant is for him to suddenly either retire or drop dead, well don't bother. Keep your resources to prime up you population through advocacy and education rather than running for office. However, if the waters look even moderately good in your opinion, do it.

Look before you leap. If your decision is final, next you want to look at local election laws. It would be a shame if you were doing well only to be forced to drop out over a legal technicallity. Some candidates get lawyers or friends that know the laws. Also don't forget to about money for campaign materials and payments for staff (hopefully you have some useful friends willing to do it for free). Also, know the laws yourself so your not totally dependent on outside sources.

How to Swim in the Shark Tank? Im going to let you know that politics is not about cooperation, its about conflict. Now this isn't Mortal Kombat or anything but you must remember the rules of the game, 50% +1 wins. First, adjust your means so that you can reach as many voters you need to get a win. Its simple when you see how many people actually voted in the last election. This gives you an estimate on the number of votes needed to win. After all, what's easier, reaching 1,000 people or 30,0000. Also remember, every vote you can get counts. That + or - 1 can mean victory or defeat. Things happen.

Also know your audience. Keep you message simple. Three simple statements on policies most important to you are sufficient for the average voter to understand your position. Also keep your message relevent to the issues that are most pressing to your constiuents and why you are better than your opponent .If you cannot answer this more intelligently than your opponent you shouldn't be running. Know your opponent and yourself and you need not fear a hundred debates (my spin on Sun Tzu lol). Also make sure your voters know who you are and why they can put thier faith in you. An important question to ask is, would you vote for yourself and why?

Seek your fish. The best thing to do for small offices is find places where your voice on the issues matter. Town hall meetings, community events, and anywhere else that you can find people who are  more likely take interest in local politics. I'm not sure what Canada is like, but most Americans don't even pay attention to local politics where I'm from.

I hope this advice wasn't too presumpuous of me, but I wanna see a fellow classical liberal get in office. Remember why you are running, its the most important factor in the election. All this advice is meaningless without a firm stand on your beliefs. So simplify your beliefs and organize them in a way the people will understand and you should do well. Also if you loose remember you can fight another day. ^_^

No one cares about your philosophy.  People who care about philosophy don't vote.  Voters want to know what you're going to give them.