Unless Republicans and Conservatives Adopt a Sound Set of Principles, they are Destined for the Political Scrapheap

While some Republican politicians profess to advance certain foundational principles, the principles amount to nothing more than a few mixed-up policy proposals. Low taxes and small government, the most often advanced Republican/conservative principles, are not actually principles.

The rejection of gay marriage in California brought into stark contrast America's wholesale rejection of McCain and Palin.

Apart from the fact that Republicans put up the most unlikely and unattractive candidates, they showed themselves to be devoid of any Principles that informed their beliefs and actions – and the electorate, quite rightly, rejected them.

Yet, what happened in California shows that the majority of people in America instinctively recognize that there are, or must be, certain fundamental principles that should inform their beliefs.

The problem is that politicians are either too stupid to recognize any such Principles, or too cowardly to embrace them.

In fact, I expect that most politicians don't even know what a principle is, so let me provide a definition.

A principle is "a fundamental truth or proposition on which others depend; a general statement or tenet forming the basis of a system of belief; a primary assumption forming the basis of a chain of reasoning." [Shorter Oxford English Dictionary]

There are many ways to express the same thing. For example, a principle is also "a fundamental cause or basis of something; a primary element, force, or law determining a particular result." [Also from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary]

But principles are NOT the same thing as virtues, or even values, and they are certainly not the same thing as policies. All these things are empty rhetoric unless they are underpinned by Principles.

Philosophers throughout the ages have sought such principles, or more accurately, that one fundamental principle that would provide the foundation for morality. They were looking for what they called an "absolute postulate."

Albert Schweitzer put it this way. "In every effort of thought about ethics there is to be seen, distinctly or indistinctly, the search for a basic principle of morality, which needs no support outside itself, and unites in itself the sum total of all moral demands. But no one has ever succeeded in really formulating this principle."

Democratic/Liberal Principles

Democrats, or more properly Liberals, have nevertheless embraced a singular "principle" which, "distinctly or indistinctly," informs the rationale for most of their "beliefs" and policies – the Utilitarian ethic of the Common Good.

But the Common Good is not a principle.

That is easy to demonstrate – simply ask, why not a free-for-all? Since many who subscribe to the Common Good also embrace the theory of evolution, why seek to undermine the rationale of that theory – the survival of the fittest?

In order to invoke the Common Good they need to identify the principle, or principles, that takes us there.

Many have tried, but the most persuasive was someone few outside academia have probably ever heard of – Jeremy Bentham. Bentham coined the phrase "the greatest happiness to the greatest number."

Yet, most people in the Western World are governed by and, perhaps unconsciously, live by Bentham's principle.

The principle which he claimed underpinned the Common Good is the pursuit of pleasure. He claimed that human beings are governed by the pursuit of pleasure, and the avoidance of pain.

Bentham said this: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve only to demonstrate and confirm it."

He thus constructs his "principle of utility" on the basis that man is on a relentless quest to satisfy his lust for pleasure and happiness.

And what is this principle? "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question." And, "a thing is said to promote the interest, or be for the interest, of an individual, when it tends to add to the sum total of his pleasure: or, what comes to the same thing, to diminish the sum total of his pains."

In short, what Bentham was saying is that because a car runs on gasoline, it's sole purpose is the consumption of gasoline – as much gasoline as possible. It simply didn't occur to him that a car may have some other purpose.

But Bentham didn't invent the "religion" of the pursuit of pleasure and happiness.

In explaining the significance of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria says this about the serpent that tempted Eve. "And the serpent is said to have spoken in a human voice, because pleasure employs innumerable champions and defenders who take care to advocate its interests, and who dare to assert that the power over everything, both small and great, does of right belong to it without any exception whatever."

But Philo clearly saw the dangers of this mindless pursuit of pleasure. "And those who have previously become the slaves of pleasure immediately receive the wages of this miserable and incurable passion."

Yet, the attraction of the pursuit of pleasure and happiness is its simplicity – even the dumbest can identify with it!

And those who do embrace it assume an aura of arrogance that is matched only by their ignorance – I call it the arrogance of ignorance!

That sums up the Liberal Fundamentalist mentality; a mindless pursuit of pleasure "in all [they] do, in all [they] say, in all [they] think."

The Common Good leads to Authoritarianism

But as Bentham tried to "think" through his principle he discovered that not everyone lusted after pleasure, while others were so eager to lap-up as much as they could that they disregarded the pain they could inflict on others by this mindless indulgence.

Hence Bentham calls forth government, and hands them two electrodes: one for the infusion of pleasure, the other for inflicting pain – ironic, isn't it?

Bentham says this: "The business of government is to promote the happiness of society, by punishing and rewarding. That part of its business which consists in punishing, is more particularly the subject of penal law. In proportion as an act tends to disturb that happiness, in proportion as the tendency is pernicious, will be the demand it creates for punishment. What happiness consists of we have already seen: enjoyment of pleasures, security from pains."

Having handed government the instruments of oppression, the electrodes, Bentham then sets about devising a system of indoctrination and punishment to assist government in achieving what he has decreed is the object of humankind: happiness – his idea of happiness – which, if not voluntarily embraced, must be imposed by the electrodes.

Welfare and the Common Good

Unfortunately for those who embrace the notion that the highest ideal of the species is the indulgence of their primitive carnal instincts which thus somehow enhances the Common Good of the species, in practical terms it leads to huge discrepancies which tend to the opposite effect. Some people are just better equipped, more ruthless, and more cunning than others in attending to the business of enhancing their "happiness" and pleasure.

So we end up back at the survival of the fittest – regulated to an extent by government applying the electrodes.

But that is not what Liberals want; that is not what they consider to be the Common Good. They want government to apply the pain electrode to punish those who achieve too much "happiness" by accumulating too many goodies. To do so, they want government to apply the pain electrode where it will be most effective – in their pockets!

And the pleasure electrode needs to be applied to compel those too greedy for their own "happiness" to derive happiness from the forced exercise of compassion towards those less effective in attending to the business of their own pleasure.

Mostly, this has been achieved without any pretence at finding some "principles" to justify this re-distribution of pleasure and happiness. All they needed to do was convince a sufficient number of people that their happiness, or welfare if you like, was being inhibited by others getting too much – and that's not fair!

A "Theory of Justice" as Justification for Welfare

But there was one modern-day philosopher who sought to identify "principles" to justify this re-distribution of pleasure, happiness, and by natural consequence, wealth. He was John Rawls, a professor at Harvard University – and isn't that where Obama attended Law School?

Yet, to do so, Rawls turns the whole concept of Principles on its head. He doesn't demonstrate that certain principles lead to a certain conclusion through a "chain of reasoning." Instead, he uses an artificial chain of reasoning to construct his principles.

Now please bear with me as I try to rationalize Rawls' "theory" – it is convoluted.

His objective was this: "My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found, say, in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant."

That's just great! He wants to build a high-rise on top of the foundations of the crumbling mud huts built by the likes of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant.

But Rawls' "guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement."

Rawls wants to find some "principles of justice" people would choose to advance their interests in consort with others.

At least he is looking for some "principles" that everyone could consent to on which to construct his 'house of justice," or "high-rise of justice."

"Thus we are to imagine that those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits."

So we are still only at page 11, of some 600 pages, and already Rawls has decided on the answer. "Rights and duties and . . . the division of social benefits."

But let's look at how Rawls turns the whole concept of Principles on its head by using a chain of reasoning to come up with his principles rather than the other way round.

He does it in a number of stages.

First, he hides a group of people behind a "veil of ignorance" from where they will choose a set of principles. These people are "moral," "rational," and have "a sense of justice."

Quite an assumption! Not quite reflective of the population at large, except the ignorance part.

Anyway, this group of people would not know their place in society, their physical or mental attributes, the actual state of the society they would enter, or even what they would regard as good or bad, what Rawls calls their "special psychological propensities." In other words, your average "Joe."

In this way, argues Rawls, none of the group can make decisions on the principles of justice which would advantage him or her, because they don't know where they will end up.

Rawls argues that principles would then emerge based on this "agreement" made between free and equal people.

We then compare these principles with our own conceptions of justice, and start going back and forth between our own intuitive concepts of justice, and the hypothetical principles, until we reach agreement. This Rawls calls "reflective equilibrium."

Rawls says that these principles would come as close as we can get to a "voluntary scheme."

"In this sense," says Rawls, "its [society's] members are autonomous and the obligations they recognize self-imposed."

The thing that puzzles me about Rawls is his use of a hypothetical veil of ignorance to construct his Theory of Justice. Why use a hypothetical ignorance when all he had to do was go down to Washington, D.C., or any other seat of government, and he could have found the real thing?

Nevertheless, let's just see what sort of "theory of justice" ignorance comes up with.

Rawls claims that this "chain of ignorance" would come up with two principles supplemented by two "Priority Rules."

First Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both, a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just saving principle, and b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Then we have the Priority Rules.

The First Priority Rule (The Priority of Liberty). The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty. There are two cases: a) a less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of liberty shared by all; b) a less than equal liberty must be acceptable to those with the lesser liberty.

The Second Priority Rule (The Priority of Justice over efficiency and Welfare). The second system of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle. There are two cases: a) an inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunity of those with the lesser opportunity; b) an excessive rate of saving must on balance mitigate the burden of those bearing this hardship.

I can just see the man in the street trying to work his way through all this nonsense.

"I really want to save every penny I can to give to my children, so they don't have the same hassle with banks, jobs and making a living. So let me consult Rawls' oracle. If I am to have an excessive rate of saving, which I suppose must mean more than the average, it must "on balance mitigate the burden of those bearing this hardship." Now I wonder who would bear this hardship other than me; I deprive myself of things for the benefit of my children, so surely I suffer the hardship?"

No! says Rawls. Those who save less or nothing for their children leave their children with less liberty of opportunity, because "the second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle."

Got that?

Well, it's because the second principle of justice is lexically prior. And the second principle says that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both, a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just saving principle, and b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity."

You see, if you save too much you do two things.

First, you are not spending money, which makes companies selling baseball caps, sports shoes, or hamburgers, very unhappy. If too many people did that, these companies would go out of business, and that of course would be bad for employment, or so we are told. Convenient for big business!

Secondly, by your sacrifice, you will have put your children in a more advantaged "social and economic" position. You would be creating an "inequality."

Horror of horrors!

And the inequality you have created doesn't "enhance the opportunities of those with less opportunity," and neither does it "mitigate the burden of those bearing the hardship."

What this nonsense means is this: a justification for government to take your money when you die; a justification for death, or inheritance, tax; and a justification for welfare. Because you can be sure of one thing: big business is very keen on welfare. Welfare ensures that money you would otherwise save for your children is distributed to others so that they can waste it on baseball caps, sports shoes, and hamburgers, and make those companies very wealthy.

If this is not what Rawls was trying to say, it only goes to show how ridiculous his "theory of justice" really is. Rawls does not come anywhere near to meeting Schweitzer's basic requirement for an Absolute Postulate, which must be "something elementary and inward, which, once it has dawned upon a man, never relinquishes its hold, which as a matter of course runs like a thread through all his meditations . . .."

Rawls' principles would run riot through most peoples "meditations" as they tried to fathom out what on earth these principles mean.

But when it comes down to it, Rawls' Theory of Justice is nothing more than an apologetic for the Welfare state. He simply tried to provide some flesh to the Utilitarian ethic of the Common Good by constructing a fanciful hypothetical situation, full of flimsy assumptions, from which he claims would emerge the principles that he needed in the first place in order to transform the Common Good into a synonym for the Welfare state.

Of course, nobody took any notice of his principles, except those huddled in the hallowed cloisters and ivory towers of the academic world. Why bother with such convoluted reasoning when there is the mob to do it for you?

Conservative Principles?

So, do Republicans and conservatives have any better principles?

Regrettably not! Republicans and conservatives want the "right" to pursue pleasure, or happiness, without the attendant Liberal "principle" of the Common Good.

They make a lot of virtuous noise about values, especially Judeo-Christian values, without having the faintest idea of what they mean by values. They confuse values with Principles.

And even when some do profess to advance some principles, the principles amount to nothing more than a few mixed-up policy proposals – Ron Paul and Fred Thomson come to mind.

Low taxes and small government, the most often advanced Republican/conservative principles, are not principles. To claim that we should have low taxes and small government they have to demonstrate why – what Principles lead to that conclusion? It should read like this: "We should have low taxes and small government because . . ."

There should be "a chain of reasoning" from basic Principles which demonstrates that those Principles inevitably and logically demand the outcome of low taxes and small government.

But Republicans and conservatives are bankrupt when it comes to articulating any such Principles.

And this leads to some curious contradictions.

Let me take one example – education v. health.

As I recall, every single Republican contender for the presidential nomination supported collective, socialized education through a public school system. Yet, the majority of parents in the United States are perfectly able to educate their children themselves, at home, if they applied themselves to the task, and made the sacrifices for their children which are each and every parent's responsibility.

Effectively, parents simply cede the larger portion of their responsibilities and obligations towards their children to the state, without even hesitating for a moment to ask themselves whether the state is in fact better suited to the task than they are.

California ranks about 46^th in the US in the amount of money it spends on the public school system, and it spends (even taking into account the Budget cuts proposed) some $10,000 per child – some $1,900 less than the national average. That makes the national average around $12,000 per year.

Parents could educate their children very effectively at home for a fraction of that amount. There would also be many subsidiary social and economic benefits in doing so.

As Henry Fielding said, "public schools are the nurseries of all vice and immorality." And we know that is true. That is where children are exposed to drugs, violence, sex, alcohol, etc., and exposed to the influence of the least desirable and morally vacuous of their peers. Educating children at home would thus have an almost instant impact on juvenile crime, teenage pregnancies, drug and alcohol abuse, violence, and even more importantly, increase educational standards across the board.

Of course, should some parents still want to subject their children to a collective, socialized education in some institution, they would be free to do so, although they would have to pay for it themselves.

Parents' educating their children themselves would also have the benefit of denying the state the opportunity to indoctrinate these inquiring little minds with nonsense. John Stuart Mill said this about the state's role in educating children: "a general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in government . . . in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body."

It seems to me that parents have an obligation to protect their children from some institution establishing a "despotism" over their minds and bodies?

Economically, the benefits would be huge, and instant – and dovetail perfectly with professed conservative "values" – low taxes and smaller government.

Now compare this support for collective, socialized indoctrination of children in some institution of neglect with the total opposition to socialized health care by most Republicans and conservatives.

Unless at least one parent is a medical practitioner, parents are simply not equipped to provide their children with medical care. Even if parents educated themselves to the level of the average medical practitioner, they still could not get the prescription drugs they would know their children need in order to deal with a particular ailment.

Now I don't actually support either socialized education or socialized health care, but I think the argument for the latter carries far greater weight than the argument for the former. And it starkly demonstrates the contradictions that infest an ideology devoid of any sound Principles.

Principles

So that still leaves us with our search for Principles; Principles that can determine the scope and limits of government, as well as basic morality.

To do so, we have to go back to a time when the same set of competing "ideas" held sway – the pursuit of pleasure versus fundamental Principles. That time was about two thousand years ago when the pursuit of pleasure and the exercise of state power were the cornerstones of the Roman Empire. And we go first to Philo.

Not only did Philo recognize the emptiness and vanity of the pursuit of pleasure, he also recognized that the human race had already been gifted those fundamental Principles from which all other laws flow, and also, which form the basis of what we recognize as obligations and morality, and thus, from which the scope and limits of government should be determined and dictated.

Philo says this: "For it was suitable to [God's] own nature to promulgate in His own Person the heads and PRINCIPLES of all particular laws, but to send forth the particular and special laws by the most perfect of the prophets . . . to be the interpreter of His holy oracles." [my emphasis]

Yes, Philo was talking about the Ten Commandments!

But what is important to note is the distinction Philo draws between the Ten Commandments as the "heads and PRINCIPLES of all particular laws," and the laws which flow from those Principles by way of interpretation and understanding of the Principles.

The jurist RWM Dias, in his book Jurisprudence, says this: "The Jewish doctrine . . . possesses the insight to lay equal stress on immunity from power and restraint in action."

He adds, "[the Jews] desired a society in which Pharaohs had no place, one which owed allegiance solely to God and was governed by His laws. Sovereignty resides in His law which, by virtue of its origin and intrinsic righteousness, cannot be altered by human institutions. So great, however, was the insistence on freedom that even this law had to be freely accepted by the people. The foundations of modern democracy and possibly the earliest version of the social contract . . . would seem to lie here." [And no!! I'm not advocating some sort of theocratic state, as will become clear.]

Now, if we apply Philo's distinction between the PRINCIPLES of The Law, and the laws which derive from them by interpretation and understanding of the underlying PRINCIPLES, we see that The Law means the Ten Commandments.

The magnificence of this distinction is that the laws which derive from the Principles are dynamic. Although the underlying Principles are immutable, the laws, the morality, and the structure and scope of government which derive from them are sufficiently flexible to adapt to changed circumstances.

In fact, I would go even further. I would argue that changed circumstances, and continued reflection building on earlier interpretations and understanding of the underlying Principles, themselves reveal a deeper understanding and thus interpretation of those Principles. In other words, the Principles themselves are so profound that they contain meanings and insights which have not yet even dawned upon mankind.

If that is the case, and I believe it is, then these Principles must have preceded, and stand apart, from the human species, yet we are equipped to discover and interpret the deeper meaning of those Principles as the human species develops.

But do these Principles presuppose a belief in God? Would adoption of the Principles underlying the Ten Commandments effectively institute a theocracy?

I say no! The genius of the Ten Commandments is that although they are said to emanate from God, that very construction was necessary to emphasize individual freedom and equality. Yet, at the same time, they also tend to the conclusion that the Principles themselves exist independently of mankind thus providing a basis for the belief in God, even evidence of the existence of God.

And most remarkable of all, science is now tending to suggest that the human brain is "programmed" with a "morality module" that I believe will, in the end, prove to be modeled on the Principles contained in the Ten Commandments. (I have dealt with this issue in my IC article "Are We Genetically Programmed by, and with, the Ten Commandments?" so I won't repeat the arguments here.)

Before I get onto the Principles themselves, however, let me refer to the most spectacular and world changing instance of interpretation of the Ten Commandments (The Law), which was coupled with an impressive demonstration of the interaction and interdependence of the Principles underlying The Law.

At about the same time as Philo was drawing his distinction between the Principles and the subsidiary laws which derive from them through interpretation, not far away on a Mount in the Holy Land, Jesus Christ was doing just that.

Before Christ begins His revelation of a new interpretation of the Ten Commandments, He first asserts their immutability. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, 'Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.'" [Matthew 5:17 & 18]

Christ then proceeds to identify some of the laws Moses previously derived from the Ten Commandments, and provides a new interpretation. Hence we see Christ saying, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time . . ." followed by, "But I say unto you . . .."

In a later exchange, Christ makes the point even more dramatically. "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." [Matthew 19:8 & 9]

So, was Christ saying that the only grounds for divorce can be adultery? What, for example, would be the situation where a woman is regularly subjected to physical violence by her husband? Does she simply have to endure such physical abuse?

This is where the interrelationship between the Principles comes into play. Although Christ doesn't specifically address that issue, he does demonstrate, also in relation to the Seventh Commandment (Adultery), how this interrelationship operates.

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh upon a woman TO LUST AFTER HER hath committed adultery already in his heart." [Matthew 5:27 & 28 - my emphasis]

Now, Christ does not say that simply looking at a woman, even to admire her grace and beauty, amounts to adultery. The qualifying words are "to lust after her."

To covet means to "desire with concupiscence [Eager or inordinate desire; immoderate sexual desire, LUST]; desire sexually." Or, "have inordinate or culpable, especially sexual, desire."

And lust means to "have a strong or excessive (especially sexual) desire."

So we see that Christ was effectively interpreting the Seventh Commandment in light of the Tenth Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours' wife . . . nor anything that is thy neighbour's."

Let me illustrate the point by reference to the Eighth Commandment (Thou shalt not steal) being interpreted in light of the Tenth Commandment.

If my neighbor buys a new car and I go round to see it, and admire it, think even that I may some day buy a similar car when I can afford it, I have not breached the Tenth Commandment. If, however, I become consumed with jealousy and desire, and begin to imagine and plan ways to steal his car, I have trespassed over the bounds of the Tenth Commandment, and have "stolen" his car in my heart.

In effect, my inordinate desire leads to concrete planning to satisfy my desire to have his car. In certain circumstances, for example if I recruit another to assist me in my scheme, I could be charged with what we call today a criminal conspiracy. In the case of terrorism, the standard is even lower.

That is what Christ was doing: demonstrating how the Principles underlying The Law all interrelate, thus providing enormous scope for interpretation.

So, if we go back to the question about whether a woman could divorce her husband where he has subjected her to physical abuse, even though he has been scrupulously faithful, the answer must be yes. That would be as a result of the husband breaching the Sixth Commandment (the Principle prohibiting violence), and the Fifth Commandment (Honor thy father and thy mother), because the husband renders it impossible for the children of the family to honor a father who physically abuses their mother (and, as I shall demonstrate, the Fifth Commandment represents the Principle that the father and mother have strict obligations towards each other, as well as towards their children).

In such a short exposition I can't do justice to the full magnificence of what Christ bequeathed us in helping us to understand the Principles and interrelationship of the Principles of the Ten Commandments, but I hope it gives a flavor of what I am getting at.

Ten Secular Principles?

I have already set out the secular Principles which derive from the Ten Commandments in my series of articles here on IC titled "The Ten Principles of Freedom," so I shall not labor the arguments. I set out more detailed arguments in my books Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights, and Escaping Britain.

In summary, these are the Principles:

1. No other human being can tell me what to do without my consent.

2. No other human being can compel me to serve what he has created without my consent.

3. No other human being can compel me to enter into any obligation without my consent.

4. No other human being can compel me to work for him, or take my income or property, without my consent.

5. The family, the union of a man and a woman to create new life, being the only discernible purpose of life, and the only means of perpetuating human life, is sacrosanct.

6. Do not use or threaten violence.

7. Do not cause or be party to a betrayal, sexual or otherwise, of your own or any other person's family obligations.

8. Do not interfere with the property of others.

9. Don't be dishonest.

10. Do not use your freedom to interfere with the freedom of others.

Now, the important thing to recognize is that the Principles are interrelated and interdependent. One Principle cannot be used as a shield against breach of another. (As an aside, I should invite readers to compare these Principles with the "principles" derived from Rawls' ignorance theory.)

The first four Principles are what I call the Equal Freedom Principles. They are a form of pure Libertarianism. But they DO NOT stand alone.

They represent the opening words of the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal. And they form the basis of what Dias identified as the "immunity from power" aspect of the Jewish doctrine. They establish individual freedom.

Principle 5 is the bridge, so to speak, between the Equal Freedom Principles and Principles 6 to 10.

Principle 5 establishes the basis on which human beings will consent to take on obligations voluntarily – by the creation of human life. These obligations include obligations which precede the union (like abstinence), obligations during the union towards each other (like non-violence, fidelity, the creation of trust, an effective division of responsibilities etc), and the additional and fundamental obligations that arise from the creation of life (meeting our obligations towards that life, self-sacrifice, educating that life, and so on).

Principles 6 to 10 then set out the additional obligations which flow from the obligations assumed under Principle 5; obligations between the parties to the union, and between them and the life they create, as well as obligations towards the rest of humanity on a reciprocal basis.

Principles 5 through 10 form the basis of what Dias identified as the "restraint in action" aspect of the Jewish doctrine.

Now, I am not arguing that these Principles should supersede the Ten Commandments. What I am arguing is that these are the only Principles that all human beings could consent to, short of claiming some authority to have power over other human beings, or short of claiming that the creation of human life attaches no obligations to those who do so, or short of claiming that they have some natural authority to kill or inflict violence on other human beings without cause, or to destroy their own or some other family to satisfy their own primitive instincts, or to take the property of other human beings without cause, or to deceive other human beings when it suits them, or to exercise their freedom in a way that deprives others of their freedom.

But I emphasize again, these Principles, like the Ten Commandments themselves, are interdependent and interrelated.

Yet, these apparently simple set of Principles, when even superficially understood, form the basis of all human obligations, everything we recognize as morality, and are the only Principles that can insure our individual and collective freedom while at the same time permitting us to submit to a limited and well defined form of government – a form of government limited to the obligations we assume by agreeing to these Principles, just as the Israelites agreed to the Ten Commandments several millennia ago.

The Principles underlying the Ten Commandments are universal, and timeless. And they are, or should be, conservative Principles. They also satisfy the so-called separation of Church and State, while not simultaneously creating conflicting Principles between those who subscribe to a religion and those who do not. Although they also provide a basis on which to determine whether a religion should be accorded that status. A religion could only be accorded the sacrosanct status religions enjoy today if it's doctrine did not require, or call for, a breach of any of the Principles of Freedom.

Conclusion

Normally, the last section would have been the conclusion to an article such as this. But on this occasion, I thought a discourse between me and a critic of the Ten Principles may be informative.

The critic claimed that he could never agree to the first 4 Principles, the Equal Freedom Principles – in spite of the fact that they are the very foundation of the Declaration of Independence. The reason, he said, was because they mean that no one could, for example, be compelled to effectively dispose of his garbage – because no one could tell them that they ought to do so.

This was my response:

Let be please briefly illustrate how such things would be addressed by a system that implemented the Ten Principles. Principle 5 provides that the creation of human life imposes certain obligations on those who create that life. One of those obligations is to protect our children from health hazards. Now if my neighbor simply started dumping his garbage in the street outside my home, that would attract rats, bring the risk of disease, and threaten my children's health. In short, my neighbor would be interfering with my freedom to meet my obligations towards my children. That would be a breach of Principle 10 – someone using his freedom without regard to my freedom as defined by the Ten Principles. That, in turn, would impose an obligation on me to clean up his mess, or pay for it to be cleaned up, in order to meet my obligations towards my family. That would be a breach of Principles 3 and 4, by imposing on me an obligation without my consent, and compelling me to use my labor or resources to clean up his mess.

Further, it would breach Principle 6 – my children would be threatened with physical harm.

Now, since we have agreed to these Principles, and agreed to award government the authority to compel us to honor the obligations we assume under the Principles, government would in fact owe me an obligation to compel that person to clean up his mess, or to take money from him so that someone else can clean up his mess.

The way you have applied the Principles is precisely what I say can't be done, and would breach the Principles: that is, argue that by virtue of Principle 1 no one can tell me what to do, so I'll dump my garbage anywhere I please, irrespective of other people, the effect it may have on them, or the effect on their obligations and freedom.

So the Principles have in fact the exact opposite effect to what you claim.

In conclusion, therefore, my case is that we have been gifted the only Principles that can ensure our individual and collective freedom while simultaneously enabling us to consent to the authority of a form of government, but only on the limited basis provided by the Ten Principles of Freedom, Principles founded on the Ten Commandments, The Law.

So the choice is clear! Submit to mob rule, or adopt those Principles gifted us by God. And even for those who find the idea of God offensive, Principles that would protect their freedom to ridicule the very idea of a God.

That is the Republican and conservative challenge. But from what I saw in this election cycle, I suspect they are not up to the task. They are too busy banding about meaningless ideological slogans. Their ignorance and arrogance will be their undoing!