What's Your Philosophy?

Through a combination of life experience and teaching from others, each individual develops a system of beliefs over time. This belief system, or philosophy, represents the sounding board on which we evaluate the consequences of potential behaviors for a particular decision. Generally, one will engage in that behavior which resonates best with his or her philosophical foundation, assuming a relatively accurate prediction of the consequences.

It behooves us to evaluate not only our individual philosophies, but also the philosophies of those whom represent us in government. After all, the collective philosophy of the individuals composing a government represents the sounding board on which many very important decisions are made... decisions that affect millions, if not billions, of constituents.

The current US government collective philosophy appears to generally involve two main themes:
1) the US should play a significant role in the economical, political, and military affairs of other countries
2) within the US, those with more should pay for those with less

The first theme represents foreign interventionism, whereas the second represents socialism.

A philosophy of foreign interventionism has led the US into many wars, and foreigners often accuse the US of imperialistic activities. A philosophy of socialism has assisted the creation of tens of trillions of dollars of debt for unfunded liabilities in the form of social security and medicare... debt that future generations are expected to pay based on the assumption that they will have more, so they can cover those with less today.

The common thread of both themes is force. Countries must adopt US policies under threat of sanctions, bombing, or invasion. Those with jobs must contribute to social programs under threat of fines, liens, or incarceration. Does the philosophy of every US citizen resonate with the philosophy of the US government? Obviously not... which begs the question, "What right does our government have to assert such force?" Does election or appointment into office implicitly or explicitly grant rights beyond what an individual citizen would have?

If I want to water my yard but don't want to use my own water, I can't threaten my neighbor with violence if he does not water my yard from his supply... that's coercion. If I want to water my yard but don't have enough water, I can't take my neighbor's water without receiving permission... that's theft. On an individual level, these activities are deemed immoral and illegal; yet governments regularly employ such behavior on a macro level. Do governments have more rights than their constituents?

I don't believe that governments have the right to engage in such behaviors, and I refuse to vote for politicians who advocate or engage in such activities. These behaviors do not resonate with my philosophy, the Philosophy of Liberty. From my perspective, the government exists to protect the inalienable rights of the populace... the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If on an individual level the violation of these rights constitutes immoral and/or illegal activity, the same standard must apply to the government.

Thankfully, I am not alone in my beliefs, and someone with greater prose and programming skills has created a video detailing the basics of this philosophy. For further edification, please watch the Philosophy of Liberty video from the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL). Although I highly recommend this full-screen version, you can also watch the lower-quality embedded YouTube video below.

Also, please consider joining the Campaign for Liberty, an organization developed by Ron Paul with the goal of spreading the philosophy of liberty through education and training.