The Creed of Freedom by G. Edward Griffin

[moonwhim]

The Creed of Freedom

Introduction by
G. Edward Griffin
http://wp.freedomforceinternational.org ... f-freedom/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is nothing more common in history than for oppressed people to rise up against their masters and, at great cost in treasure and blood, throw off the old regime, only to discover that they have replaced it with one that is just as bad or worse. That is because it is easy to know what we dislike about a political system but not so easy to agree on what would be better.

For most of history, it has been the habit of men to focus on personalities rather than principles. They have thought that the problem was with the man who rules, not with the system that sustains him. So, they merely replace one despot for another, thinking that, somehow, the new one will be more wise and benevolent.

Even if the new ruler has good intentions, he may be corrupted by the temptations of power and, in those rare cases where he is not, eventually he is replaced by another who is not as self-restrained. As long as the system allows it, it is just a matter of time before a new despot will rise to power. To prevent that, it is necessary to focus on the system itself, not person-alities and, for that to happen, it is just as important to know what we are for as it is to know what we oppose.

Even today, with so much talk about fighting to defend freedom, who can define what that word means? For some, freedom means merely not being in jail.

Who can define the essence of personal liberty? Who can look you in the eye and say: “This I believe, and I believe it for this reason and this reason and this reason also.” The world is dying for something to believe in, a statement of principles

that leaves no room for misunder-standing; a creed that everyone of good faith toward their fellow human beings can accept with clarity of mind and strength of resolve. There is an old saying that if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

The Creed of Freedom that you are about to read is the rock-solid ground that will allow us to stand firm against all the political nostrums of our day and those in the future as well. The Creed expresses the core ideology that binds all members together.

This is not like the platform of a political party that typically is a position statement on a long list of specific issues and which changes from year to year to accommodate the shifting winds of popular opinion. Instead, it is stated in terms of broad principles that do not change over time and that are not focused on specific issues at all.



If these principles are followed, then most of the vexing political and social issues of the day can be quickly resolved in confidence that the resulting action will be consistent with justice, compassion, and freedom.

Although I have authored the Creed, I cannot claim credit for it. Anyone familiar with the classical treatises on freedom will recognize

that most of its concepts have been taken from the great thinkers and writers of the past. My role has been merely to read the literature, identify the concepts, organize them into logical categories, and condense them into a single page.

When you read the Creed, please be aware that it is a summary of a series of essays that are intended to appear as chapters in my next book,

The Future Is Calling. The summary cannot be fully understood without knowing the explanations, defini-tions, and arguments that support it. Therefore, although the Creed appears here first, it is recommended that, after reading it, you follow the link at the end of this section that takes you to the more complete explanation.



The Creed of Freedom

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.

I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of a just state is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one’s own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people’s money through coercion of law.

PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
I believe that the human instinct for private property is a positive force because it provides an incentive for production, which is necessary for the material support of

mankind. It justly rewards those who use resources wisely and punishes those who abuse them. Those without property must depend on others for survival, and those who depend on the state must serve the state. Therefore, private property is a human right, essential for prosperity, justice, and freedom.

MONEY WITHOUT COERCION
I believe in freedom to accept or reject any currency, or other forms of money, based entirely upon my personal judgment of its value, because a monopoly over the issuance of money and the power to force others to accept it leads to corruption, inflation, and legalized plunder.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it also will be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least.



In day-to-day application, The Creed of Freedom can be reduced to just three simple rules. We call them the ….

THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Only individuals have rights, not groups. Therefore, do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the alleged rights of groups.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
To favor one class of citizens over others is not equality under law. Therefore, do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.

DEFENSE ONLY
The proper function of the state is to protect, not to provide. Therefore, do not approve coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property. (This is the principle of non-aggression.)



THREE PILLARS OF FREEDOM

Another way of viewing these principles is to consider them as the three pillars of freedom. They are concepts that underlie the ideology of individualism, and individualism is the indispensable foundation of freedom.


For the rational and historical support for The Creed of Freedom, see The Chasm in the Basics section of his site.

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm. Lots to cogitate on, here. But let us take the debatable points one by one, so we do not confuse ourselves.

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.

I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

The Intrinsic Nature of Human Rights.

So, where are these rights to be found? Are they engraved on our hearts? Are they inscribed in some tablet of stone? Are they God-given, in some unassailable scripture? Are they written into the very fabric of the universe in some unchallengeable and verifiable way?

I submit, they are none of these things. Our rights are precisely those which our neighbour offers us; if he is determined to murder us, we have no recourse to some adamantine, incontrovertible right to life to physically stop him. The best we can do, is agree, as a society, what rights each and every one of us is to have, for the betterment of all, and enact those rights in law, and depend on the state to enforce that law. Rights without society, and society's law, are not rights at all, just fine and nice ideas. And if that requires the state to exceed the powers of it's constituent citizenry, then, for the betterment of that citizenry, and with the acquiescence of that citizenry, that seems perfectly acceptable, to me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[gclayjr]

2ndRateMind,

Good thing you are not American. We have this founding document called the Declaration of Independence (oh yea from Britain) that has the following key phrase

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

So over here on this side of the pond we do believe that Men have rights derived from God.

Regards,

George Clay

[2EstablishZion]

Hmmm. Lots to cogitate on, here. But let us take the debatable points one by one, so we do not confuse ourselves.

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.

I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

The Intrinsic Nature of Human Rights.

So, where are these rights to be found? Are they engraved on our hearts? Are they inscribed in some tablet of stone? Are they God-given, in some unassailable scripture? Are they written into the very fabric of the universe in some unchallengeable and verifiable way?

I submit, they are none of these things. Our rights are precisely those which our neighbour offers us; if he is determined to murder us, we have no recourse to some adamantine, incontrovertible right to life to physically stop him. The best we can do, is agree, as a society, what rights each and every one of us is to have, for the betterment of all, and enact those rights in law, and depend on the state to enforce that law. Rights without society, and society's law, are not rights at all, just fine and nice ideas. And if that requires the state to exceed the powers of it's constituent citizenry, then, for the betterment of that citizenry, and with the acquiescence of that citizenry, that seems perfectly acceptable, to me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[2ndRateMind]

Believe. Dream. Where's is your essential argument, you two? Where are rights to be found, if not in laws, conventions or bills of rights? Fact is unless you have the necessary legislation, and the determination of the state to enforce that legislation, rights are no more substantial than the wisp of a pipe dream.

Cheers, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

OK, so, moving on.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of a just state is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

The Supremacy of the Individual

Well, I am all for protecting minority rights, but this is a matter of moral balance, not mandate derived from some quantity or lack of quantity of numbers. If a minority wants the freedom to gas Jews, enslave blacks, or beat their womenfolk, is a just democracy to countenance these abuses, simply because some minority claims it to be a secular or religious way of life that ought be protected? I don't think so. Fact is, of course, majorities do not always have the right idea, also. So we need to arrive at some principle or formula that protects individuals, minorities and majorities. And I can't think of a better one than the Golden Rule of Ethics; do unto your neighbour as you would have him do unto you.

And this is a matter for each of us, voluntarily, as well as legislation and enforcement when harm is demonstrable. It is not a matter to be reckoned by affected and biased singletons, or counting up such singletons to arrive at numbers. It is, instead, a philosophical question and something dependent on the balance of well-being of all the involved parties, to be decided impartially.

Best wishes, 2RM

[2EstablishZion]

What part of "to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority" did you miss? Or are you nitpicking that the minority can also afflict others? It should be pretty clear that the intent of the OP is that the individual's rights need to be protected from infringement.

Not loving most of your posts - your approach is more argumentative and lawyerly than the types of discussion I prefer. So peace out until you can do better.

[2ndRateMind]

What part of "to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority" did you miss? Or are you nitpicking that the minority can also afflict others? It should be pretty clear that the intent of the OP is that the individual's rights need to be protected from infringement.

And I would agree with you. I am just saying that the rights of the individual, or some minority, or some majority, do not depend on that individual being an individual, or that minority being a minority, or that majority being the majority. Instead, they depend on the balance of well-being of the affected parties. This is an unashamedly pragmatic, utilitarian position to take; you can dispute it should you wish to, in any number of the standard criticisms of pragmatism and/or utilitarianism.

Not loving most of your posts - your approach is more argumentative and lawyerly than the types of discussion I prefer. So peace out until you can do better.

Well, I'm sorry about that. But never mind. Since I tend to provide the rationale for the positions I adopt, you are welcome to argue those positions out, should you wish to do so. Otherwise, well, I would just say that people do die, and are dieing, from preventable causes that are not prevented because of the lazy, complacent, self-serving philosophies prevalent in the rich west. My disputes are literally matters of life and death. When they are all won, then I will 'peace out'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one’s own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people’s money through coercion of law.

Freedom of Choice

Let me start by saying that I am not against freedom, or freedom of choice. Who is? The Kingdom of God is, and always will be, a place where people come, and people go, voluntarily, according to their faith and nature. But I do not think we can just assume that 'those in need are better served by charity...than by welfare'. This is an empirical question, a matter of fact, to be decided by research, not by assertions from an uninformed faith position. Given that fully one third of the world's population eke out meagre lives on less than $600 per year, the need for charity, or welfare, or both, is not in doubt. The issue is, will this poverty be best and most rapidly relieved by charity, or by welfare, or by some mix of both? And here, we are better to look to social sciences for answers, than some convenient, congenial ideology.

Cheers, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
I believe that the human instinct for private property is a positive force because it provides an incentive for production, which is necessary for the material support of mankind. It justly rewards those who use resources wisely and punishes those who abuse them. Those without property must depend on others for survival, and those who depend on the state must serve the state. Therefore, private property is a human right, essential for prosperity, justice, and freedom.

Property Rights are Human Rights

Well, rights may conflict, of course. If my child has a right to life, but that right is compromised because she is malnourished, hungry, and liable to starve to death in a short time soon, does my child's human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have precedence over, say, the Queen of England's right to a massive amount of property? You can hardly argue that the Queen has used resources wisely to come by her wealth; she simply inherited it, and still gets a stipend from the British taxpayer, which she spends on horse racing. My notional child, however, who could be anybody's, is not of an age to be responsible enough to be punished for 'abusing resources'. This whole idea favours the rich, who have an excess of property, and seem determined to cling to it, over the poor, who have too little property to make for a reasonably dignified way of life, or, as is often the case, have any life at all.

Cheers, 2RM

[2EstablishZion]

A right to life does not mean that I am obliged to maintain your life. That obligation belongs to the parents. The savior has enjoined us to do unto others as we would want done to us in their situation. This does not endorse using government force to accomplish this.

This boils down to an ethical choice between socialism and liberty. Your pragmatic approach would be fine, aside from the fact that once you have eaten the rich, much of the production of stuff like food, shelter and clothing that you are anxious to provide to all goes away.

[2ndRateMind]

Interesting. So, your property rights take precedence over someone else's life. I wonder if you think someone else's property rights should take precedence over your life. I truly hope you never have to find out. This is not an ethical choice between socialism and liberty; just a simple moral choice between love and life, and callous indifference. The latter is not, to the best of my knowledge, in any scripture considered a Christian virtue.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Original_Intent]

If all of my property would save your life, that would not give you the right to steal it. The false dichotomies you present are logical fallacies.

What you present as compassion would make of earth even more of a hell than it already is. Everyone lowered to the lowest common denominator, everyone enslaved to everyone else.

If I were dying and a million dollars would save my life, that doesn't entitle me to anyone else's million dollars, even a super rich who wouldn't miss it. If someone out of charity offered, that would be wonderful.

[2ndRateMind]

Even more interesting. Do you think, then, Original_Intent, that your right to own property, and accrue more, is an absolute right, superseding all other rights?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Original_Intent]

There you go again with superseding and so forth....I have a right to my own property. period. I have a right to accrue more so long as I do not infringe on anyone else's rights to obtain them.

[2ndRateMind]

So, you have a right to your property. I do not deny this, and the last thing I am intent on is taking any of your property from you. But my question still stands. Is your right to property a right no other right can trump? Is it the ultimate right? Or are there rights even more significant than property rights?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[capctr]

2RM,
One of the first things we covered in my American Heritage class, is the need for self-interest to exist-it is(was) a defining characteristic that set the U.S apart from much of the world.
Self-interest is not a virtue, per se, but it is often a driving force behind creative innovation.
Talented individual has an idea for a technological advancement(medical, tech, etc...)and sees a way to bring it to fruition, and is motivated by the potential of personal enrichment.
Remove that potential, and 99 times out of 100(I am being generous here), and you remove the motivation of that individual.
America used to be a great place to bring your dreams, intelligence, creativity, etc...until people (the evil uber wealthy no doubt) started to utilize their power to infringe upon the rights of others-now we are fast becoming a type of proto-UK, only with fewer charming accents and straighter teeth

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, I agree self-interest is a crucial part the rugged individualism that so fundamentally informs the American character. I guess the subtext to my questioning is: Should it be? Is this Christian? I've said it before, I'll say it again. I am not against wealth. I want everyone wealthy, so far as that is compatible with the ecological carrying capacity of spaceship Earth. If that means rewarding talent, I am far from against that. What I cannot countenance, however, is the idea that the rich morally deserve their luxury riches, however they came by them, in the face of vital, fatal need, elsewhere, because they have some over-riding right to property that surpasses all other rights, including the right to life that property rights ultimately depend on.

While that puts me left of centre, politically, I would hope that astute readers will realise this position is quite distinct from communism/socialism, and the state control of the means of production, and state planning of the outcome of that production. I am pleased Americans have even, bright, white teeth, and even, bright, white smiles. I am less pleased by the idea that these are kept in place by an unequal distribution of the world's wealth, and positively dismayed by attempts to justify that inequality by reference to self-serving conceptions of rights.

And I suspect Jesus might have a thing or two to say about the way the world is, also.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

MONEY WITHOUT COERCION
I believe in freedom to accept or reject any currency, or other forms of money, based entirely upon my personal judgment of its value, because a monopoly over the issuance of money and the power to force others to accept it leads to corruption, inflation, and legalized plunder.

Money without coercion.

Well, I've thought about this one, overnight, but I'm blowed if I can discover it's relevance to a big political idea like 'freedom'. Having invented currency, humanity will not let it go. It's a technical thing, not a freedom thing. Whether that currency be $, bitcoins, bullion or Benson and Hedges cigarettes, the genie is out of the bottle, and I can't see anyone or any government managing to stuff it back in.

Best wishes, 2RM

[gnolaum]

Yes, I agree self-interest is a crucial part the rugged individualism that so fundamentally informs the American character. I guess the subtext to my questioning is: Should it be? Is this Christian? I've said it before, I'll say it again. I am not against wealth. I want everyone wealthy, so far as that is compatible with the ecological carrying capacity of spaceship Earth. If that means rewarding talent, I am far from against that. What I cannot countenance, however, is the idea that the rich morally deserve their luxury riches, however they came by them, in the face of vital, fatal need, elsewhere, because they have some over-riding right to property that surpasses all other rights, including the right to life that property rights ultimately depend on.

You seem to be using these symbols, which we call words, incorrectly. Your definition, or idea, of "the rich" seems to attach evil to those who may, through their own self-discipline, drive, determination and persistence, acquire more property than the average person. If so, that is a fundamental flaw in your logic. If someone acquires more property through their own hard work, they have the right to keep it, period. It seems you have this idea that those types of individuals (the 1% in today's parlance), should be forced to give up some of that property for the betterment of those who did not work for it. That smacks of communism and is evil to its core. The wonderful thing about Individual Rights, is that you have an inherent right to believe that fallacy, and even act accordingly of yourself.

In all honesty, it would be simply magnificent if you and all like-minded individuals could go to some land, far away from those who believe in the truths laid out by the O.P., and live your beliefs. It is also a wonderful thing about the gospel of Jesus Christ, that in the end you will be allowed to do just that. You will either accept the truth of who you are and your God-given rights, giving you access to Zion, or you will reject all that and go elsewhere to do the best you can with your communist ideals.

While that puts me left of centre, politically, I would hope that astute readers will realise this position is quite separate from communism/socialism, and the state control of the means of production, and state planning of the outcome of that production. I am pleased Americans have even, bright, white teeth, and even, bright, white smiles. I am less pleased by the idea that these are kept in place by an unequal distribution of the world's wealth, and positively dismayed by attempts to justify that inequality by reference to self-serving conceptions of rights.

Again, words are just symbols and you are free to define them and imagine them any way you wish. However, what you propose is absolutely communistic. Korihor would certainly agree with you.

You cannot take from one and give to another, that which the first has earned by hard work. Now, if the hard-worker gained the abundance of property illegally (that is to say by trouncing on another individuals rights), in a righteous society, would be required to make recompense and likely some form of punishment. And that, my communistic friend, is how government is supposed to work. Not by forcing some idealistic concept of forced equality, but by protecting every individual's right to work hard and reap the benefits of that work.

And I suspect Jesus might have a thing or two to say about the way the world is, also.

On that I can wholeheartedly agree. Sadly, I'm sure it is not for the same reasons you assume.

Lastly, why do non-mormons like yourself come to a forum like this in order to argue your philosophies of men? You really should read the Book of Mormon. Look up Korihor. Your tactics are very much like his.

[2ndRateMind]

Hey, I'm easy. If I'm wrong, prove it, with a rational argument, if you can. I might even become a Mormon, if all your arguments are reasonably convincing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[gnolaum]

Hey, I'm easy. If I'm wrong, prove it, with a rational argument, if you can. I might even become a Mormon, if all your arguments are reasonably convincing.

Brother, there are no rational arguments that will prove anything to you. If your goal in participating in the forum is to discover what Mormon's believe, you are going about it all wrong. If your goal is to prove your own beliefs to yourself, again it will likely not work here. If, however, your true desire to know who you really are at the most fundamental level the only way to achieve that is to get on your knees (literally), ask God in sincerity and listen and wait for the answer. The Book of Mormon will help but you have to do the work and read it.

Peace.

[2ndRateMind]

. Your definition, or idea, of "the rich" seems to attach evil to those who may, through their own self-discipline, drive, determination and persistence, acquire more property than the average person.

If this was the only route to wealth, your comments would seem fair. But, of course, it isn't. People may be born into wealth, or marry into it, or steal it, or win it in some lottery, or intimidate for it, or deal drugs for it, or simply embezzle it from some position of power. Do they have the same right to it?

Best wishes, 2RM

[2ndRateMind]

Hey, I'm easy. If I'm wrong, prove it, with a rational argument, if you can. I might even become a Mormon, if all your arguments are reasonably convincing.

Brother, there are no rational arguments that will prove anything to you. If your goal in participating in the forum is to discover what Mormon's believe, you are going about it all wrong. If your goal is to prove your own beliefs to yourself, again it will likely not work here. If, however, your true desire to know who you really are at the most fundamental level the only way to achieve that is to get on your knees (literally), ask God in sincerity and listen and wait for the answer. The Book of Mormon will help but you have to do the work and read it.

Peace.

Uh huh. I'm pressing you, I admit that. Seems to me, one can tell the quality of a religion, or schism, or denomination, or cult, or sect, by putting it to question. If the answers add up to a consistent, coherent, comprehensive world view, then there is reason to take it seriously. If they don't there isn't.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[gnolaum]

Uh huh. I'm pressing you, I admit that. Seems to me, one can tell the quality of a religion, or schism, or denomination, or cult, or sect, by putting it to question. If the answers add up to a consistent, coherent, comprehensive world view, then there is reason to take it seriously. If they don't there isn't.

And now you have revealed yourself. You have no desire to discover any truth here, as you are not willing to do what it takes to learn. You are simply here to espouse the well-worn philosophies of men. It is not me you need to be "pressing". I know the truth from a source beyond you and of which you simply cannot understand.

And characterizing an entire religion based on my, or anyone else's, answers to your loaded questions is naive. You don't want to know about Mormon beliefs, you want to argue. Have fun with that. I'm sure you can find another non-Mormon shill around here with which to argue.