What’s In A Name?
It will come to no surprise of the readers of this weblog that we contributors don’t fit the normal political nomenclature; it’s hard to describe “what we are” politically, given the available labels. The current political parties are an increasingly poor fit for me, and (I suspect) for my co-authors; to borrow Daffyd ab Hugh’s happy usage, we may caucus with one or the other party, but we aren’t happy in either one.
Lots of others have grappled with this dilemma, and a variety of usages are starting to emerge:
Let me offer another way of discussing this.
Rather than trying to fit somewhere within a political spectrum which ranges from puritan authoritarianism, through big-government corporate statism, through to transnationalist socialism and the dictatorship-of-the-smarter-than-thou, I suggest we set a different course.
Let’s have done with “isms” and oh-so-seductive theories.
I choose to start, not with all manner of grand philosphies, but here:
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,
–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I hold that self-evident; axiomatic, if you prefer.
I’ll start there, in the enjoyment of my liberty.
I am… yes.
Over the next bit of time, I’ll write about what comes of that starting point.