The Roman Catholic Church was guilty of many abuses in Europe all
through the Middle Ages, and I think the people of Europe had good reason to
walk away from it. But as they did, they made a massive error: They didn’t
replace it with anything better.
The Church, regardless of its errors and crimes, taught virtues to the
people of that continent. Medieval Europe became home to a culture founded
largely on some very positive values, and you can’t deny that the Church had a
hand in that development.
After all, not everyone involved with the institution was corrupt and
abusive (in fact, such villains were the minority). A significant percentage of
local priests, monks and nuns were decent, caring people, trying to help the
people of their diocese. However many and evil the inquisitors were, the number
of kind and decent clergy was higher, and they had their effects.
Europe’s error was that they didn’t just reject the Church; many of them
rejected everything that was associated with it. The virtues that the Church
taught, however poorly, had given Europe a moral core. Those virtues should
have been preserved.
The New Enlightenment
Europeans of the 17th and 18th centuries removed themselves from the
mental bondage of the Church, much as the current people of the West are
starting to remove themselves from the mental bondage of the state. And this
got me to thinking…
Are there things that we, in our disgust for the state, might foolishly
throw away, like many Europeans did with their cultural virtues?
Honesty, I couldn’t think of much.
A lot of us, from the Tannehills to Murray Rothbard to myself and many
others, have written about justice in the absence of state force. That’s pretty
well covered.
Roads and fire protection are simple too, and they’ve been covered as
well.
The one thing that I could think of beyond these is a Bill of Rights.
A Great Concept, an Inadequate Term
A lot of people think that a Bill of Rights is a statement from a
government, outlining what rights they give the people. But in the better cases
– such as the US Bill of Rights – that is false. A good Bill of Rights is a set
of restrictive statements, detailing what the people do not permit the
government to do.
Now, we all know that our US Bill of Rights is
broken every day, but the principle is a good one, and the concept itself
can be a useful thing.
So, I propose a Free Man’s Bill of Rights. Not a statement of
rights that we expect someone to give us, but a set of rights that we will
defend. In other words (take notice):
These are rights that we demand and will defend.
* * * * *
The Rights of Free Men and Women
We hold these as inherent and inalienable human rights:
We are free to do whatever we wish, so long as we extend this same right
to others.
Every individual stands equal to any other person or group.
We accept no person or group as inherently superior.
No person or group has a right to aggress against us.
We hold the right to defend against aggression.
Our property is our own, and our will regarding it ought not to be
opposed.
Any person or group that attempts to counter our will regarding our
property is an aggressor.
Our sole obligation to others is to do no harm.
Cooperation, compassion, and kindness are positive goods that we choose
to bring into the world, but so long as we harm no one, we have committed no
offense.
We claim the freedom to trade, to express ourselves as we wish, to move
and think as we wish, and to be free of surveillance.
We will defend these rights, both for ourselves and for others.
Please discuss.
Paul Rosenberg
FreemansPerspective.com
FreemansPerspective.com
No comments:
Post a Comment