The First Point















The Twelve Points are a statement of conservative principles, objectives, philosophy, and additional guiding considerations, composed by Karl Born, a young Indianapolis writer and attorney, beginning in early 2008, completed on July 2, 2009.

The purpose of the Twelve Points is to serve as a delivery mechanism for distilled, concentrated conservative thinking, with the goal of returning clarity and completeness to popular conservatism, and spreading knowledge of the true principles of conservatism throughout the conservative community.

The idea for the Twelve Points, along with much of the content of the document itself, came from the "Seven Points," which was created by a group of conservative college students in 2003 at Indiana University: Grand Old Cause.

Even in light of the 2010 election results, the conservative movement has become confused and aimless. Certain essential conservative principles and considerations have faded from memory and lost their influence. The Twelve Points will help to solve this problem by reminding us of conservative thinking that we may not have considered recently, and by making that thinking available to new, developing conservatives.

Send your questions or ideas to the12points@gmail.com!


SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2010

The First Point

The purpose of the First Point, other than to state certain ideas that would have been missed if they had been absent, is to accomplish the following: 1) explain the relationship between "equality" and "justice," 2) explain the meaning of equality as it is meant in competent discussions of justice, and 3) to state that by the acts of forming a government or electing representatives, people do not surrender their rights, and that governments are instead obligated to respect and secure those rights.

One reason why it was necessary to write about this is that too many conservatives have accepted and adopted liberals' misuse of the word "equality."  In this use of the word, it is an aspirational but imaginary and unattainable right to equality (or less inequality, in the short term) in terms of wealth or some other measure of material well-being.  This gives us a false choice between freedom and "equality," since a right to this mock-equality would be used to justify the use of force to transfer wealth to some of us at the expense of others.  As a result, instead of recognizing that equality does not reign unless individual freedom is maintained, a conservative who is confused about this would claim that we, as conservatives, favor freedom over equality.  Both for rhetorical reasons and because a proper understanding of equality truly is the foundation of everything that we believe about justice, this mistake needs to be corrected.

A similar mistake is often made when discussing the impact of the institution of government on our natural rights.  Depending on what the speaker means by it, it may be true that we have surrendered a portion of our "freedom," giving the government the authority to make certain decisions for us.  However, the only authority that we can justly entrust to a government is an authority to discover and keep (in practice) the just, natural boundaries of our rights, creating laws that recognize and trace those boundaries as precisely as possible.  We do not change those boundaries.  In error, however, many people claim that our supposed (involuntary) decision to surrender our freedom is a justification for invasive, coercive government policies.  (As a bad excuse, it is not quite as bad as the blanket justification that "there are limits to freedom," but it's still a pretty bad excuse.)

We have to understand justice to understand how to properly apply our other principles.  These are simple concepts, but they need to be reviewed, from time to time.  As President Reagan pointed out, this knowledge is not inherently passed from generation to generation.  It has to be learned, and it has to be taught.  If too many of us begin to forget it (or never learned it properly in the first place), then it should be obvious why we have failed to hold our representatives to these standards.
Comments