I found this to be an interesting post. The political party that I lead, Freedom Party of Ontario (in Canada), distinguishes itself from libertarians as much by its gradualism as by the objectivist philosophy that gives rise to its founding principle (that "Every individual, in the peaceful pursuit of personal fulfilment, has an absolute right to his or her own life, liberty and property)...a founding principle with which every party policy must be consistent.
We distinguish party policy from election platforms (i.e., from what, in Britain, are often called election "manifestos"). Party policies transcend elections, though they can be amended over time. In contrast, our election platforms serve for only one election. The planks in our election platform MUST be pursuant to party policies: if there is no policy on the general subject, there can be no election plank on the subject.
FP Party policies specify a direction (e.g., we oppose income taxes) but not a rate or extent (e.g., we have no policy about how, or how fast, to eliminate income taxes). Such matters are left to the leadership to express in election platforms.
Our party's policies are gradualist in the sense that they are not exhaustive: as a case in point, we have policies against income tax and capital taxes but not (yet) against sales tax. This does not mean, by implication, that we necessarily approve of sales taxes on moral grounds. Rather, it means that we consider capital and income taxes bigger offenders, hence higher priorities.
Our party's election platforms are gradualist in the sense that they take the politically feasible into account. For example, FP proposes the elimination of property taxes but, under our current constitutional division of powers, eliminating property taxes would bankrupt most municipalities in short order unless they were given another method of financing their operations. Rather than just saying: "privatise everything and tax nothing", we take the step (and it is a step, not a final destination) of replacing a more offensive tax (i.e., property taxes) with a less offensive tax (i.e., sales taxes). Again, that is not to suggest that we approve of sales taxes: it is to say that we find them less an affront on freedom than property taxes. In other matters we are less gradualist or more gradualist: again, depending upon what is politically feasible at the time.
In all of this, we are careful to keep in mind at least two things:
1. FPO is not a lobby group, activist group, think tank, or educational organization: it is an organization that is trying to win seats in the Ontario legislature.
2. whereas it is acceptable for FPO to implement a party policy at only a rate, and only in a way, that is feasible, it is not acceptable for the party to adopt policies that are contrary to its philosophy.
To reinforce an understand of this mode of operation, we use symbolism:
(a) the North Star in the little dipper: symbolizes Freedom, which is our political philosophy (and, for our mother organization, FP International - which is educational and philosophical - we add the big dipper, two stars on which line up to the North Star...those two stars represent reason and life...our epistemology and our ethics....our metaphysics is IMPLIED: we look to nature - i.e., to the stars in the sky - to determine what is.
(b) the Compass: symbolizes our commitment to a direction, but not to a speed or extent...example: our election platforms are always titled "The Right Direction", and feature the compass on the cover.
(c) the White Tiger (named Frank, which means both free and honest): symbolizes our belief that "Some things are black and white" (i.e., good and evil).
There are other symbols in our system (e.g., the sextant and the watch), which we use in the marketing of our approach...
In case you are still reading, I close with this, the Foreward to Freedom Party of Ontario's Policy booklet:
"
FOREWARD
The policies that follow were adopted by the Freedom Party of Ontario on July 10, 2005 pursuant to Part XIII of the Constitution of the Freedom Party of Ontario (as amended on March 6, 2005). These policies are considered to be consistent with the Freedom Party of Ontario’s founding principle (FPO Constitution, section 3). They do not and are not intended to represent an exhaustive or ultimate set of policy implications resulting from the party’s founding principle: they do not describe a final destination. Rather, they set out ports of call along the way to a freer, more personally responsible Ontario society. As such, they allow Freedom Party’s leadership to determine the right direction for the governance of Ontario, and to steer accordingly.
Nor are these policies exhaustive. Ethics, not law, is the foundation of political freedom. Laws designed to protect individual freedom are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Changes in governance do tend to influence the dominant code of ethics, though law’s influence is limited, especially where the law is not respected. And, because a change in ethics takes place only within the mind of an individual, change in the dominant ethical code of society inevitably is gradual. Freedom Party of Ontario, being a political party, must be satisfied with its role: to attempt the restoration of the necessary legal and political framework for an ethical, hence free, society. In fulfilling that role, Freedom Party must be cognizant of the fact that pro-freedom changes to the law are likely to be transient if they are made so quickly that ethics has no chance to catch up. The policies that follow have been chosen in light of the fact that just as the erosion of freedom has been gradual, so will the restoration of freedom take time, patience, ethical growth and, with respect to changes in governance, gradual steps.
Although these policies specify ports of call, they do not specify which ports of call should be approached first, how quickly they should be approached, or what course should be charted around obstacles to their approach. Such decisions must be made in light of current events, and with wisdom concerning what is politically feasible and what will allow Freedom Party of Ontario ultimately to meet its objectives (FPO Constitution, section 6). Those decisions are the stuff not of party policy, but of the party’s election platforms.
Paul McKeever, B.Sc.(Hons), M.A., LL.B.
Officer and Party Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario
July 11, 2005"
|
