Tea Party mission statement

I would like to suggest adoption of a Mission Statement for the Tea Party. The idea is that actions taken on behalf of Tea Party candidates, such as developing a platform, composing advertising or position statements, etc, should be measured against the Mission Statement prior to public distribution. It could also be an easy way to introduce new people to the campaign and the larger movement.

The following draft was given to me by someone from the Florida Tea Party. They have adopted it as their own. I really like it, and would like to hear what others think.

[[MORE]]-----

Tea Party Mission Statement

We uphold and affirm the natural rights of every individual, regardless of race, creed or national origin, to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness; rights to which the founders of our nation pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.

We hold that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of all citizens at the expense of none; to protect its citizenry from force, fraud, and breach of contract, thereby allowing all citizens to dispose of the products of their thoughts and labor as they see fit.

We recognize that free trade and free markets—the voluntary exchange of goods and services—are responsible for the unprecedented wealth and prosperity of our nation; and that such are both practical and morally necessary for human dignity, prosperity and enjoyment of life on earth.

While we respect the generosity of individuals who willingly give to charities and causes, we reject the premise that one person's “need” constitutes an enforceable claim on another's life, and that such a claim can or should be fulfilled through government force or coercion. We advocate the principles of fiscal responsibility in government policies.

We acknowledge and support all who through their courage and loyalty have served in any of the armed services of the United States of America and through their efforts have secured our country's existence and safety for this and future generations.

To further this vision of the United States of America, we pledge to provide a common ground for civil discourse for our members and like-minded individuals and encourage them to support candidates for—and holders of—public office whose positions are consistent with these principles.

Should the US sell the gold in Fort Knox?

There has been some talk recently about whether the US should sell the gold it has in Fort Knox, as a way of offsetting the budget deficit.

There are reasons to suspect that the gold in Fort Knox may not be there. GATA has shown evidence of a very active program of the government leasing gold to so-called “bullion banks,” as a way of generating a return on an otherwise stagnant asset. However, in spite of that, let’s assume for the moment that the gold either is there, or can be readily recovered.

Governments and central banks have a history of holding gold, for good reasons. In World War II, a number of countries that the US government did business with would not accept dollars in payment, nor would the US accept their currencies. Many war supplies could only be purchased with gold; it was a major medium of exchange during a period of shortages and substantial uncertainty. In that sense, it is a strategic asset.

[[MORE]]Another reason central banks hold gold is in case of a currency collapse. If the dollar becomes worthless, having a large store of gold would allow a “reboot” of some kind.

In fact, I would like to suggest that the reasons central banks hold gold are the same reasons individuals should; not as an investment per se, but as a form of insurance.

This also suggests that selling the central bank’s gold would be a bad idea without other substantial changes happening first. If anything, I would argue for the reverse. Since we are clearly in the middle of a long-duration crisis, it would seem like the time to increase insurance, rather than eliminate it. However, the situation might change if the US were to adopt gold as currency again; not by backing the dollar with gold, but by repealing the legal tender laws, not taxing gains on the sale of gold, and allowing it to circulate on a by-weight basis as an alternative to the dollar. In that case, it’s possible that the resulting durable wealth of the people might be able to take the place of the central bank’s holdings – whereas if the gold is simply sold, the most likely buyer would be other central banks (as happened when central banks in Europe sold their gold).

In addition, the oft-repeated meme that the government “stole” the gold from citizens doesn’t paint the full picture. It’s true that FDR required people to turn in their gold. However, they were given paper money in exchange – money which could be spent in the same way as gold. It was the subsequent act of devaluing the dollar that was the real theft, as inflation is today.

Socratic questions: social, economic, political or ethical

I thought it might be interesting to put together a list of Socratic questions that highlight a contradiction in popular social, economic, political or ethical thinking, in such a way that it helps people think about complex issues.

Here are a few that I came up with. If you can think of any to add to the list, I would love to see them.

1. Why do labor unions insist that their employers "share the wealth," while they refuse to share in any of the losses?


2. If education should be free, why do teachers and their unions demand (and receive) such high salaries?


3. Why are the politicians who preach economic egalitarianism so strongly against a system with true political equality?


4. Why are parents chastised for not spending enough time with their children, while also being forced to send their kids away to public schools all day?


5. Since initiating force against another person is immoral, how can you justify legislating morality, since it requires force?


6. If people making over $200,000/yr are considered rich and evil capitalists, why are the public and union employees who make that much considered "deserving"?


7. Why does government expect us to obey the laws they pass, when they exempt themselves from many of them, and when they refuse to follow the Constitution?


8. How can government protect my freedom by violating my rights?


9. If more legislation is the answer, how much will be enough?


10. If money (or the love of money) is evil, why do you use it?


11. How many poor people have you ever worked for?


12. Why do so many Black Americans embrace Christianity, a religion which was imposed by force on their slave ancestors?


13. Why does getting elected to public office entitle elected officials to spend public tax money for their own personal holidays?


14. If equal pay for equal work is a good thing, why isn't it OK for someone not to be paid for doing nothing?