We do not live in a time of shared civic values and the values of recent yesterdays are significantly different from today's values. While some may label the transformation of values as progressive, others may wonder if former ways of conduct and of thinking about social order and common respect have undergone a hasty abandonment. In general, value shifts appear to come top-down. The government may make a law, a court a ruling, or national corporations put out a values-based advertising campaign. My intuition tells me the internet and new technology offer a major assist in the present-day fast-paced shift of values. How natural for humanity to undergo a cataclysmic reworking in response to the technology made available to the consumer market over the last twenty-plus years! Think of the dramatic outcomes following the invention of the printing press.
Today, insecurity dominates the prevailing sentiment. The United States, as a national territory and alliance of sovereign states, confronts threats both domestic and foreign. Citizens inflict harm upon each other and foreign nations actively undermine institutions of government and economy. Good sense begs a return to fundamental rights founded in universal principles. A return to fundamental rights reemphasizes citizen sovereignty and recalls the voluntary consent establishing the communal bonds holding up the state apparatus. A return to basics is necessary as the civil union is undergoing wrenching pressures and threats of violence loom. Further, new technologies put fear-inspiring contain and control capacities in the government's hands, an authoritarian threat to counter by circumscribing state influence and reawakening principled regard for individual rights.
The declaration of independence proclaims that all people are created equal. That statement reflects on universal similitudes. All of us are born of a woman and all of us will die. We all need to find a way to eat and beyond eating, a happy life. Seeking a happy life can occur for free persons, whereas the involuntarily bonded cannot pursue happiness freely. That statement is not a declaration of any particular way of being as the path to a happy life; there is simply the recognition that seeking happiness is common to humanity.
Based on the universal human quest for happiness and in the name of freedom, I urge upon the citizens of California, especially Senate District 9, a declaration of adherence to what I will term the "All Rights" mantra - when we accept and avow to tolerate correctly. The All Rights mantra found the first repetition in the mouths of many a grandma telling her grandchildren, "All right. All right." Later, it was picked up by music stars proclaiming the virtue of "All Right." Today, as did the founding citizens of the American Republic, we are to adopt slogans of liberty, such as "All Rights," to caution ourselves against trusting state power.
Libertarianism delegates the right of choice to the rightful owner. The individual owns her body and her property. Ownership grants freedom of use, combined with responsibility. Every voluntary action or use that does not harm others must fall to the owner's power of will, to be tolerated by the people of California.
Californians possess a reputation for social tolerance. The State of California has the direct opposite reputation concerning voluntary exchange. Here I advocate for the removal of state-imposed restrictions and regulations on what others can or cannot do that effects no direct harm on others. No more should citizens legislate the best interests of their fellows.
Today, California citizens are to demand and to vote for no regulation of free choice, free behavior, free agreement, or free use. End all notions of assisting or moralizing self-governing adults through law. The All Rights guide puts the responsibility where responsibility is due. The All Rights principle grants every person the liberty to pursue a course and a way of life individually perceived as best through each varied stage of self-responsible maturity.
We lose the ability to direct our bodies and our wealth when transferred to public authority. For this reason, do Libertarians advocate for a meager ownership transfer by citizens to the political-arena. In the political arena, by a 51% majority or by the representative votes of a handful of electors, citizens can lose the right to act, possess, or be. Further, the citizen's ability to contribute meaningful input to the political use of government-directed wealth and influence is extremely difficult, nearly impossible. A generalized sense of powerlessness to affect the political process has debilitated representative democracy. I like many believe we live under an oligarchic rule, mastered by personal ambition.
What to do: foremost, District Nine citizens are to elect me to State Senate on November 3rd. Second, hold the general principle to turn down every request by the local and state government for additional money. Third, take a little time to investigate the workings of government, especially city and county. Fourth, research the Libertarian political philosophy and other political philosophies through the lens of how each limit or increase freedom. Fifth, wait for the additional publications to explain the state and local government that I will create.
It will be fun.