Charlie made Turning Point USA, and I love it. It flows off the tongue, and it speaks to so many people. But it is religious, and not all of us are. Nor should we be! We are not a hegemony, and I don’t want us to be. It’s antithetical to the founding documents of our country.
So I suggest… “Perspective Forge.” It holds the idea Charlie had, when he asked, “change my mind,” but it also brings to mind the birth of things. A forge is where metal is strengthened, shaped, molded, and made better, and perhaps we can make a place where our country and/or our people can forge their own opinions, shaped and made better and stronger by questioning themselves and others in polite debate.
I am not the person to run this. I have so little time… But if someone wants to work with me, I can throw ideas at your wall. Like this:
A secular version of Turning Point USA, accepting everyone, leaving the choice of religion (or lack thereof) to the members. “Turning Point USA is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk. The organization’s mission is to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government. (Union University)” Therefore, Perspective Forge’s mission would be to educate and organize people and enable them to debate while promoting the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government.
And when I go and look up those three things (freedom, free market, and limited government), I run into some very interesting things. They are considered the hallmark of “classical liberalism.” Our Founding Fathers considered a free market to be one of the main ways to maintain freedom from tyranny (though they differed in how they get there). Safeguarding the right to acquire and own property was considered vitally important, as it shielded individuals from government overreach. James Madison called for the protection of one’s “faculties” (skills, talents, and abilities), which give rise to property rights, “the first object of government.” Whew. What that boils down to is that Madison thought that the government’s main purpose, first purpose, was to protect the skills and abilities of its constituents, so that they could excel in whatever “faculty” they liked. When government does that, he feels it automatically protects We The People from a rogue or tyrannical government. I’m not sure I totally understand that one, but the idea is interesting.
I would love to see this exist. I would love to participate in it. If nothing else, perhaps on Charlie’s Day (Wednesdays), I will ask everyone to “challenge my view” (rather than change my mind). I’ll pick a topic, and state my viewpoint on it, and you can join in the debate. Feel free to toss topics my way, because I’m not always great at thinking of good ones.
You and James Ostrowski, Esq. Both view classical liberal philosophy as the same philosophy as Libertarian.
Its a good place!
I used to consider myself Libertarian. I was very excited to stump for Gary Johnson in 2016. I think he could have brought a lot to the table. He was sane and calm. And he wasn’t divisive, which at the time, Trump was. He still is, though I do think he’s toned it down a lot this term. That may be my own view, though, because I’ve changed. Regardless, Johnson was good on finances (better track record than anyone else in the running), was a proven governor of a state (NM), and wasn’t blind to the needs and wants of the left. It could have been a presidential term that healed rather than caused the rift to widen. But when it was made obvious to me that NO ONE was going to play fair, and that Johnson had no hope at all, not because he was a poor candidate but because he didn’t have the right millionaires on his side, I kind of gave up. And of course, after that the Libertarians have not run anyone even remotely decent.
Re property rights: Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence spoke of the “Right to Life, Liberty, and Property”. There’s a copy online, it’s worth reading. The final version was prettified by the committee that tweaked his original words, which is how we ended up with “Pursuit of Happiness”. But it was also cut in ways that are historically understandable but unfortunate: the draft contained a section explicitly denouncing slavery, which ended up being cut entirely.