The Sharon Statement is an attempt a young M. Stanton Evans to describe freedom. Unfortunately, like so many, Mr. Evans did not understand what a system of freedom was.
Here is an introduction to the Sharon Statement from Wikipedia:
The Sharon Statement is the founding statement of principles for Young Americans for Freedom. The views expressed in this statement, while not considered “traditional conservative principles” at the time, played a significant role in influencing Republican leaders in the 1980s.[1]
Written by M. Stanton Evans[2] and adopted on September 11, 1960, the statement is named for the location of the inaugural meeting of Young Americans for Freedom, held at William F. Buckley, Jr.‘s estate in Sharon, Connecticut.
Now, let’s examine the statement and discover some of its errors and omissions:
IN THIS TIME of moral and political crisis, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.
WE, as young conservatives, believe:
THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
The beginning of the statement is philosophical, mentioning, “eternal truths,” “transcendent values,” and “God-given free will.” Freedom is a mechanical system composed of elements. The phrase, “use of his God-given free will,” fits better with the concept of, “the pursuit of happiness.”
THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
A loss of political and economic freedom simply means the government is moving to arbitrary power, that it has not been kept limited and the citizens are, “out of the box.”
THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
The use of the word “freedoms” shows a misunderstanding of freedom. Freedom is not a laundry list where, for example, we have 72 freedoms and if we lose a five we will still have 67 remaining. No, freedom is a system and should be referred to in the singular. The focus of a system of freedom is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, “internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice,” all work toward that end.
THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
Government always moves to “arbitrary power” because it has no competition and a central function of government is to pass laws. Laws almost always say, “no you can’t!” The reason for limiting government is to minimize waste (a by-product of the absence of competition) and to avoid an accumulation of power.
THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
We must ask ourselves, why is the Constitution, “the best arrangement yet devised…?” The answer is because the underlying design of the Constitution is to keep government limited.
THAT the genius of the Constitution – the division of powers – is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
There are four distinct limits on our government:
- division of powers (checks and balances)
- The Bill of Rights (government prohibitions)
- The Tenth Amendment (primacy to the several states, or to the people)
- The people themselves, (“if you can keep it”)
THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
The marketplace mimics and operates like nature. It does not need invention, it just happens. Of course, it works best, it’s how people act naturally!
THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
Life and liberty make clear that the government taking your money to give to another (taking your thoughts and labors that you trade in the marketplace for your sustenance) is necessarily wrong in a system of freedom.
THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies…
Of course, defense must be strong.
THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
We will always have enemies until all, or a critical mass of nations, operate in a system of freedom.
THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and
THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?”
The overall problem with the Sharon Statement is that the author doesn’t truly understand a system of freedom. Evans deals with symptoms and consequences that derive from a system of freedom or the absence of said system. The Sharon Statement is therefore more complicated and confusing than it needs to be. Evans made an admirable attempt to describe freedom, but he was far wide of the mark.