|
Alternatives to the Pledge by Brad Edmonds
Among
the problems with our Pledge is the term “indivisible,” which is
directly contrary to the vision of our founders.
As author Tom
DiLorenzo notes (see his best-selling book, The
Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
Unnecessary War), Abe Lincoln himself once said, “Any
people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to
rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that
suits them better. This is
a most valuable, most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe
is to liberate the world.” This
sentiment is perfectly attuned to those of the founders, and perfectly
contrary to pledging allegiance to our republic:
We have the right to change our government from a republic to a
democracy, a monarchy, Thunderdome, or whatever we believe will suit us. My
previous article already made other points in the case against the
present Pledge, so here I exhibit some alternatives.
Perhaps these will help those who still don’t understand that
opposition to the existing Pledge is not synonymous with opposition to
mom, apple pie, baseball, or anything else we should hold dear. Here
is a pledge written by a Freeper; it’s better than our current Pledge,
though it still implicitly requires obeisance to a government—but only
insofar as the government obeys the rules: I
pledge my admiration to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence,
and to a republic bound by the Bill of Rights:
A nation blessed by Providence and dedicated to liberty and
justice for all its citizens. Here is a still-better one, written by Paul E. Smith, MD, and fully consistent with both libertarianism and the principles Republicans sometimes claim they stand for: I pledge allegiance to the ideals of the American Revolution And to the principles for which it was fought: Individual
freedom and property rights Under an impartial system of law With
liberty and justice for all. And
my own pledge: I
pledge allegiance to my God and my conscience. Of
course, it remains the case that even with pledges that are consistent
with liberty, requiring someone to recite them is inconsistent with
liberty. Further, to pledge
allegiance to anything beyond one’s fellow man in the most abstract
sense, or to God, is to pledge away one’s obedience to his own
conscience in favor of the conscience of others, for which one cannot be
responsible. Even to pledge
allegiance to one’s countrymen, as distinct from the government, is
dangerous: Prior to 1866,
pledging allegiance to your countrymen would have meant pledging
allegiance to many slave owners. Between
1866 and 1964, the pledge would have required your allegiance to many
who supported government-enforced racism and to many avowed socialists;
and since 1964 such a pledge will be to even more avowed and closet
socialists who have voted successfully to sacrifice your personal
property, without your consent, on the altars of environmentalism and
political correctness. You
are pledging your allegiance to college professors who are doing
everything in their power to institutionalize hatred of straight white
males. It goes on and on,
and it’s not a matter of pledging your allegiance only to honorable
people who innocently disagree with your politics; today it’s a matter
of pledging your allegiance to people who intend to use the power of the
state to take your property and liberty (as though those two things are distinct),
as well as to those nice people who don’t want to take your property. It is not wise to pledge your future allegiance to other men who may later behave en masse in ways that offend your conscience or that lead to great harm for many; nor to forms of government that men have created and that may leave room for improvement. Principles, God, and your conscience are reliable. Proclaim your allegiance to those, and your treatment of others should take care of itself.
discuss this column in the forum Brad Edmonds, MS in Industrial Psychology, Doctor of Musical Arts, is a banker in Alabama. |
