-I will always vote for the rights of the individual, if elected -
-I will never vote for any bill that would infringe on the rights of the individual, if elected.
Too vague; the rights of the individual can often be protected by legislation enacted to secure the rights of society. I would prefer legislation free individuals to function within and be protected by society and it's empowered institutions. Human beings naturally work collectively to secure rights; don't loose sight of that.
-I will always vote for the individual over the "common good", if elected.
That's just bizarre. If a 'common good' is what individuals working collectively (which we do) seek to achieve, such as collective action to secure voting rights or choosing to devolve the security of their person to an organised and accountable police body for example then you
are protecting the rights of the individual in pursuing that 'common good'
-I will never vote for a tax increase, if elected
Even if it helps shore up the economy? That' just fiscally irresponsible.
-I will never vote to increase spending, unless the means of funding it are provided, if elected.
So you won't increase spending, unless funding is secured, which may involve a tax increase to pay for it, which you won't vote for, because you'll never vote for a tax increase? Which one is it?
-I will introduce legislation to provide alternative means of revenue to the income tax, if elected.
Why not seek to slash income tax as I pledge to do? It's cheaper. The income tax is a fair and simple levy; it's how it's applied that is unfair. Theres no point in increasing 'user' taxation as you would have to establish a complex bureaucratic system to adminster it, which simply increases the size of the state.
-I will never vote to tax people to fund projects that they will not benefit from.
Who are you to judge what benefits people? The only way to measure 'benefit' is an analysis of pilot projects or examples elsewhere. The needle exchange programme in the UK is a tested 20 year old program covering 60 million people that has been shown to work . That's an example of a program that deserves funding because it has a track record of being beneficial.
-I will never vote for any billl requiring the seizure of private property, if elected.
I don't think we can do that anyway.
-As property rights are good for the environment, I will always vote to protect the environment by protecting property rights, if elected.
That's a very dubious linkage. If I own property and decide I'm going to cut down every tree and kill every wild animal and throw salt on the ground then concrete half of it so that water can't drain away, i'm not helping the environment. If I am causing damage to the property of my neighbours then there comes a point where their property rights must be commended
over mine.
-I will never vote to tax private property, if elected.
Can't argue with that; it should be the owner of the building who is taxed.
-------------
No point in going much further. If you consider yourself a classical liberal then heres some advice from someone who is a classical liberal
People act as independent actors but also appoint agents, whether individuals to act upon their behalf or a 'collective agent.' That is to say people will work collectively to secure their
individual rights or points of view. Socialists understand this concept and use it to their advantage, conservatives use it (in seeking to stop gay adoption for example -collective action motivated by personal opinion) but don't realise it, or wish to admit it.
Secondly a classical liberal should not be primarily motivated by the protection of property or the material, he should be primarily motivated by the rights of the individual as an indivisible person who is only divisible from his property. That means protecting the rights of the property owner and those who do
not own property. If the state subordinates the individual through heavy taxation and dependency on welfare then you seek to abolish that state supported subordination. If the subordination comes from the individual and not the state; a tyranical property owner for example then you seek to abolish that tyranny too. Classical liberals should be naturally wary of who is 'top dog' and excerts power over the liberty of others regardless of whether it is the state, a multinational or a private but extraordinary wealthy individual.
Property rights are not a sound foundation for advocating individual liberty, as property rights are selective in whom they offer liberty to.
