Non-violence: The principle of non-resistance to evil by force (“turning the other cheek”) is one that seems to have been forgotten by the institutions of our society, including most of organized religion. Instead, our nation, which possesses the world’s most powerful military, seems rather conveniently to think that force can solve any dispute in which we’re involved, and that we have the right to initiate violence “preemptively.” After years of neglect, the philosophy of non-violence – between individuals and between nations – is due for a comeback. Americans have been taught that to be strong means to be willing to fight. I disagree. I believe that the strongest men, and the strongest nations, are those with the courage to renounce force, and declare their faith in peaceful means of building relationships with others. I support a non-interventionist foreign policy, and domestic policies that minimize the use of coercion (I would work to end the federal "War on Drugs," for example).

Individualism: Force is a form of coercion, a means by which a person is denied the ability to make voluntary use of his own free will. So to reject force is also vigorously to affirm the rights of the individual, especially with respect to his relationship with “society,” or with the state. Although the utopian ideals of various forms of collectivism have a certain appeal, and their appeal to the goal of universal equality can be used to inspire people to commit voluntary acts of charity or self-sacrifice, a principled respect for the rights of individuals requires me to reject arguments that the “good of society” must be the ultimate concern of public policy-makers. Rather, government should exist to protect the rights of individuals, and to create an economic framework within which each person has the greatest degree of opportunity possible - to develop his own talents and to pursue happiness as he or she sees fit. I support a smaller federal government, with social services provided at the local or state level.

Tolerance: A nation such as ours, founded on the basis of universal principles of freedom and opportunity, will appeal to peoples of all religious, racial, ethnic, cultural, political and linguistic backgrounds. Therefore, our country is (and always will be) composed of individuals who, on the surface, may seem to hold divergent views on a number of social issues. We must be willing to recognize the good intentions and genuine beliefs of people who hold opinions that are very different from our own. We should do our best to transcend our own cultural backgrounds, and understand the intellectual rationales behind the thinking of our political opponents. Only after considering their arguments can we make our own.

Intellectual Honesty: An adherence to truth and an objective reading of history are crucial to an accurate understanding of many of the complex problems in today’s American society. Rhetoric works great for political campaigns, but truth works better for revolutionary social movements. We have to be honest with ourselves, have a willingness to admit our mistakes, and even to acknowledge that some problems may not have solutions, at least not those that can be imposed on us from above. It is hard for any leader, or any person in a position of power, to admit that he cannot overcome all of the difficulties facing his fellow men. But that is what our leaders must do. The store of human knowledge, though growing, is finite. But an adherence to truth – not to governments, policies, or personal needs – will free us from the stumbling blocks of pride and selfishness. Truth, like freedom, can bring all people together.