Roman Joch, a conservative and director of the Civic Institute, was appointed an adviser to the Prime Minister. This information outraged many, and many of Joch's articles began to be pointed out. We do not have to agree with Mr Joch, but I think that the whole debate around Mr Joch is in one direction only - by slandering him. We therefore provide you with a transcript of Roman Joch's speech from his speech at the ODS - Vision 2020 idea conference.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,
We have been living in freedom for 20 years. This is a historical anomaly. I repeat, this is a historical anomaly.
Namely, only an absolute minority of all people in history could enjoy life in a free society. Most have always lived under one form or another of tyranny. Thus, statistically speaking, not freedom, but tyranny is what corresponds to human nature.
Freedom is not a given at all. It is very difficult to get it, but very easy to lose it.
What are the dangers of freedom in our country now?
I see 4 essentials.
First, many people tend to think that when I don't have something and want it, I just vote for it. I don't have it, I want it, so I vote for it. I get it easily, without work, without effort, without effort, without performance.
I'm just checking it out.
This can only work to a limited extent and for a short time. Definitely not in the long run. In the long run, this leads to the fall of freedom and democracy. And yet it is the eternal temptation of social democracy. A temptation that can eventually disrupt the free form of government. Then it would be true that the difference between democracy and social democracy is like the difference between an act and an act of reverence!
Secondly, the multiplication and production of new so-called rights on the running passport, those referred to as group or collective. The problem is that these so-called collective rights are not real rights, ie personal freedoms, but are group privileges that only members of those groups have at the expense of everyone else. These privelgies are realizable only at the cost of trampling on real rights, ie our freedoms.
The difference between real rights, ie personal freedoms, and so-called group rights, is like the difference between a jacket and a straitjacket.
That is why it is absolutely essential to insist on equality of rights and freedoms for all people, on the same equal freedom for all, regardless of which group one belongs to. I have rights as a human being, as a human being, not on the basis of my gender, skin color or orientation. And I have these rights sufficiently secured by our Constitution and the Constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I do not need any other laws and codes of rights, they would only limit our current rights.
Thirdly, it is crucial to insist on the protection of property rights as the basis of all our freedoms. All our rights and freedoms can actually be transferred to property rights.
For example, freedom of speech and expression means that I have the right to speak where they want to hear me. But it does not mean my unlimited right to speak against your will in your living room.
You would give it to me, and rightly so!
In the same way, we have the right to listen to loud techno music - but only on the land of a person who agrees, not on the land of a person without his permission.
And finally, fourth, the great threat to freedom is what is called the "legislative whirlwind" - a hasty effort to pass new and new laws, that overflow and the flood of more and more and more laws.
This destroys the rule of law.
And it also destroys freedom.
In fact, it is not true that "legislation is lacking", as we often hear and from different angles.
In fact, we have a surplus of legislation.
Why was development in Great Britain in the 19th century peaceful, peaceful and towards greater freedom; and why were developments in France in the same century full of various bloody revolutions and counter-revolutions, and therefore of non-freedom?
This is illustrated by the following anecdote:
A British gentleman comes to the library in the 19th century and asks the librarian for a copy of the French constitution.
The librarian glances at him and says, "Sorry, sir, but we don't keep a periodical!"
That is why I am eagerly waiting for the politician-statesman, who will say and then also fulfill:
"I am not coming to pass new laws, but to repeal the old ones - the unnecessary and harmful ones and the ones that cost taxpayers too much money. And then, when I am accused of someone neglecting the interests of my constituents, I will tell him that I thought their main interest was freedom, and I do what I can for it! ”
Ladies and gentlemen, we have had freedom for 20 years. However, freedom is not self-evident. As the man whose late 99th birthday we could now remember in February said, Ronald Reagan:
"Freedom is only one generation away from defeat at a time."
Freedom is always secured in advance for only one generation - the one that secures and protects and maintains it. The task of protecting freedom again and again is always a task for each new generation.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us hope that we, our children and the children of our children will continue to enjoy freedom.
But if not by chance, if we accidentally lose freedom, at least those in the future will be able to declare about us:
"For freedom, they did everything they could."
Thank you for your attention.