R. C. Hoiles’ Editorial Policies (circa 1960’s)

The following statement was found February, 2005 in RC files. It was written in response to

several publishers asking RC to state clearly the policies that Freedom Newspapers should follow on the editorial pages. It is undated but appears to be written in the early to mid 1960’s In the same file were two Opinion page credo’s that were used interchangeably during the 1960’s

Dick Wallace

2005

I have been asked to put in written form the editorial policies we believe should be

followed in order to make the newspapers controlled by Freedom Newspapers, Inc. better

serve the community, the state and the nation. So unless someone can show us wherein the

following policies violate principles that will promote more and better jobs, and at the

same time more good will among mankind, the following is an outline of our beliefs.

Since no one can determine right from wrong or reason without some starting

point from which to reason, it is necessary to set down a starting point. That starting

point is that no individual, no group has a right to initiate force or use coercion against

another individual or group to get part of his life energy. It seems to us that this

principle is embodied in the commandments “Thou shalt not murder", “Thou shalt not

steal” and "Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to a follow countryman”, and

that it is also included is the Golden Rule and the Declaration of Independence. This is

the guide that we think should be used in determining the editorial policies of our

newspapers.

This policy makes us take a stand against any actions of any individual, or group or

government that initiates force. This principle requires the newspaper to be very careful

in selecting the columnists and editorials it runs.

It should also be a guide as to the letters to the editor that we run. We do not believe

that any letter to the editor that reflects on the honesty or character of an individual should

be run without the writer giving concrete evidence substantiating his accusation. This is

true because it is just as immoral to repeat a falsehood as it is to originate it. Letters to the

editor that do not reflect on any individual, even if they might add to confusion might be

run once or twice from the same individual, then if he will not answer questions about

what he is advocating or opposing, it seems unfair to our readers to continue to give him

space.

The same policy of course should be followed in news reporting. Any time the

newspaper is in error in making any report, it should be glad to make a correction.

Editors and reporters gain quite a lot of understanding by permitting their

suggestions or ideas or statements to be questioned, and if they cannot defend them

without contradicting themselves or facing a dilemma, they are evidently in error. This is

so because one truth or principle is always in agreement with another truth or principle. It

seems to be the best way known of discerning fact from error.

We know of no other newspaper in the United States that use as a guide the theory

that no man or group of men should initiate force. This makes us oppose any

discriminatory legislation—local, county, state or federal. It makes us take the stand that

no government or no subdivision of the government has a moral right to do anything that

each and every individual does not have a right to do. If we are consistent with this

principle we have to be against tax supported schools, minimum wages, “social security”,

and any law that interferes with people making voluntary contracts and any law that

interferes with an unhampered market.

It would seem that this also makes us take a stand against any form of taxation,

because taxation is a form of initiating force. If one believes in taxation or initiating force,

it would seem that he must discard the commandments against stealing and coveting, the

Golden Rule and the Declaration of Independence that says “government derive their just

powers from the consent of the governed”. Since no man can give another man’s consent,

then if we believe in this principle, governments should be supported on a voluntary basis.

If a man does not consent to voluntarily paying, he should not be compelled to pay. The

reason is that the minute you compel him, you are violating moral principles and cannot

tell the difference between that form of government and the compulsion of communism

other than degree.

And if a man is compelled to pay, in order to promote any semblance of justice, he

would have to help run the government. This class of people would soon get control of the

government and use it to exploit those people who had not thought through the principles

on which this government was formed.

Benjamin Franklin said that he did not want to put anything in the paper that he

published that was not entertaining or useful. If any person can point out how the above

policies would not be useful and helpful, we of course would be glad to change our

policies. However, until such time as the above is shown to be inconsistent or even not

practical in the long run, we believe it is to the best interest to all to attempt to follow these

policies.

While, of course, we never expect to have a perfect government—that is a

government with the consent of the governed, we want to use these ideals as guides to the

direction we want to go. Just the same, as if we were lost in the desert at night we would

use the North Star as a guide, although we never would expect to get to the North Star.

R. C. Hoiles

Freedom Newspapers, Inc.