I have tried to sit down and write but time always gets away from me too quickly. So, in lifting a form idea from Sowell, I'll run through a few quick hits here that I have meant to post and hopefully down the road I shall elaborate on them in more detail. (I have only just placed these words on screen and will edit them tomorrow. When these parenthesis disappear, the editing is complete.)

The Constitution is an exceedingly small document for the purpose it was created. It's small because it was to restrain an exceedingly small body; the federal government of the United States. HR 3200 is massive because it is designed to control a large body; the American people.

A great many people mistake consensus of opinion with fact. But facts do not depend upon the opinions of mankind. Truth stands wholly apart from vindication by observation. Interpretation of evidence  is an extrapolation or even invention of situations to match what is observed with some level of preconceived world-view.

Justice is the direct binding of action and result, a natural association of choice with consequence. Nothing is justified by the end result. The means are of at least equal if not greater import than ends. And the means, therefore, often justify the ends. Men who break the law lose their freedom in prison. That's an attachment of consequence to action and a statement against supremacy of results.

The right to life is not the right to continue breathing at any cost. It is the moral claim of individual and sovereign self-ownership. Simply put, the right is to 'my own life' and with that right comes the right and responsibility of self-actualization, self-determination, and property. This overarching right to life can be argued for on a number of different levels but I wish to note here that a human is a natural individual. It cannot tap into any collective will without intentionally aligning itself to such duties or without external and brutal force. It does everything, at some level, to match with its own set of goals, even if that appears to follow a unified goal with others.

Collectivism has an appeal in that it frees people from the rigors and disciplines of prudent behavior. Consider this; A leads to B which leads to C. Most of us understand that. If I fail to pay my mortgage (A), I will be foreclosed on (B), and will end up homeless (C). Concern over results guides my behavior to abide by my responsibilities. Yet, under a collective system, when results are 'evenly' distributed across the community, not only does the material wealth no longer have a bearing on input, intentions become the highest currency. In Barney Frank's mind, he could NEVER be responsible for the housing bust because he believes and has pushed for a socialization of lifestyle in America, therefore, the entire nation is responsible if anything.

This is turning into a bit of a non-few-statement blog post but allow me to elaborate a tad further. Remember what I said earlier, that no human operates outside his own individual goals? Well, Barney Frank, being a collectivist, could never associate himself with consequences because he's 'operating toward a collective good'. Yet, he blames Republicans (who should have shut down the GSEs) for the housing bust. Why? Because by and large the Republican party is NOT collectivist in nature. They are individualists and therefore are subject to the consequences of their actions (or in this case, subject to the consequences of Barney Frank's actions). It's important to realize, this is not merely an arrogant belief in the left's purity of intentions. It is a concerted effort to supplant human nature with a foreign construct of elitism.

The left regards anyone who disagrees with them as idiots while the right regards disagreement as a natural state of mankind. The right believes in liberty, therefore disagreement is associated a measure of competition within the principle of individual sovereignty. The left believes in collectivism and therefore associates disagreement with hatred toward the collective or to mere imbecility. In this situation the left will never regard the right as capable of intellectual debate because of the left's perpetual refusal to accept as intellectually worthy anything which is not collective in nature. The right, also, will never be able to regard the left as capable of proper debate because of the left's voluntary constraints within a collective ideal.

I have taken the time to update some of my statements in my introduction. The additions are in red. I did not strike out the letters of the subtracted parts because it is all covered in this new edition and to allow them to remain would be mere repetition. I have edited the original post but am adding this one as well, to keep any potential visitors apprised of my fundamental beliefs.

I believe there are two things central to the stability of a free society; the sanctity of life and the absoluteness of private property. Neither of these moral bulwarks are superior or inferior to the other and the development of policy and belief stem from the two ideals remaining hand-in-hand. I also believe that these ideals are primarily defended through religious teaching and their establishment by God.

Taking logic from those views I have concluded definitively the following.

-There is no right or left. There is freedom and tyranny. Tyrants wield an authority of control while freedom-minded people wield nothing but a desire to maintain liberty. Liberty is an absence of force or coercion in the life of each individual. No one, who believes in freedom, forces anything upon anyone or from anyone unless that person has first violated the natural agreement of liberty to which such force is necessary to defend these rights.

-There is no perfection on Earth. Humanity is blessed with a stunningly diverse array of people, in thought as much as anything else. No arrangement will work perfectly to everyone's complete and satisfactory benefit. What we must seek is the best arrangement whereby people can coexist and attain their unique or common objectives for themselves.

-This diversity of humanity exposes an individuality which cannot be reconciled with any collective ideal. Humans all eat, breathe, drink, think, decide, act, speak, etc as individuals. The only instances of collective ideals are in those cases where men unionize their similar ideals to amass greater power by threat or by peer pressure. Each goal which drove each member to join such a unionized force remains an individual objective. Therefore, each individual owns the right to decide for his own being, what contracts to participate in, what faith to hold, what desires to establish, etc. I will refer to this as the 'contract of the individual'.

-Property is the manifestation of a person's choices and effort. The right to own property is absolute, since the nature of the individual's ownership of himself is absolute, and not subject to repeal based upon popular demand or fiat. Redistribution of wealth through theft or progressive taxation and recurring taxation is immoral, discouraging to an economy, and an initiator of snowball effect which functions against production, societal values, and morality. An owner has total discretion as to where, when, how, and why to distribute, destroy, dispose, dispense, stock, save, or reserve any property owned, created, received in transaction or gift, or discovered.

-People, therefore, have a right to defense of one's self and one's property as well as the persons or property to which one feels obligated in defense, contractually, neighborly, or otherwise, thus the right to items which can best assist that defense against any threat cannot morally be withheld by law. This is identical to violation of contract. The nature of humanity is the contract of the individual, once again.

-The right to freely associate is a crucial and basic principal to mankind and may not be restricted without the bound person having prior violations of these rights against someone else. This applies not only to political parties and movements but also to labor and sales. An employer has an absolute right to determine who will work for them and why someone will or will not work for them. A worker has the absolute right to determine who they will work for by formulating contracts with whomever they wish for any rate or reason. A salesman has sole discretion as to whom they will sell to and for whatever reasons. A customer has the right to decide where they expend their value for any reason at all. Contracts to these ends, formulated between agents of the economy are binding and must be upheld by the law.

-Life is the most valuable commodity of all to a person. It cannot be violated without just cause (self defense) or consent (that is, for example, as a person may give consent for dangerous assignment by contract to a construction company whose specialty is high steel). However, it is not a violation of one person's life that another person's property remains intact. Suppose a man may die without charitable contribution from good citizens. He still has no right to prop up his own life by stealing from another man, whether or not that man can afford the abuse, whether or not the abuser sends government to act in his stead. One life is not protected in the trampling of another.

-Willful violation of the right to one's own life or one's own property repeals all these rights for the violator and thus they subjugate themselves to the necessary steps for a civil society of ordered liberty to maintain it's precarious stance or to an individual's right to self defense. This is identical to violation of contract, nullifying the contract's obligations to the violator. The nature of humanity is the contract of the individual, once again.

-Travel is as necessary as the rest of the rights. A person who is free to do as he pleases (rights circumscribed by the identical rights of others) but only permitted to be so in a certain area, has no rights at all. With the ability to travel comes increased abilities to associate, contract, and transact. Therefore, no restrictions may be placed upon mobility except for those to ensure mobility is not a direct threat to the other rights. This is why we have drivers' licenses and we search people before they board aircraft among other things as well as allowing private land owners to maintain sovereignty over that land.

-The Constitution is, in originalist principal, for the restriction of government to its sole and declared duties which are to stop force and redress fraud. Freedom-minded people do not need governing in any sense. The diversity of mankind not only demands a system where people are not subject to collective will, but requires a government to preserve the natural rights of mankind from those who wish to impose unnatural violations of humanity. Those violations vary from petty crime to invasion from an enemy force. Thus, government has a function in an imperfect society, not to create perfection, but to protect against force and reestablish justice of as much imperfection as possible. In that sense, government is the greatest threat to liberty and must be governed, itself, and harshly. That is the purpose for the Constitution of the United States of America.

-Freedom of advocacy and speech is necessary, however, not as wide open as commonly thought. Harassment and public endangerment circumscribe this right which is otherwise unencumbered.

-A nation of ordered liberty must be a republic of some sort. All other forms of governance are fundamentally at odds with liberty in their inability to reign in the absolute power of mob rule. A republic can only serve as a bulwark against this for so long, until the mob overrules the minority or until, as is also currently happening, the society loses all moral navigation and boundaries. Yet, we cannot simply throw the only baby out with the bathwater.

I may amend and append these statements further as necessary but the ideals are sound, though incomplete.

Once again, I am prompted by recent conversations to pour out my thoughts and so this blog may quickly be mutating further into a dictation of my running thoughts, more so than a listing of carefully constructed arguments. Both are beneficial for the intellectual pursuits which were and are my purpose for creating such a vent in the first place.

The matter today, is one of the various forms of government. Our early history is teeming with people who disagreed greatly on the details of government; upon what strengths it should posses and exercise, upon its arrangement, upon its officers' titles. The list of known debates goes on for quite a ways. These disagreements were bitter, even to the point of hatred between holders of opposing viewpoints. Many argue that this is similar to modern times, in that we find our citizenry bitterly debating policies, government, and every other possible item beyond the point of hatred for each other. But I think there are a few grave differences which belie a gross injustice occurring amongst our people.

It is clear to me that the left has issued unto itself a warrant for power in every form and at any necessary cost. This mandate is not new, nor is it unique to the American statists. A great host of governments and regimes have organized with a self-appointed duty of control over people in one form or another. Of late, many governments have cushioned these chains to soften the societal slavery which they establish and maintain. Other regimes continue that historical tradition of utterly trampling anyone who opposes them and their hegemony.

There is an endless variance between these forms of government, when laid in comparison with every detail exposed. But there is an underlying similarity in which some seek to control other lives beyond preventing force and redressing fraud amongst citizens. In the education systems, and among the general public as well, there seems to be a broad acceptance of the notion that each of these forms of government have their place on a graph. For instance, communism would be on the left and fascism would be placed on the right, according to conventional wisdom.

But does the color of the chains binding a man change the fact that he is bound? Are not all forms of tyranny similar in their affect on each individual? The distinction between socialism, Marxism, and fascism is merely that of method and measure. The form of tyranny matters only to agents promoting it, in their operation and their supposed goals. Even those who try to throw off the controls of their oppressors  care little for what form of government they are addressing until they have a chance to institute a government themselves. Their primary concern remains their own lack of power or liberty.

Many try to create distinctions between these tyrannies and even demonize their current political opponents. The left has branded the Nazi party of 1930s Germany a "right-wing" party. (Author's note: those interested in the hard evidence of Adolf Hitler, Bismarck, and the Nazi party's leftism should read Dr. John Ray's article Hitler was a Socialist) But fascism is really another way to control citizens and as shown repeatedly by Jonah Goldberg among dozens of others, fascism is much more often a tactic used by the political left.

Nationalism is branded to the right and the first historical example with nationalism which is brought up by the statists is, once again, Nazi Germany. Sure, nationalism is a considerable problem, if the nation being supported is engaging in depravity, despotism, and deplorable activities. On that point, the American left could never be labeled American nationalists because they regard our history as one of appallingly unforgivable men acting horridly. They throw out the entire works of our founders and framers on the basis of being "white slave-owners" rather than take an honest look at history. We American conservatives regard nationalism as a matter of pride in our history, since that history is a matter of continually overcoming human flaws thereby changing America, and by proxy the world, to become far better than the historical average, where slavery, for instance, is overwhelmingly common and human equality is all but a ghost.

In this rite, America has rolled back the constancy of tyrant states permeating every continent except that one which is not naturally inhabited. We have unleashed the power of the individual to create lifestyles which could not have been imagined just 50 years ago. Our founders and framers set forth a system of restraints placed upon the government, rather than the governed, which is uncommon to this planet, but a sense held by a great number of people who have dwelt on this Earth and never saw the arrangement of their yearnings even remotely possible We have done more than to take part in the ending of hard slavery in the modern world. We established our declaration of independency from Britain and the rest of the world with words whose operation in history were intellectually present at times but void in almost every situation; that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...".

Finally, to the item which sparked my mind to consider these things in this order. Several years ago, during my political coming of age, I wondered, why do we celebrate our independence on a day when our nation remained in tyranny? Why should we commemorate the fourth of July when on that day in 1776 our colonies' people were still subject to a tightly-fisted king whose military might was considered by the world to be nearly a rival of God, Himself? Why not celebrate October 19, 1781 or the day ratification of the Treaty of Paris?

The answer is in Jefferson's magnificent document. We don't celebrate our independence because we were freed from Britain. We celebrate our liberty on the anniversary of the continental congress' adoption of the Declaration of Independence, because it makes very clear that independence is not a situation which is to be occasionally proper for mankind. Our individual right to liberty is quite sovereign from the situations in which we find ourselves. Morality is indifferent to the opinions of common sentiment. Things which are wrong, stay wrong and things which are right do not suddenly become wrong.

How are we to know what is right in the governing of mankind, or in having no government, for that matter? We may look to our Creator and we may look to His creation. The sentiments I hold on the former are assured to ensnare some prospective readers in a host of rebukes and rebuttals which I would expect and would prefer to answer more fully without compromising the efficacy of this work. Therefore, I will focus on the latter; His creation.

We are each born individually. We crave, construct, cry, and console as individuals. Nearly every verb in the English language has the basis of an action as it relates to an individual and that goes for nearly every language, at least those of which I am aware. There is no collective mind which unifies people without the agreement upon mutually inclusive individual goals, which compel people to unionize their efforts and in so doing, create an illusion of herd mentality. It seems to be unchallengeable that every facet of our nature and, as follows, our society is built upon individuality, when you get to the core reasoning behind each action. I see no reason to disabuse our human nature of its aspect which we could never begin to separate it out, without enslaving the remainder of mankind's existence to misery. This is because individuals will always have goals which are not mutually inclusive, even beside those which are. Such goals of a non-collective nature would, necessarily be forced by the wayside to make room for the objectives of a herded, resistant totality.

So, why did my subject matter take such a great shift from an analysis of modern opinion of graphing political systems to our Revolution and the nature of man? I think it should be made plain to anyone that trying to graph the forms of government and locate the moderate-most of them and establish that as the proper average of mankind's desired government is, really, a way to mask tyranny. It ought to be stated at every opportunity, being in favor of an extreme amount of individual liberty is not an extremist position at all, it is merely a principled and logical belief in the nature of mankind. Barry Goldwater once stated that "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

He was right. All forms of government which practice controls over the freedoms of men, be those controls softened or hardened, are invariably immoral. In my piece Inescapable Justice, I tried to convey that free peoples choosing the wrong thing will soon have a great want for their liberty. Observe the people who have few choices in their health care decisions in England, people who have no choices over their political leaders in Iran, and people who have little choice over their education in America and you will soon realize that every new program of government is one which overtakes a part of a life rightfully yours to manage and with which to be responsible.

Have I made the statement that Marxism is no different than the barest hint of government control? I've made the association, no doubt, but I state again, the differences are not of their immorality. The differences between forms of tyrannical government are only those of method and measure and one should be prepared to see the differing situations of method and measure as a matter of time.

Given infinite time, someday this nation will choose to throw away freedom entirely, rather than bit-by-bit. We should no longer permit either concept any inkling of entrance into our lives. Choose individual freedom on every issue and support a civil society which establishes and maintains government only to do those limited objectives to correct for man's imperfect individuality. We are a long way from that at the moment, so we had all better dig in.

Short and simple. I'm on my way out the door to go camping, but this is something that's been rolling around my mind for a few years.

It is not possible to 'overshoot' freedom. It isn't possible to create a system in which the individual has a level of control over his own life that is 'too great' to be allowed. Many, in politics and amongst the advocates of covetousness, try to state that some people can't take care of themselves or that when left more completely free, people are more likely to become victims of fraud and force.

Well, perhaps in an anarchic system, fraud and force would rule the day. That is why real freedom is a natural contract between individuals that no one will foul with each others business and everyone will operate according to the contracts they establish with each other.

When that contract is violated, there is a need for a universal backlash which is not democratic, which does not merely engage in the fiat of mob justice, which is not reciprocity but rather is blind justice. That is why we have established a government. To stop force and redress fraud.

This leads us to another need, that of a binding contract by which the government ought to be held in its operation; a Constitution.

Further, having a Constitution which is unchangeable would enslave subsequent generations to the decisions of a previous one. While human nature demands we all be left alone in our freedom, it is that freedom which allows us to choose against that human nature, hypocritically, unwisely, and illogically. Therefore, we have processes of amendment and election.

It follows that these people will eventually choose a form of government which is unnatural and which oppresses the human spirit of freedom. We are engaged in such a transition at this moment. So, it also stands to reason that our freedoms must be maintained by a philosophical adoration for the precarious system which allows the unhindered expression of liberty, man's truest and most often suppressed character. Morality and personal reservation become utterly crucial components to the individual's right to decide for himself.

I have not said anything profound here. But I think we are at a point when very simple concepts are profoundly ignored and hidden from and by a great subset of our society. I only hope that my own contributions in discussion, debate, and writing help to illuminate those very basic ideals which are more often than not buried by the flaw of humanity.

Reality works a certain way. The world in its physical nature, behaves according to certain laws which we can observe and upon which we very dearly depend. Imagine the chaos which would ensue should matter decide it does not need to abide by the laws which manifest as gravity? Earth should soon find herself void of atmosphere and anything not solidly planted. She should also be stuck on a beeline out of our solar system. Take away any rule of physics and it becomes clear how very different and terrible this universe could be.

For some reason, the physical world operates according to a strict code of conduct. Matter and energy consistently interact in very specific ways. Humans too are built upon a system of law. Similar to another law of physics, it demands a reaction for every action. For instance, a person who behaves in a very productive manner is likely to reap benefits of that labor as a result. While there are several other factors, including luck, marketplace dynamics, and efficiency, the rule is generally clear. Honest achievement of an objective is entwined, indeed irretrievably ensnared, within effort. The opposite plays out as well. When someone acts flippantly toward their stated goals and engages in imprudent action, it is only justice when his desires do not come to fruition. A field bears little bounty when neglected.

Other laws of humanity are very crucial to the way we interact. We do not permit killing as part of a civilized society because of that Unalienable Right to life. And some of the other Self-Evident Rights demonstrate that each individual is wholly owned by himself and cannot be morally owned, in total or in part, by any one else. Because humans are all born with this truly spiritual Right, in that no 'freedom gene' can be identified, individually incalculable value is fastened to each human life, only to be thrown off if that person so wishes to engage in uncivilized action, to which a response of self-preservation is required by the rest of society or by an individual who may believe his own Rights threatened.

This is all a very elaborate way of stating what most people understand, deep down, intrinsically. For actions or inaction, there are consequences. Being in control of our actions, each human should behave in a manner which is to direct the consequences they intend. Additionally, being the actor and the setter of goals, each human ought to be sole owner of the results.

Unfortunately, humanity has taken, most of the time, to bending this rule so that consequences are spread to others. In the game of pool, when the cue is launched at the eight ball, the force applied to the cue frequently ends up pushing the eight ball further than the cue. The same way, humans have operated, through the power of force by government, to live at the expense of others. Welfare is an excellent example. People have operated without any sort of productivity whatsoever and yet receive amounts of funding for this lack of proper behavior. And nearly every attempt to reform the system, demand personal accountability for oneself, has been challenged as heartlessness and plutocracy.

But no action can be without consequence. What is the consequence of placing people upon roles where they are provided for without a requirement of effort? The answer is very simple, the demand for additional welfare grows, rather than shrinks as the stated intentions of such forced provision initially had declared would occur. Only a sense of pride would drive a man to self-reliance and in our supremely narcissistic culture, pride and especially self-reliance take a distant back seat to instant gratification at any cost. A great host of other illicit actions by government are provided justification by majority support with the ever-ready application of good intentions.

But the laws of humanity are not to be dissuaded. Psychology and sociology play a big part in how people interact, and it is a truth of the human condition that people are primarily concerned with their own, individual well-being before they are concerned with much else. (After all, a homeless person cannot employ anyone, can he?) This rule, in concert with the Right of natural self-ownership, splits a wide chasm into the mantra of anti-free market activists. People will not work perpetually for the benefit of strangers or the collective. People adjust their behavior based upon their rate of return. (Quotes from Jason Lewis). What all this means is that productivity amongst the productive class declines as a greater portion of what they create is confiscated and illegitimately gifted to the unproductive.

Is that heartless? Perhaps it seems that way but it really is not. It makes little sense for a man to work himself night and day when he will only be taxed a greater amount for each additional revenue band he can reach. How exactly is this supposed to drive the aspirations within each man to become more productive? With certain tax rates, it is overwhelmingly likely that very productive people would find themselves much happier working only to a fraction of their potential. This has the end result of decreasing productivity. (Philosophically, this is undeniable. Economically it is enormously evidenced. Check out the works of John Lott, Thomas Sowell, Henry Hazlitt, Frederick Von Hayek, and Walter Williams.) When productivity goes down, the society itself is being punished, naturally, for behaving against the laws which govern human nature and human interaction.

Try as they might, no politician can get around the nature of humanity, at least not without destroying it entirely in the process. Many people understand that communism only works on robotic automatons and none of us wishes to be constrained to goals which are thrust upon us by all-powerful governing bureaucrats. But too many in our time have insisted upon confounding themselves to generate reasoning why their particular grievance should be the one given special consideration.

A society which cannot abide by the laws of human nature is bound to destroy itself or plunder its worth until nothing remains of freedom, prosperity, and rights. The tragedy which is being enacted in our society is the revelation of a human flaw in our natural being which corrupts us permanently, to override justice with jealousy and convert law into the whim of the democratic majority.

In my own life, my own personal financial situation, I have a great deal to gain by plunder of those wealthier than I. Yet, it is my yearning for a society which acts toward individual justice, which repels any thought of impropriety. Each person should take total ownership over his own life and live with his actions, rather than thrusting upon all society the punishment which is trampled rights and the devastation which results of such inhuman behavior. It is heartbreaking to see effort destroyed by the vanity of politicians who believe themselves capable of deciding what is best for us.

No man takes initiative under central planning. If true equality is such that no person's property is greater or lesser in value than that of anyone else, then some serious questions arise which I believe have not been answered.

First off; what are the methods used? Are people given a certain amount of goods and value each week? Year? Decade?

If one man squanders his apportionment he suddenly becomes poor relative to those people who savor their allowance. Is this careless man entitled to another apportionment for parity's sake? How is that equality if he ultimately receives more than everyone else?

And who decides what is worth what to whom? Isn't that relative to each person's own viewpoint and goals?

And if each person is equal, shouldn't each have an equal vote on what is worth what and who should get what (since some items may be more precious to some people than others). How can such votes be tallied without the bias of those counting and measuring the results to be enacted?

Shouldn't each person also work and produce on an identical level to be fair in tasking as well as in reward? Should the man who squandered his allowance be forced to work extra to match the per-item labor costs of his consumption? How could the system be declared fair if he has less than others, but also how could the system be called fair if he has the a second share without effort in conjunction with his receipt of property?

Logistically, there is no way on this Earth to ask each person what they think is fair. Human nature will pollute the results even if it could be technically feasible.

Every person will try to get all they can for themselves and their friends while attempting to reduce their input (production, labor) as much as possible. Each will make the case that they should not be required to input into the system at all.

So, since fairness cannot be achieved through absolutely equal democracy, how can we fairly decide on a council which will always deal perfect equality or even near perfect equality? Is a council not also subject to those human traits of greed which lead to nepotism? And won't every individual who is not on the council claim themselves still dealt the shallowest hand?

History shows us a psychological axiom; the grass is always greener on the other side and no one will be satisfied with what they are given, apportioned by an elite ultra-smart few.

The truth is there is the only way to be really fair and equitable to everyone is to affirm their own right and responsibility for their own goals, actions, and accomplishments. Of course, we humans are fallible, which is why we have government in the first place; to protect us from outside coercion and force and to redress violations of our legal equality between each other. Our Constitutional republican government was designed for these purposes only; to protect against force and provide legal recourse against fraud.

In a society of self-actualized individuals, there is no one to blame for failure but oneself.  There is also no one to reap success but oneself and it is far more likely that one (and most) can be successful, when individually unharnessed, because the failure of an individual is limited in its scope and fluid in recovery.

This failure may seem difficult to overcome, faced on an individual level, but when compared to the failure of a central planning bureaucracy which is not subject to replacement, individual failure is far more palatable. This becomes especially more true granting that individuals who have not failed are always there to help those who have. Who helps the government when it thoroughly drops the ball? No entity is capable by power or by funding.

Government has a voracious appetite for power, even in representative government. That is the purpose of representation, to hold power. Those reigns, however, must be steering the government away from that natural desire and it is we, the people, who have held them for all this time. It is not long before the horses will wrest control of those delicate leather straps away from us and run this nation roughshod over a cliff.

Compassion must not be mutated into lawlessness. We have seen a great shift, not into charity, but into the devastation of the property rights of one portion of our population for the supposed benefits of another portion. Recently, the declarations have taken on a universal nature, supposing that a wealthy business owner, who built his company from the ground up, would be better off with his worth of his labor being confiscated and squandered by someone who cannot know the effort which went into producing it.

Remember that government bureaucrats may realize what they can do with someone's money, but it is outside the realm of possibility for them to know what that money is worth. Only the person who spends their time laboring to earn it, can know what the actual value of that money is.

It is absolutely vacant of compassion to pretend that you may steal from one man because you perceive needs in another.

This is why income and wealth disparity has become a central concern of the left. It creates a few assumptions.

1. That every human is deserving, not of legal equality, but of material equality. (See below)

2. That no human is capable of greater or lesser productive output than any other.

3. That differences in material wealth and welfare are a mater of improper distribution, often blamed upon the wealthy. Terms like plutocratic are thrown out in a cavalier and specious manner.

4. That these 'disparate' properties may only be solved by confiscatory redistribution, to punish the 'wealthy class' and re-equalize the property.

This notion is void of the reality of economic production, and even of biology, genetics, physiology, and sociology.  In advocating a forceful redistribution of property, the left quite literally advocates government backed theft and soft slavery.

Because each man, does indeed, through his own initiative, innovation, and individualism, produce for his own benefit and the benefit of those for whom he cares the most. Transaction is a natural byproduct of each individual operating toward his own goals. So long as enforcement of civil law is maintained, in those instances where one man injures another or refuses to live up to contract, each man is fully charged with the task of achieving his own goals, without hindering another immorally.

Another note on the first two presuppositions of the left. Legal equality and material equality do not comport. In all reality, material equality is not something which can ever be achieved. It is impossible to provide exactly equal portions of all the property which is available to every human. The logistics alone are daunting, without even touching the semantics (that each man values identical items differently). Legal equality is also a very elusive system but it is not so laughably impossible as material equality. Imperfect humans can do quite a good job of nearing legal equality and we should strive for that through greater amounts of individual freedom for all.

And finally the second note, the left, because of its statements, must cleave to one of two extrapolations of their logic. It is laughable to say, 'Every human is capable only of identical output of another human.' We know that is biologically impossible and I doubt any on the left would try to defend such a statement. But if their statements of unfairness, proved by the wealthy having more than the rest, is any indication of their viewpoints, such a ludicrous statement of productivity, it stands to reason, must be their true belief.

The only way they try to cop out of their flawed logic is to make an appeal to empathy. They say, 'Yes, wealthy people may indeed produce more but natural human rights extend to a greater sphere than the Constitution states, such as right to a job, right to a home, right to health care... etc'

Leftists ignore a simple fact, however. Rights co-exist. They do not contradict each other. How can any man have a right to something which was produced by someone else, unless the professor of that right believes that men have no authority to their own bodies? If the effort and labor of one may be acceptably confiscated for use by another, how can one be said to have any personal rights at all?

This illustrates very clearly why people like our President state that "Our individual salvation depends upon our collective salvation." They do not believe individuals have any rights which supersede the goals of the entire population. Once again, all humans are different and, if made subject to the total goals of a population, are slaves to that organization.

As Americans and citizen individuals, we declare ourselves to be independent of reliance on the governments (local, state, and federal, and more harshly, foreign) and of enslavement to each other through their monopolies on force. Each of us, being born of individual and unique nature, are entitled only to equal treatment under the law. Thus, our rights to set goals, work to achieve them, and bear the full result of our actions, are not privileges which can be morally interrupted or circumvented by governments. Neither can a majority vote provide legitimacy to such an action, in as much as a majority, having a power, is capable of acts both just and unjust. A mere plurality of support does not lend credibility to a false system. Morality and truth remain pillars quite apart from their acceptance or rejection. The quality of our civil society is determined by our understanding and receipt of these pillars.

What does all this mean? Very simple. People have limits on their available time. We all eventually die. We also all have unique goals, talents, and tact. No one is born absolutely identical to anyone else and no one lives an identical life to anyone else. The enactment of these goals, talents, and methods takes the form of human interaction: production, exchange, and expenditure.

Noting these axioms, only one conclusion of morality remains; that individuals have exclusive property ownership rights over themselves, what goals they wish to achieve, how to go about accomplishing them, and what they produce along the way, so long as those methods do not violate the identical rights of other humans.

As an introduction to a blog, most certainly to see very very very little, in the way of readership, I will note a few things.

First, I am creating this blog to add my half cent to the world conversation and also as a place I can send people in reference of what I believe, in the event that time does not permit full discussions on all topics (as it never does).

Secondly, I don't intend to do a great deal of events blogging, if any at all. I may end up doing some, but primarily I want to use this as a place to establish and explore philosophical matters and then note how they may or are or should be playing into real life scenarios. But this isn't going to be a breaking news blog. Malkin, Coulter, Steyn, Sowell, Stossel.... the list goes on forever. There are ample sources for people interested.

Now, to what I believe. I posted this as an introduction to another blog. I'll update it and add to it. It will give an interested browsers a good base of what sort of thoughts I have.

I believe there are two things central to the stability of a free society; the sanctity of life and the absoluteness of private property. Neither of these moral bulwarks are superior or inferior to the other and the development of policy and belief stem from the two ideals remaining hand-in-hand. I also believe that these ideals are primarily defended through religious teaching and their establishment by God.

Taking logic from those views I have concluded definitively the following.

-There is no right or left. There is freedom and tyranny. Tyrants wield an authority of control while freedom-minded people wield nothing but a desire to maintain liberty. Liberty is an absence of force or coercion in the life of each individual. No one, who believes in freedom, forces anything upon anyone or from anyone unless that person has first violated the natural agreement of liberty to which such force is necessary to defend these rights.

-There is no perfection on Earth. Humanity is blessed with a stunningly diverse array of people, in thought as much as anything else. No arrangement will work perfectly to everyone's complete and satisfactory benefit. What we must seek is the best arrangement whereby people can coexist and attain their unique or common objectives for themselves.

-This diversity of humanity exposes an individuality which cannot be reconciled with any collective ideal. Humans all eat, breathe, drink, think, decide, act, speak, etc as individuals. The only instances of collective ideals are in those cases where men unionize their similar ideals to amass greater power by threat or by peer pressure. Each goal which drove each member to join such a unionized force remains an individual objective. Therefore, each individual owns the right to decide for his own being, what contracts to participate in, what faith to hold, what desires to establish, etc. I will refer to this as the 'contract of the individual'.

-Property is the manifestation of a person's choices and effort. The right to own property is absolute, since the nature of the individual's ownership of himself is absolute, and not subject to repeal based upon popular demand or fiat. Redistribution of wealth through theft or progressive taxation and recurring taxation is immoral, discouraging to an economy, and an initiator of snowball effect which functions against production, societal values, and morality. An owner has total discretion as to where, when, how, and why to distribute, destroy, dispose, dispense, stock, save, or reserve any property owned, created, received in transaction or gift, or discovered.

-People, therefore, have a right to defense of one's self and one's property as well as the persons or property to which one feels obligated in defense, contractually, neighborly, or otherwise, thus the right to items which can best assist that defense against any threat cannot morally be withheld by law. This is identical to violation of contract. The nature of humanity is the contract of the individual, once again.

-The right to freely associate is a crucial and basic principal to mankind and may not be restricted without the bound person having prior violations of these rights against someone else. This applies not only to political parties and movements but also to labor and sales. An employer has an absolute right to determine who will work for them and why someone will or will not work for them. A worker has the absolute right to determine who they will work for by formulating contracts with whomever they wish for any rate or reason. A salesman has sole discretion as to whom they will sell to and for whatever reasons. A customer has the right to decide where they expend their value for any reason at all. Contracts to these ends, formulated between agents of the economy are binding and must be upheld by the law.

-Life is the most valuable commodity of all to a person. It cannot be violated without just cause (self defense) or consent (that is, for example, as a person may give consent for dangerous assignment by contract to a construction company whose specialty is high steel). However, it is not a violation of one person's life that another person's property remains intact. Suppose a man may die without charitable contribution from good citizens. He still has no right to prop up his own life by stealing from another man, whether or not that man can afford the abuse, whether or not the abuser sends government to act in his stead. One life is not protected in the trampling of another.

-Willful violation of the right to one's own life or one's own property repeals all these rights for the violator and thus they subjugate themselves to the necessary steps for a civil society of ordered liberty to maintain it's precarious stance or to an individual's right to self defense. This is identical to violation of contract, nullifying the contract's obligations to the violator. The nature of humanity is the contract of the individual, once again.

-Travel is as necessary as the rest of the rights. A person who is free to do as he pleases (rights circumscribed by the identical rights of others) but only permitted to be so in a certain area, has no rights at all. With the ability to travel comes increased abilities to associate, contract, and transact. Therefore, no restrictions may be placed upon mobility except for those to ensure mobility is not a direct threat to the other rights. This is why we have drivers' licenses and we search people before they board aircraft among other things as well as allowing private land owners to maintain sovereignty over that land.

-The Constitution is, in originalist principal, for the restriction of government to its sole and declared duties which are to stop force and redress fraud. Freedom-minded people do not need governing in any sense. The diversity of mankind not only demands a system where people are not subject to collective will, but requires a government to preserve the natural rights of mankind from those who wish to impose unnatural violations of humanity. Those violations vary from petty crime to invasion from an enemy force. Thus, government has a function in an imperfect society, not to create perfection, but to protect against force and reestablish justice of as much imperfection as possible. In that sense, government is the greatest threat to liberty and must be governed, itself, and harshly. That is the purpose for the Constitution of the United States of America.

-Freedom of advocacy and speech is necessary, however, not as wide open as commonly thought. Harassment and public endangerment circumscribe this right which is otherwise unencumbered.

-A nation of ordered liberty must be a republic of some sort. All other forms of governance are fundamentally at odds with liberty in their inability to reign in the absolute power of mob rule. A republic can only serve as a bulwark against this for so long, until the mob overrules the minority or until, as is also currently happening, the society loses all moral navigation and boundaries. Yet, we cannot simply throw the only baby out with the bathwater.

I may amend and append these statements further as necessary but the ideals are sound, though incomplete.