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.

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.

I snagged this from a forum at work to illustrate some of the thinking which pervades our world view opposites. In italics is a co-worker whose name I edited out for privacy concerns. The normal face print is my response.

[QUOTE]May 27, 2009 11:05 am

Where you see a strong centralization of power, Aaron, I see a balance of power.  The Federal government gives power to the individual by protecting them from the power of the state.  And the state protects the individual by giving them localized control over many matters that should not be taken up by the Federal government.  The Constitution distributes that power by setting up certain guidelines, but it is not meant to give more power to any government entity over the next.  The rights of the individual are listed, and the Federal government is often needed to step in between those rights and the power of the state (segregation, slavery, etc).  If the majority of power lied within the power of the state, at the sacrifice of power from the Federal government, we'd have tyranny by the state, which you seem to be fine with.

With that said, I see no reason to coddle someone else's ideas here.  I won't ask people to clarify, unless I'm not sure if I'm understanding the points they are making.  If they make a point, and it's clear as day, I will treat that person like a compentent adult that does not need to make three or four other posts to backpedal or admit they were just "joking."  If points need to be clarified, it will happen.  I don't see why I would need to ask you questions to clarify your own points.

[/QUOTE]

The individual is protected from the power of the state by federalism, the right to move between states. The federal government was not capable of stepping between states and individuals until Lincoln and the Civil War. A puritan could make the argument that Lincoln acted outside the boundary of the federal government. Though I regard slave states' signing on to a nation founded on individual liberty as to be a resignation of those morally bankrupt institutions of slavery, only to be later enforced properly.

But the constitution lists, not individual liberties, but those duties to which the federal government may be held. Citizens of this nation are not sheep to be held in a corral of safety and provision by the government.

The very reason for referring to these other governmental entities as states denotes their sovereignty. A state is a supreme power. If California wants to ban cars painted black and televisions over 42", it is none of the federal government's business. If the citizens of that state believe that government to be oppressive, they have two options, change the state government through vote or move to a state they regard as more properly governed.

It is patently dangerous and historically inaccurate to regard the Constitution as a charter of individual rights to be protected by government. It was written and ought to be regarded as the chains of limits on the federal government, only noting rights of individuals in those cases where the first Congress saw fit to set in stone things which the government may never, ever be permitted to abridge by confounding logic and rhetoric.

And that gets to the heart of this thread. Empathy is not a qualification to be a justice of supreme court. Equality under the law means that laws are applied blindly, without regard to ethnicity or human experience.

Imagine trying to play a game of poker where the rules can change based upon human experience. Suppose my pair will beat your full house if I am a minority or perceived to have been downtrodden.

When the law is made malleable, the law no longer exists. Anyone can be charged with its violation when it means one thing today and whatever we want it to mean tomorrow.