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.

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.