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.

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.

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.