I believe...
[1]We may form partnerships or groups to accomplish these things, but, we should not FORCE others to participate or do what we think is best.
[2]In some cases, when people do not abide by this third obligation (usually by theft or assault), it is appropriate for some level of government to be used to deal with the crime.
[3] Examples: If a man claims to be gay, I would not try to set him up with a woman as a date; I would not set up a child on a date with an adult.
[4]I do recognize that there are real differences between men and women and that they are not entirely interchangeable. As such, the pairing of a man and woman is inherently different than the pairing of two men or two women. But to the fullest extent possible in a sensible context, government should treat men and women equally.
[5] Example: If you think a CEO of a company is getting too much pay relative to his employees, you and others who agree with you are free to do any number of things to encourage the CEO to change this, including but not limited to: 1) appealing to the CEO; 2) appealing to the company's investors and business partners; 3) engaging in a media campaign; 4) refusing to buy the company's products or services; 5) starting a competing company; 6) rejecting job offers from the company, etc.
HOWEVER, if the federal government goes beyond Constitutional direction, it may subsidize the company with taxpayer money, or pass laws that discourage competition for that company, and you have a lot less control over this because, provided you are a voter, you are just one of many (perhaps millions of) voters who elects two out of fifty senators to six year terms, you are just one of thousands of voters who chooses one of the 435 Representatives in the House of Representatives for a two year term, and you are just one of many (perhaps millions) of people who vote to tell your state (one of fifty) representatives which Presidential candidate to elect for a four year term.
- The best system of government possible in today’s world is one described in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence - a sovereign democratic representative republic uniting individual states in a system of limited government comprised of three branches that have a separation of powers with checks and balances over each other; a union of laws, not of men.
- The Constitution, as amended, tells the federal government what it can do rather than listing all of the things it can't do; absent a Constitutional mandate, the federal government should not act.
- Courts, including the Supreme Court, should be directed by law. When a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution overrides the law.
- Rights are something with which we are born, not granted by government. These rights do not obligate others without their consent unless a crime has been committed. The government exists to protect rights from being trampled upon by others (fraud/theft, assault, etc.), but when government isn't limited, it becomes an entity that violates rights.
- Each human being has these rights, has inherent worth, and has something to offer other human beings.
- As much as possible, government should treat people equally, including treating people who do the same things in the same way. Not everyone will exercise their rights in the same way, to the same result; it isn't the function of government to correct this.
- Whenever possible and rights are not violated, voluntary use of personal property/resources, expressions, efforts, and transactions should be allowed without any government restriction. It is these things, including private charity, that will meet the needs and desires of the most people in the most efficient way possible. This also rewards and encourages innovation, ambition, calculated risk, and merit. Whenever this is not possible, limited local government involvement, such as county, city, or special district, is preferable to state involvement; in turn, limited state involvement is preferable to federal involvement.
- It is immoral and counterproductive for the government to take money by force from one person or group of people and give it another unless the recipient is performing a Constitutionally assigned function or the function is otherwise a Constitutional mandate.
- It is unkind and immoral to encourage individuals to be financially dependent on government.
- It is preferable that laws and government procedures be changed through the legislative process, including amending the Constitution, rather than through a court decision.
- As individuals, we have a moral obligation to: 1) Be good stewards of what we own/have.[1] 2) Engage in prudent charity.[1] 3) Respect the rights of others.[2]
- The default state of the world is selfishness, despotism, nepotism, and corruption, resulting in poverty, war, crime, oppression, and double standards. The USA only avoids or minimizes these things by vigilant adherence to our principles, though there will still be problems. Societal perfection is not possible through mere enlightenment or technological advancement.
- Forget nor minimize the accomplishments and contributions of government employees, even in instances where I maintain that private efforts could have achieved the same or better results.
- Dislike anyone, nor presume to know anything about them based on their sex, age, disability, race, skin color, ethnicity, national origin, language, socioeconomic status, creed, religion, sexual orientation, citizenship status, marital status, parental status , or weight – except for the inherently obvious (example: I know someone who was born in Egypt was born in Egypt). I think people who dismiss or attack or exclude anyone based on these criteria, aside from the practical[3] are being evil.[4]
- Deny that the rich will have more for themselves and more influence, but that will be true in any system; free markets, which are only possible under limited government, are the best system for allowing the most people to improve their own economic status. There are many examples of minorities who have come to our country with nothing and have obtained a middle class or wealthy lifestyle, or have provided a foundation for their children to do so. Many of today's poor will not be poor in the future, especially if they avoid crime, substance abuse, and raising children out of wedlock. The more we centralize power in the federal government, the easier it will be for the rich to manipulate the system to their advantage at the expense of others.[5]
[1]We may form partnerships or groups to accomplish these things, but, we should not FORCE others to participate or do what we think is best.
[2]In some cases, when people do not abide by this third obligation (usually by theft or assault), it is appropriate for some level of government to be used to deal with the crime.
[3] Examples: If a man claims to be gay, I would not try to set him up with a woman as a date; I would not set up a child on a date with an adult.
[4]I do recognize that there are real differences between men and women and that they are not entirely interchangeable. As such, the pairing of a man and woman is inherently different than the pairing of two men or two women. But to the fullest extent possible in a sensible context, government should treat men and women equally.
[5] Example: If you think a CEO of a company is getting too much pay relative to his employees, you and others who agree with you are free to do any number of things to encourage the CEO to change this, including but not limited to: 1) appealing to the CEO; 2) appealing to the company's investors and business partners; 3) engaging in a media campaign; 4) refusing to buy the company's products or services; 5) starting a competing company; 6) rejecting job offers from the company, etc.
HOWEVER, if the federal government goes beyond Constitutional direction, it may subsidize the company with taxpayer money, or pass laws that discourage competition for that company, and you have a lot less control over this because, provided you are a voter, you are just one of many (perhaps millions of) voters who elects two out of fifty senators to six year terms, you are just one of thousands of voters who chooses one of the 435 Representatives in the House of Representatives for a two year term, and you are just one of many (perhaps millions) of people who vote to tell your state (one of fifty) representatives which Presidential candidate to elect for a four year term.
