Constitutional Libertarianism

Constitutional Libertarianism

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

So, let's break down some terms today.  Just to see where we really stand.

Let's say, for the purpose of discussion, that we have the spectrum of liberal and conservative on one hand and the spectrum of authoritarian and libertarian on the other hand.

Mind you, the following definitions are the "extreme" ends and very few people actually embody the mat this degree, but when you have met someone at these extremes, you'll know it.

First of all, what is a "conservative"?   Basically, it's a person who does it by the book.  Everything is aid out, itemized and detailed line by line.  Do not deviate from the book.  The book is good, the book is all.  That is your hard line conservative.

Conversely, your hard core "liberal" is the "rules, who needs rules?" person.  It gets down to making it up as you go along. It's pretty close to "I'll do what  I want to do and you do what you want to do and whatever happens, happens."

Now, "authoritarians"  are those who think there needs to be someone in authority and someone who is under that authority.  These are the "know your place and stay there" types.  Slavery is a pretty good representation of the extreme "authoritarian" relationship.

On to the "Libertarian" end. This is the "I am my own boss and nobody, no how at no time will ever tell me what to do" crowd.  If you are looking for anarchy, you will find it in the libertarian/liberal extreme.  Conversely, if you want a repressed society, look to the consrevative/authoritarian far end.

Now, how many of us are really such total extremists to say we agree with such postions perfectly?

Not very many of us, that's for sure.  Now think of those extreme ends in respect to the U.S. Constitution.  Lok at the persepctive from which it was written.  look at the terminology and manner in which it was written.

This constitution was not written by extremists of any of those four corners.  As a matter of fact, there is quite a centered tone it takes.

It refers very frequently to keeping individuality and personal liberty throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It also seeks to set parameters of oversight rather than specifically spelling out every detail.  Not exceedingly conservative or liberal.

In today's political soapboxing, people who try to find a reasonable place in the midlle of those extremes are called "centrists" and "moderates" by those closer to the extremes.  Very often, they are referred to in a negative light, with scorn.

Myself, I think that as a group of independent, individuals, making our own way through life, yet sharing a common space and living among each other, there need to be agreements, rules to make sure we respect and are respected. 

I believe that each rule in itself is not so much a "written in stone" rule and is more of a parameter to take into consideration the details and circumstances of each situation.

I think that your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. 

I do not think there is a "greater good" in terms of nationalism or some other contrived communal identity.  It is me and mine, there is you and yours, there is they and theirs. 

Nothing in life is fair, nothing is guaranteed beyond that which the Constitution stipulates.  I don't owe you anything and you don't owe me anything beyond respecting the Constitution.

Friday, November 11, 2011

What does "Independent" mean to me.

I am Independent.

I live in a country where the Constitution gives each individual person, not parties , companies, hives or gangs, rights and freedom.

I believe we are a country of individuals sharing a place where we come together in agreement to respect each other enough to share common goals and boundaries so as to be able to live among each other as peaceably as possible.

I believe our Constitution is meant for a person to do their duty by stepping up to serve as a representative to our shared government.  Then that person is thanked and goes back to his or her life.  Not enjoy a new life as a member of a protected ruling class.

I do not believe that corporations are people.  People are people, something is wrong with our society when status of being a "person" is conferred to a non-living entity for the sake of money.

 I do not believe in false nationalism.  America is only something to be proud of as long as the people are living in a way to be proud of.

America is not "Free" unless every individual is free.

I believe one person's rights end where the next person's begins.

I believe the "greater good" is one which ensures each and every person's right to live as they choose is respected.

This country was not formed for a "Greater Good", it was formed to allow individual persons to live their their own lives as they choose for themselves.  Freely and without being determined or controlled by a government, religion, group or person.

My rights are my rights, your rights are your rights.  That might mean we have something in common, but it does not mean we are joined at the hip.

Choosing to be neighborly, charitable, and friendly are good things if one chooses to act so toward others.  It is something altogether different when it is imposed or assumed upon you by others to do so.  It cheapens them, demeans them and makes them a task rather than the freely given gifts they are supposed to be.

I am an Independent.  I think for myself,  I speak for myself and I take action for myself. 

I will defend those rights for myself and for you to do it for yourself to my last dying breath.

I will not live my life for you though.   I will not ask you to do so for me.

I am a free, independent person and I will stand side by side with other free, independent people to preserve that.

The Constitution and Each Person's Rights

Everyone loves to talk abou twhat right they have to do something.

This comes up most often in discussions about free speech.  Everyone wants to say they have the right to say what they want to say, show a picture they want to show, sing a song they want to sing, etc.. etc...

However, while the Constitution does give that right to expression, it says nowhere in the Constitution that others have to listen, see, view, or expose themselves to what someone else wants to express.

One person's rights end where the next person's rights begin.

Interestingly enough, there are too many people who seem to have the idea that just because they have the right to say something, it somehow means that everyone else is forced to accept it.

On the contrary, The Constitution grants the same rights to every individual.

Those rights are not just for some.  Many folks will be disappointed to realize that each person's expression is not a royal decree that everyone else is compelled to see or support.

If I know that someone is showing something  I find repulsive,  I can simply not go to view it, hear it, etc..   I can avoid it, ignore it and simply not experience it at all.

What's interesting is how people want to trick others into being exposed to their "expressions".

Instead of letting people know what it is, when, where, etc.. ahead of time so people can attend or avoid at their own discretion, they want to simply come out of the blue with their "expressions".

They want to force you to have to experience their expression whether you wanted to or not.  They somehow have the idea that once they have decided to express themselves that everyone else is just stuck with having to experience it.

Yes, if we can accidentally or un-knowingly stumble upon such an deceptive effort, we can quickly an of our our choice leave, re-reoute ourselves, etc.. to avoid it in the future at that point, place, time, etc..

Howwver, this shows that a person using such tactics has no responsibility for their actions.  They are forcing everyone else to be responsivble for dealing with itas they encounter it.

There is no respecting or taking "serious" someone who so blatantly abuses their rights by foisting their expression upon others irresponsibly.

Someone who ignores everyone else's rights to choose for themselves simply to create an audience for something they want to express.

Yes, we each have the right to express ourselves and not be punished for it by the government (that's what the First Amendment guarantees, you know), but we each also have the freedom to choose for ourselves what we are exposed to and experience.

One freedom does not beat the other.  We should always make the effort to practice our individual, personal freedoms responsibly.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Legislating "normal"

What is "normal"?  Most people think of "normal" as the way things are in a vast majority of examples.

For example, if perhaps, 95 out of 100 people in a region are all born with dark skin, having dark skin for those people would be considered "normal".

Human beings have two legs, two arms, one head.  This occurs so often that it is considered "normal".  Anyone born with or having a difference from those is considered not "normal.

People count on things being "normal" so much so that when something comes up that is not normal, people tend to find a way to correct it or make it as close to normal as possible.

This is why deformities and birth defects have so many doctors trying to find ways to prevent or correct them as soon as possible.

Conditions and diseases that are passed genetically have millions of dollars and thousands of people looking for ways to "cure" them.

No one seems to be arguing that finding a "cure" for Down's Syndrome is something to work for.

Everyone seems in agreement that polio is something that should be "cured".

Yet, we have politicians and people who want to change through legislation, to force a new "normal" on a society when they think there is something to gain by it.

Anything from deviant behavior to sexual "orientation" is being pushed on society at large to accept as normal what most people see as not "normal".

They work to try to tie things together.  for example that one must accept the behavior and the "person" at the same time or it is an expression of "hate" and thus the not recognizing of it as "normal" is criminalized.

This is so far from accurate.  We tell each other daily that we must separate the action from the person.

We say that what a person does is not necessarily what a person is.

Someone who steals a loaf of bread is not necessarily an evil, bad person.   They made a bad choice, they need to amend for that bad choice but they are not necessarily a bad person because of a bad choice.

We do not have to accept not "normal" behavior while at the same time, we still accept the person.

For example, to find it necessary to legislate property sales and rentals based on anything beyond potential to pay ones rent or mortgage is understandable.

If someone is "born " a certain way.  Without an appendage, or with a mental handicap or blind, deaf, etc...  it isn't necessary to itemize those situations.  It is only necessary to tell the seller/rentor that as long as the customer is able to show ability to make payment, there is no need to deny opportunity.

Government has no business trying to re-define "normal" via legislation  and thus making behaviors, actions, etc.. that are commonly perceived as "not normal" and force folks to see them as "normal"  That is nothing more than an ugly effort at social control.

Our government needs to knock off the social experiments and stick to doing those things the Constitution requires of it, nothing more.