Replies

Let me repost my "political philosophy" from earlier posts for your edification

1. The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order.

2. Absolute, totally unrestricted liberty is an impossibility. Some liberty must, inevitably, be sacrificed to maintain the order that is essential to protect the remaining liberty. Therefore, we all concede some of our liberty to maintain an “ordered system of laws,” coercively enforced by a governmental entity.

3. Government should be minimized to the practical extent possible and government generally should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups with the exceptions noted below.

4. I only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution.

5. I could never support any economic system except capitalism (with the limitations noted below) since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice.

6. It is my position that it is possible for another individual, or group of individuals, to coercively impose their will on other individuals or groups through nominally legal, economic means (as opposed to fraud or force) such as monopolistic practices (or other means such as abusive, expensive litigation as a mere “cost of doing business”). Such coercive business tactics represent a threat to all citizens’, especially small enterprises’, ability to freely engage in capitalism.

Based upon the above position, I further maintain that some government, proactive, market regulatory actions (although not necessarily those currently existent) are appropriate to prevent such coercive manipulation.

7. It is my position that it is appropriate for government to prophylactically establish very limited, reasonable, procedural safeguards to forestall, as much as possible, the necessity for post citizen-(or business entity)-on-citizen coercion, government intervention via judicial dispute resolution. Small businesses and individual, sole proprietors cannot easily afford expensive, drawn out, litigation and, thus, can be forced by larger competitors who can afford the legal expense (a mere “cost of doing business”) into not pursuing a remedy for a coercive restriction of individual rights.

8. It is the government’s responsibility to provide for the common defense. Therefore, it is my position that in order to maintain a strong and diverse industrial base in military equipment essential to national defense, that government may actively interfere in the economy to ensure that essential defensive capabilities are available in time of need. However, it is further my position that the most appropriate means of government intervention is not as a regulatory agent, but as a “customer,” i.e., by contracting with a variety of firms to provide the requisite equipment even at the expense of not necessarily, always choosing the “lowest bidder.”

9. I hold that a certain, significant percentage of the population must, of necessity, be economically “productive” or the entire population, figuratively, or perhaps, literally, “starves” and the “society” collapses or becomes too weak to resist active take-over by a competing, non-libertarian society. I further hold that this productivity occurs naturally under minimally restricted capitalism in nearly all situations. However, there are a few exceptions, such as certain hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs where this critical productivity level can be actively threatened, especially in times of national emergency, e.g., war. In the interest of justice and common sense, it is appropriate for the government to intentionally act in this area before a certain percentage of the population critical to preventing national dissolution has become non-productive. There are two reasons for this position. First, addiction, once it occurs, is difficult, if not impossible, to reverse for a large number of citizens. Thus, the productivity problem potentially threatening national dissolution is not remedied. Second, it is intuitively unjust to let some people engage in such activity, but when the percentage becomes too high, to arbitrarily outlaw the activity. Therefore, for the sake of common sense, it must be discouraged consistently.

10. The government must proactively prevent nominally libertarian activities which threaten to dissolve the society which, otherwise, supports a libertarian system. It is my position that government must actively discourage gay marriage (nominally an individual liberty choice) because the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially causes the collapse of the “society” in which the libertarian would exist.

11. It is my position that certain amendments to the Constitution and judicial interpretations have significantly altered the founders’ vision and intent for the Federal government. While I disagree with a number of these actions, I hold that citizens must deal with the world as we find unless and until we can lawfully change it. Furthermore, I hold that all of the mechanisms necessary to change the situation are contained in the Constitution and all that is required is sufficient political will on the part of the American people.