An introduction and some thoughts

Welcome to logical thought. I know its a strange place for some of you out there. Here's the basic premise though. You are allowed to have ANY opinion you want. This however is not a federally protected piece of land. I don't guarantee your right to free speech here. That doesn't mean I wish to impose on it, but rather, any comments that I deem irrational, will be deleted. Feel free to discuss whatever you want but be prepared to defend it with more than "that's not how I feel". In the words of Andrew Wilkow "you have to break the argument". This means that in order to discuss something you must utilize verifiable facts and logical reasoning to arrive at your conclusions.

Now here's a bit about me. I'm part of the silent majority you hear of so often. I'm a self proclaimed "individual rights activist". I'm anti-minority and anti-majority rights. That makes me an anti-gay, anti-black, anti-white, anti-tall activist. I don't care what your affiliation is. I don't care what your background is. Race, religion, sex and creed are NOT important in this venue. I believe you have the right to your pursuit of happiness. I am for YOUR rights. I believe your rights stop at my nose. I believe government is a necessary evil. Ideally you and I would coexist without the need for rule or law, we would merely come up with a mutually acceptable set of boundaries and respect them.

I'm also American. I believe in the constitution. For some strange reason, my beliefs about the constitution are unconventional. It was written in plain ENGLISH for a reason. It wasn't designed to be difficult to read, in fact, it was written by a bunch of non-lawyers. We have "constitutional scholars" and I'm not quite sure why. I'm not talking about the people who hold the official position, I'm talking about the constitution as a field of study. I've read it several times and I am not mystified by it. I may be in awe of it, and how simple it is which is exactly the reason there shouldn't be a dedicated educational field in its honor. "Biblical scholars" are necessary because the bible was drafted in several different languages over thousands of years.

So why am I here? What am I doing? There are a million blogs about politics. Maybe no one ever reads this. Maybe it sits out there in the middle of the abyss of the internet and never gets read by anyone. Maybe it changes the world, maybe it brings us back to our roots. Who knows. Probably a few people read the first few entries, then I get tired of writing for an audience of you and my mom... and it dies out. I hope not though.

To answer the question though, I'm writing this because I believe that I have solutions to today's problems. I'm writing it because while the conservative movement represents some of my values, as do the republicans and the libertarians, nobody encompasses ALL of my beliefs. I think they are worthy of being heard.

I want open discussion, but know this, I assume I'm right until you prove me wrong. Also, if we're debating a document, I want to discuss it with someone who has at least read it. Nothing is more annoying than talking to someone when they say "the constitution guarantees the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If you don't know why that annoys me, go read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Here's a basic synopsis of the core beliefs I've discussed in the last few days:

I believe in separate but equal. Not when it comes to race, when it comes to states. I think we have lost our way in that sense. This union was designed to be just that a union of states. That was the brilliant part of this experiment we call the United States of America. I believe when the framers of the constitution sat down, they had a vision. There is a reason the constitution doesn't have a bunch of laws and regulations. There's a reason that they set out to govern the population with fewer than 4500 words. The constitution wasn't written to govern the lives of the people. It was meant to limit the power of the federal government while guaranteeing some of those sacred rights (through the bill of rights, the largest addendum to the constitution) but allow for choices in the lifestyle you lived.

Today that would mean 50 choices. That's what I want. I want 50 different flavors of liberty. I don't think that if a group of Californians wants to make a rule that the entire country should have to adjust. Choice was inherent in the design of this country. We often forget why the original immigrants came to the country to begin with. They were trying to flee a country in which they had no choices. State religion, state run lives (incidentally the word state, at that time, was much closer to the word "country" today).

Decisions are best made at the lowest level possible. The order should be something along these lines. Individual, family, street, neighborhood, county, city, district, state. And most people say that's what they want. Well responsibility goes with it. That's where people get caught up.

Take for example the decision of whether or not to tie your shoe. Tying your shoe is probably in your best interest, if you don't you obviously risk the possibility of tripping and falling and breaking your arm but its really a personal decision. You could argue that a parent decides it for their children when they are very young, but imagine if there were a state law passed requiring all shoes be tied. How ridiculous would that be.

Another example of this would be the speed limit. The federal government has no business instituting a speed limit. I question the legitimacy of a state speed limit, but I can live with that. Guidelines like 20mph for residential areas etc are instituted by the state but each municipality or other form of local government is better served to set the speed limit than the state. Conversely imagine if each person or family set the speed limit. What if you controlled the limit of the road in front of your home or place of work. Obviously for the sake of continuity, the speed limit has to be set by a government (or community) which has familiarity with the local needs and a wide enough jurisdiction to enforce such a limit.

There are very few things, actually there is nothing, that should be regulated at the federal level; except the power of the federal government, and it should be severely limited. Basic rights, as guaranteed by the constitution should be protected by the federal government, to ensure that no state impedes on these rights, and none should be restricted at the federal level. The federal government's function should not be to place restrictions on your life. Rather it should exist to guarantee freedoms.

At the state level that is where the restriction of rights and privileges should begin. This restriction should however be used cautiously. A great example of this would be "Gay Marriage". It is ridiculous to set that at say a city level, but impractical to create a "national gay marriage protection act".

I often get "but why should a marriage be accepted in one state but not another?". It is a privilege, not a right. There are essentially three parts to a marriage. That would be the vows, the proclamation and the recognition. I won't go into the first one, we know what that is. The public marriage ceremony however, is the proclamation by two people that they intend, promise or whatever, to carry out their vows to one another for however long the marriage is supposed to last (till death do us part). The third, and most controversial part, is the recognition. When you go to the courthouse, you are essentially seeking the community around you's (with the state representing a rather large community) approval or recognition of your union. There are criteria for drivers licenses and marriages alike. Those are the criteria set forth by the community (state) in order to receive a license. If you don't like the state criteria, then move. If you have a great job and don't want to leave it, but want a privilege that isn't given in the state you live in, then make a choice. There are 50 of them. There are countries (China and North Korea for example) where you don't have the freedom of movement. Start voting with your residency.

There is a lot to discuss and a lot of time to do it. Hopefully this gives me a starting point and might even provoke some sort of rational discussion.

TexanMike