The obvious reason is, of course, that it is a manipulation of what should be a free market. Even the calls from the anti-alcohol crowd are nonsensical at this point due to the history of attempts to control vices and, more notably, to the fact that liquor is still being sold. The fact that the state is doing it really does not change much other than that alcohol is only available at certain shops and at state-set pricing. It really comes down to being a set revenue stream for the state. Profits from alcohol go to the state treasury.

Our current governor (Bob McDonnell) is proposing privatizing the ABC (liquor) stores. His primary motivation is because the state needs a large chunk of money and the sale of the ABC businesses would certainly provide that. This is certainly not the right reason to make this change, but, well, if it makes the change happen, then I am all for it. Then I found out a particular detail of McDonnell’s plan, and it has me pretty angry.

Obviously, the sale of the liquor stores, while supplying a chunk of cash, will result in a reduced income stream in the future, an income stream of nearly $250 million per year. There are to be licensing fees and taxes and so forth, so the income will not dry up completely, and it is likely that more stores will open or have liquor added to their current list of items for sale, thus increasing the license income for the state. Still, the total income will drop.

I have no problem with this, as far as I am concerned, the state already gets too much money from its citizens, and it most certainly spends too much. McDonnell, however, in true politician form, wants to have his cake and eat it too. His plan, it turns out, includes a tax of 4% levied on businesses that sell alcohol, not just the liquor stores, but bars and restaraunts as well. This is not acceptable.

Not only does the governer think that we the people are ignorant enough to think that the tax on “businesses” will not affect the prices we pay, but he is trying to tax institutions not involved in the liquor store transaction at all. An increase in taxes will lead to an increase in prices. It does not really matter that the tax was not levied directly on the consumer, of the consumer pays it, then it is a tax on the consumer.

Now, it is entirely possible that consumers will not even notice the change. This is because, it is quite possible that liquor stores will drop their prices once competition is introduced to the market once again. Furthermore, current ABC policy dictates that bars and restaurants pay a premium for liquor, whereas any decent private store would be likely to offer discounts for bulk purchases and larger volume customers. As a result, the prices for the bars will likely go down. This means that, even with an added tax, prices may not go up for the consumer, indeed they could even still end up being lower.

The reason this has me so angry is that it is an attempt to pull the wool over people’s eyes and hide a tax. The state could, if they wished to maintain their income stream, levy the taxes directly on the sales of liquor bottles. While I am no fan of any sort of taxes, and consider the tax of a business to just be a disguised tax, it would still be more above board than the plan McDonnell has.

Why is he doing it? Because if he adds the tax directly to the sale of liquor in bottles, then he is affecting the profit margin of the liquor stores. Liquor stores will not be able to do as much with pricing as they otherwise would, thus making the business less profitable overall, and making competition more difficult. If he monkeys around with the profit margins of the stores, then the potential buyers will not pay as much for the stores and licenses. That means the state’s chunk of up-front money will be smaller. So, he is taxing a different business that is still part of ABC regulations but is not involved in this transaction so that he can keep his income up in the future and still make more up front.

I am sorry, that is not acceptable. I want a transparent government with a clear and simple system of taxation so that people can see what their government is really costing and what they are really up to. These games are tiresome, and they are insulting.

We are not putting up with this junk anymore Governor, we are awake, and we care what is happening. If you cannot do the hard stuff and cut spending rather than play games with our money and manipulate ways to get more money from the consumer, then we will find someone who can. Get the State out of the liquor business and leave us alone. If you find yourself with a budget shortfall, then start cutting state services. We don’t mind, we have been trying to get that to happen for years.

I still do not support a wall, I do not think I ever will. I do not want to live in a walled country. I think it is at best a symbol of a controlling government and a lack of freedom and a presence of fear. The reason I have an interest in defending the border is because of an extreme amount of violence on that border. The vast majority of this is not being done by would-be immigrants (if they are involved, it is not by choice), nor is it being done by U.S. citizens. It is predominantly being perpetrated and orchestrated by the drug cartels and other forms of organized crime. Private property is being invaded, people are being killed, immigrants are being used as sheilds and bait and mules, etc. I believe we need to do two things about this.

First, we need to go down there with our superior military power and take down every initiator of violence on the border. We have the power to do so. Will another criminal just take their place? Maybe, but not without thinking twice. The second thing we need to do is defund the organized crime down there by legalizing drugs and drug production here, so that there is no motivation do engage in violence, because who wants to fight if there will be no profit?

Now, there are actions being taken by organized crime, such as kidnapping and theft and other means of extorting money, but at least a dent would be made in the profitability of crime if we removed the drug portion of it. A strong show of force combined with a loss of at least 1/3 of the revenue will discourage a lot of the violence along the border.

As for the immigrants themselves, they will be less likely to be able to be used as pawns or abused in any way if they are not stopped from coming over because we have some oddball limit on how many people can come in. As always, we must make sure that we are not giving money away, there is no way we can support the immigrants by any means other than economic growth and voluntary help. If there is only those things, only those who can handle the risk and the work will come, and I welcome every single on of them.

I also do not see how a country can have the right to stop an individual from entering their border and still be a free country, unless there is specific reason to stop them, such as past offenses or threat of action against the nation or its inhabitants. I am not saying we just let thieves and murderers in so they can escape justice, but that is not what is happening. We are stopping thousands of non-violent people from coming here for no good reason, and in pushing them to seek a way to sneak in, they are making holes that all the murderers and thieves and violent people can easily walk right through. It is yet another one of those unintended consequences, in seeking so-called “security”, our security is made worse. The worst part is, the real fear is not even criminal or terrorists, it is economics.

People fear cheaper labor and a change of the status quo. They fear a different culture, they fear having to work harder to succeed. So they seek a way to protect their comfort, and in doing so they defy the principles of freedom, not only for others, but for themselves. This is not what America stands for, it is not what it was built on. America was built on risk takers, daring explorers, hard workers, and people who would risk it all for a great opportunity, or just for the chance to be free and to be their own person. That is what made us great. America is the land of the free, the land of opportunity. If we lose that, we are nothing, and we will be nothing.

The economy is not a static thing, it grows and changes and adjusts. A lot of cheaper labor could be the thing that brings production back to our shores. We cannot last much longer on the economic basis we have been running on, we will fall. The more we try to hang on to the status quo the worse it will get. Change is the only constant in life, and innovation the only survival tool. Freedom supports this, fear restricts it. Let go of your fear and be an American. If the immigrant population is willing to take the risk for freedom and opportunity, as far as I am concerned they are better Americans than those who would keep them out.

I understand the frustration with the impact of the incoming culture. I see the anger and frustration and the racially charged arguments. I get it, but it does not justify a reaction of fear or anger. The vocal minority among immigrant groups may be violent or angry, but they are no more a real representation of the majority than the vile and vocal minorities in many other groups.

I know times are tough, and I know that the border states are having a lot of cost put on them. Most of this is due to government services that should not even be there, but much is due to the increase in population that is well above average. In a struggling economy, that is not easy to handle. It will not be easy, and it will not be evenly distributed. I cannot promise that no one will be hurt or put under pressure. I cannot promise there will not be anecdotal evidence that open immigration is bad. I only say that freedom is the better path in the end, and it will prove itself the better path if we let it. Freedom is not easy, but it is the best way to go. If all men are created equal and freedom is a right, then it must apply to all mankind, not some arbitrary number or a group confined in an arbitrary area.

Seriously tho, there are a couple of major issues I have with the hullabaloo around the BP oil spill. For one thing, while it is a huge oil leak, it is still smaller than the intentional spill in the Persian Gulf caused by the Iraqi government under Sadaam. It is less that twice the size of the IXTOC1, which has had no notable long-term effects in the gulf. There are reports of small spills like the Exxon Valdez spill, less than 4% of the size of the BP oil spill that the worst long term effects on the coastal environment is the temporary city that was made to house the cleanup crew. The cleanup crew was, in fact, very inneffective. There are concerns that the dispersion efforts in the BP spill will be more harm than good.

The most mind blowing part of all of the fuss about environmental impact is the numbers on natural oil seepage. Natural well seepage is more than half of all petroleum pollutants entering the ocean. The vast majority of human-caused petroleum pollution is from runoff and contaminated rain. Spills and transportation account for only a small percentage, and the Deep Horizon spill barely makes a dent in those numbers. Does this mean we should ignore it? No, but it does mean that we are making too much of it. It also means that the earth can handle this thing better than we can.

As for our efforts to handle the issue, however, chew on this: We were offered assistance and refused it because the EPA regulators did not like that the cleaning technology offered, while far more efficient and effective than our own process, did not meet certain standards. So, instead of having the oil removed mostly and quickly, they remove only a small percentage of it completely, and the rest is just left to run. Net effect? Way worse than the process that did not meet their “standards”. Idiotic to say the least.

In all the government has handled this with blunder after blunder, using the catastrophe to gain power and generally screw up everything as much as they can. BP has not been much better, finger pointing and pandering instead of getting serious and making it known how badly their hands are being tied by the EPA.

Bottom line? Get over it, the earth can heal. We need to keep drilling, and we need to do it closer to land. We need to improve our drilling safeguards. We need to drill on land in places like ANWR. We need to tell the EPA how much they are destroying the earth and get rid of them. That will do a lot more to help the planet than any drilling restrictions ever will.

Those who committed Treason against Tyranny.

Those who died free, winning freedom for others.

Those who tried to build a free nation no matter the cost, the risk, or the lack of precedent. They pushed on based on their philosophy of what was right and what was needed, they did not need to copy others.

Those who forged the foundations of this nation in debate and patient explaination.

Those who spread the word to others.

Those who beleived in the cause even tho they were not part of “the founders”. In a way all who fought England for independence were founders.

Those who tried to come to a peaceful solution. They exhausted all means they had before taking up arms. Something we have not nearly done.

Those who helped to improve our nation by amending errors in our constitution, making all men and women equal under the law.

Those who fought and lived to rebuild this nation.

Those who took this great free nation and through work and innovation made it the greatest power on the planet.

Those who still hold those values today, let us come together an uphold those United States of America that once were and could be again.

The two key ones I will touch on today are being used as tools to manipulate the entire population. The first many people are aware of, or are becoming aware of. Many, unfortunately, are aware of it but still fall prey to it. It is the two primary political parties.

Republicrats and Demoblicans (US), LibLabCon (Britain), LibCon or ConLib (Canada), all terms representing what for more and more people is a glaringly obvious fact: The Parties are not very different, and they all end up leading us in the same general direction. They fight over nearly irrelevant issues, calling attention to small things that, even if they mean a lot to some people, certainly pale in comparison to the direction of the whole country, our freedom, our economic success and the quality of life in general.

The fact that people are not aware of the fake battle, and really believe there is a difference between the parties is a tragedy of observation and of people really caring enough to educate themselves about what is really going on. A greater tragedy is when people are paying attention, but are so biased and emotionally or sentimentally attached to “their party” that they judge the actions of their leaders based on who does the action, rather than on the substance of the action itself. Bush, for instance, started the bailouts, Obama continued them. Partisan critics had glaring differences in how they judged those actions, even tho they were essentially the same. The greatest tragedy, however, is that many people actually recognize that the parties have little difference, yet fall prey anyway. They talk about how both sides are a problem, how both are full of corruption, both spend too much, both take away freedom, both grow the government, both are incompetent. But on election day, they vote for one or the other anyway. They get all sucked into this issue or that. They get all up in arms about how bad the one “side” is, even tho they know there are no distinguishable “sides” to start with. They vote for one or the other, knowing that their choice is irrelevant, and will only lead to more of the same, only not quite as much of it as the other guy. Maybe.

I am not, of course, advocating not voting as some would recommend to you. This does nothing either, it is just quitting. If you want to step away from the system, however, it is better than perpetuating a broken one. I would rather see someone do nothing with their brains turned on than do something stupid when they should, or do, know better. The key here is to recognize that there is not only a fake dichotomy in American politics, with the parties working together behind the scenes, or at least moving toward a generally similar goal, but there is also a false dichotomy. The two parties are not the only choices we have.

The other fake dichotomy is less obvious, but is perhaps more sinister, since I think it is more purposeful. Also, this fake dichotomy does not include all players in the categories I speak of. (This also applies to the first fake dichotomy, not all Republicans and Democrats are the same, nor all they all on an evil path, but the majority, at least at the national level, certainly are.) The false battle I speak of is business versus government. Large corporations and the Government/Union alliance seem to fight constantly. There is some real fighting, to be sure, but in a lot of cases, the large corporations fight the regulations and laws for a while, and do so quite vocally, pointing to the costs and profit losses, but in the end they are not really that bothered by the regulations. Why? Because massive regulations cement their place at the top of the food chain. In a free market, every business must fight to the top and continue to fight and innovate to stay there. If you are a leader in your industry, you have the advantage of capital and brand recognition and infrastructure, but you are generally very hard to manage and innovation tends to slip. Structure, required for a large business to function, tends to eclipse innovation and flexibility. In most markets, if you fail to innovate, you will be outmoded and outrun. If you do not change your ways, you will eventually fail, beaten out by a better competitor, even one smaller than you. You may only lose market share in one region, succumbing to a smaller, but better competitor, but when that happens in enough regions, you are no longer the leader of the pack.

So why do the businesses actually welcome costly regulation? It raises the cost of entry into the market. Think about it. How many times do you say that you could do a better job at a given service provided by super large corporations? Most of the time, those companies are not operating at the best they possibly could because they do not have to. There are no viable competitors. The more regulations and restrictions are in place, the more licenses you need and the more you have to “know people” to get your company started, the better off existing competitors are. They can lose money to government regulations or taxes, but make it up by paying less or trimming quality or squeezing suppliers or whatever they want to do. They can steamroll their customers and employees alike and not lose a bit of business, because customers have no better options. They have no better options because no one is able to afford to start a business or get the approval for it.

Thus the power of big business is cemented with the current business leaders. They, in turn, support the politicians that slapped them with regulations and ensure that the unholy alliance continues. Power for the leaders, both corporate and political, with some thrown to union leaders to keep the workers from grumbling and we are stuck with a badly functioning market. More incompetence, bred by this manipulation of a supposedly free market allows justification for more regulation. Unhappy customers welcome the promises of a “fix” for the problem. A fix that only enslaves them further and entrenches the incompetent, lazy business leaders even further. Any real sense of business vision or ethics is lost, and we have a country run by crooks. Sound familiar?

Its not business versus government, it is government and SOME business leaders teaming up against the rest of business, insulating themselves from the market so that they can rest on their laurels and take advantage of the populace. It is a lie. There is no battle between business and government, there is a battle between the free market and a controlled market, between freedom and restriction. We need a separation of business and state like we are supposed to have for religion and state. Laws must still be followed that protect freedoms, such as laws against fraud and theft. Separation of business and state does not mean lawlessness, only a removal of the temptation for power to team up with wealth and run the world. The corporation and other government business constructs should be abolished. Business licensing and other restrictions should be removed. If you want to be in business, then do so. There should be no hoops or fees for innovation and entrepreneurship.

No more fake dichotomies, pretend battles, etc. Pay attention to what happens when the two sides fight. If either side “wins” but nothing really changes, either way, then the battle itself was false. One side pretending to be two sides must be attacked at the root, a proper opponent must be found. Its not just that there are more than two choices, its that the two choices presented are really only one choice.

Find another option.

Of course this whole thing would hinge on an incredible reduction of government expenditure. This particular post is not a “how to get there from here” sort of post. This is more of a “If I started a country, what I would do is” sort of post. So throw out everything you think of when you think about government costs. This would be a government based on a very strict diet and limitation. It would also be based on a lack of government monopoly on a great many things.

Essentially, most government “services” would be paid for by transaction, direct taxes and fees for services rendered. Roads and other infrastructure paid for by usage taxes or, when possible, related usage taxes (like fuel taxes for roads, etc.). Basic courts, representatives, police, and defense (military) would be paid for by citizens. This particular tax could be administered in a variety of ways, preferably it would be a flat tax, although there are arguments for a combination of property and flat tax. The logic for this would be that some persons would have more to protect than others. On the other hand, the protection of the rights of individuals would be universal, thus you could not solely do it based on property.

The key, of course, is that one does not have to be a citizen to live in the country. This means they can own property, they can choose to pay no taxes for courts, Police, Representatives, or military. They would only pay usage taxes for things they used. If they request the use of courts or police, they must pay for the priviledge, full costs covered. If they violate the laws of the land, or violate contracts held by citizens, they would be subject to the courts of this nation unless they had otherwise agreed not to be as part of a contract. The “law of the land” would be a set of laws, and would not include laws that involved anything other than the protection of people’s freedoms and lives. In other words, even if you are on your own property, outside of the jurisdiction of the police, etc. you would still not be able to murder, steal, or hold persons on your property against their will. I recognize the philosophical necessity of allowing people to govern themselves. I also, however, recognize the need to keep certain things illegal, even on private property. Property rights do not override all other rights.

The disadvantage, of course, for non-citizens include: a premium for government services, and, more importantly, no access to said services without payment. Any defense against crime, emergencies, foreign action, fraud, etc. would have to be carried out by private vendors or volunteers, since those provided by government would not be available. Immigrants, too, would have the right to be here and work, etc., but they would be in a similar position financially, and in reference to access to government services. They could, if they wanted, pay taxes like a citizen for access to standard government actions, but they would have to go through an education process and sign on as a citizen to gain a vote/representation.

The key factor is that all adults would have to sign on as a citizen. There would be no naturalization by birth. Citizen rights would pass to children of citizens based on the actions and payments of the parents, but they would have to be naturalized upon adulthood. The constitution would only have to be followed by persons who actually agreed to live under it. However, again, there would remain a law of the land. If persons wanted to create their own societal organizations, that would also be fine, but they could not use coercion or force to make adults be a part of those societal structures, just as our primary government could not force citizenship.

I think a whole host of government services could be available for citizens, as long as fees for those services are only paid for by those who benefit and/or those who choose to pay in. The caveat here is that no government services would be a monopoly, with the possible exception of national defense and certain divisions of police, I am still working on the logistics of allowing competition in those. Private courts would be acceptable where both parties agreed or contracts allowed/required them. Protective services would be certainly available, but would have limited ability to enforce laws outside of defense. Contracted police forces, on the other hand, would be fine, as they would still be operating within governmental/legal parameters as a part of their contract.

I know there are horror stories of competing fire brigades, etc. I think it might, however, be worth trying again. If there were a government option, but private options were available, I think we might see a much better result. Furthermore, a free press and the level of information available to consumers. Overall, I would say that the free market, no matter how bumpy, will end in the best result. It will also help keep government services from growing out of control. If no one takes the government option, it is because there is a better option, and no one pays for the service.

In the end, I think the remaining costs of government would not be difficult to support voluntarily. The worst that would happen would be an abandonment of citizenship and the collapse of the government structure. This would show this experiment to be a failure, but a much less harmful one than a government that grows to behemoth size and collapses under its own weight.

So bring on the questions and criticisms, this is how I love to test my theories.

I get the point of those who disrespect the founders. They preached equality, but some owned slaves, and they did not move to free them. They claimed all men were created equal, and this excluded women and children. Some even spoke more highly of landowners than other men, and they were cautious not to anger the educated and aristocratic far more than the rank and file. The more liberal minds and the so-called “socially conscious” thought the state was restricted too much by the constitution and claim the founders were uncharitable aristocrats, rich people, who incited to war many with less resources and less understanding then they, and lived to tell the tale, pronouncing themselves leaders. Further accusations even include Early American attitudes toward the Native population. On the side of the libertarian and freedom loving folk that criticize the founders, much criticism is held for various flaws in the Constitution. Separation of church and state was not clear enough, separation of business and state was not present, the second amendment was not clear enough, and the biggest blunder of all, the support of a public education system.

These flaws and more are not denied. There are flaws in the constitution. There is language that is lost and things misunderstood. Intentions are lost because of a lack of clarity. The founders themselves had imperfections. Some were too quick to include British common law in the standards of courts. Exceptions were made in the principles of freedom for many things that should not have been. Even those who have read the other writings and believe in the purer intentions of the founders admit to mistakes in the constitution and errors in the ways of the founders themselves.

Yet:

I still hold them in the highest esteem. I find that the constitution, if followed (of course including the parts that fixed the inequality of men and expanded it to all mankind) would right a lot of our current ills. Despite its gaps and flaws, it remains a document of freedom, with many of the most important aspects of freedom intact. I think it needs to be redone, re-invented. I think that it could be returned to, but that we can learn from the last 240 years and do better this time. But the founders I still respect. Why?

Certainly they were educated men, philosophers, men who thought of something greater than themselves, and men who opened the world to the idea of equality and distribution of power. They took great risk to their own life and property. They tried to follow the protocols granted them in the government they had, and held the moral high ground, at least in many ways, before declaring revolution. They were not the first, they were not thinking of freedom in totally original terms, but they were still early in the game. They created a system that kept men free for a long time, and it worked much better and for much longer than many of them feared.

Ultimately tho, I think it comes down to the following analogy that dawned on me the other day. Thomas Edison, known as the inventor of the light bulb. He was not the first to think of making light from electricity. He was not the only one working on that problem. In fact, some of his original ideas, such as the phonograph, occurred in part by accident. The modern LED light is far superior to Edison’s bulb. The incandescent bulb, Edison’s triumph, was the primary light producing source for many many decades. But we can easily point out that the LED bulb lasts a great deal longer, is cheaper to make, burns far less power, is dimmable and comes on instantly just like incandescent, It produces far less heat, making it safer, and it can be made of parts that do not shatter or have sharp residue when broken. Does this mean that Edison was an idiot for not creating the LED light? Should we berate him for giving up too early and not finding a better solution? Should we point to the many flaws of the incandescent light as proof of the idiocy of Thomas Edison?

Of course not, to do such a thing would be absurd. Nearly as absurd as holding the understanding of men from a culture dominated by Monarchies nearly two and a half centuries ago against today’s standards and calling them hypocrites and fools and idiots. Certainly technology has advanced more than the nature of man, but it must be understood that within the culture of the day, the Founders took great risk and made a great stride in the world of freedom. They deserve honor and respect. This does not mean that we should venerate the constitution and treat it as the final answer to the world, but it does mean that we should at least look at it as a starting point. The wheel is already invented, now let us make one that works better, smoother, and is tougher against the constant attack of tyranny.

Obviously, there are differences between children and adults. Most libertarian and other free market supporters still believe in protection for children in contracts, employment relationships, marriages, sexual interaction, and transactions in general. Children are not able to make the same educated decisions, and are not able to take full responsibility for those decisions. This varies by degrees, a 4 year old can handle more than an infant, but far less than an 8 year old or 13 year old.

In this country, we presume the legal adult age to be 18. This is not entirely arbitrary, but it is a fixed number. There are kids who cannot truly handle things even after they are 18 and who are essentially under their parent’s control till long after. There are also those who can handle themselves well before 18, at least well enough to understand a transaction and suffer the consequences of a bad one. The difficulty is, as with many things, who is the judge of this? Maturity is a subjective concept. Many adults still are not mature, nor do they really understand what they are doing in life. What is the benchmark that makes us able to legitimately say “you are an adult and will be legally treated as one”.

Also, if we have a right to be free, with no one having the right to coerce us, are children the victims of coercion from their parents? If they do not wish to go to school, can they be forced by their parents? What gives a parent or another authority figure the right to dictate the life of another? I believe that parents do have this right, they must. I believe that the laws of the land still applies to minors. I believe that some number must be picked where a person cannot run to mommy and say they are not adults yet. I suppose I just dont know how to accomplish this.

Rights, individual freedoms, are our birthright. It seems, however, that they are granted by the passage into adulthood, not just put on all persons when they are born. Who gets to decide this, the parents? The government? Themselves? What rights do we have at birth? Life? Perhaps. Certainly not liberty or the pursuit of happiness, at least not completely.

I would say that the providers and teachers of a child have authority by virtue of the fact they are caring for the child, the child is dependent on their resources. IF a child is able to be self-sufficient, he/she should be able to be considered an adult. Does that always make sense tho? A child who is talented in a certain way may be able to make enough money to survive, but does that mean they should be able to enter into contracts the same way? Should they be able to have consensual sex with whomsoever they wish? Are they mature enough in all ways to not be taken advantage of just because they earn a living?

How about a child who has never earned their living and is in school at the age of 24. Are they still a child just because they are still dependent? Should they be allowed to enter into contracts having never handled transactions of significance themselves? Are they mature enough?

I actually do not have a big issue with the 18 adulthood mark in our current culture. I believe there is a process for those 15 and up to petition the court for adulthood, I think this is a good thing as well. If one can pursue a process for adulthood and show a measure of understanding, then they should be granted adulthood as well. Does this work in all cases? No. There will never be a universally acceptable answer to this sort of question. There will be exceptions. I could see a culture in which adulthood was reached much earlier because of the way children are brought up. The native americans had manhood beginning at 12 after a survival trial was passed.

It still begs the question, however, if culture can dictate when one reaches adulthood, does that mean that rights are determined by that culture as well? Are the rights we call natural rights really natural if we only get them at a certain age, an age dictated by the culture and law of the land? I believe they still are, I believe parents would be the best judge of maturity, but I do not know if I trust them solely to be the judge of that. There are many who would make bad decisions for their children, holding them back or pushing them into adulthood sooner. Do we put aside the fear of error and trust parents and guardians? That may be the only acceptable answer while remaining philosophically consistent.

I also like the idea of having rights that are withheld while a child is dependent gradually being given back. As in, if a parent grants a level of maturity, then certain rights are granted as well. This means that whatever government is in place must respect this level of rights, rather than have a sudden shift. I do not think that a 17 year old should get away with murder and have their records expunged as soon as they are 18 just because of some arbitrary age setting. It is a tough question, one I am still working through. That is why I seek comment, I would like some other minds to assist me on this one.

Thanks in advance.

We are all free individuals. This concept of freedom is more clearly defined as legal freedom, wherein we are free from government law or restriction that violates our freedom, and we are free from authorized violence or infringement on our freedoms by other persons. Any action we choose to take that does not restrict the freedoms or damage/take away the property of another person is not to be legally stopped or restricted.

There are influences of social mores that may still be in effect, and there are aspects of societal interaction that influence morality, but in all, freedom is its own thing. There are no laws in such a society that enforce morality, except for laws and enforcement against immoral acts that violate the freedoms of other individuals. This does not mean that such a society is immoral, it simply means that its morality is the responsibility of its own people, not of law or government.

In a society of moral law, there may be many things that overlap the society based on freedom law. No stealing, no murder, no coercion or violence, no fraud, etc. The issue is that there are certain freedoms that are violated by society. People are not allowed to do things that harm themselves, or that are bad in society’s eyes. People cannot drink or smoke or wear improper clothing, etc. Such a society might function well in theory. The issue is that the decision of what is moral is decided by whom?

There is no logical premise for consistency in such a moral society. There is no basis for what is appropriate to wear. Is it immoral to wear a bikini? Is it immoral to wear jeans that are too tight? Is it immoral for a native tribe to wear breach cloths and no top? Whose morality are we talking about? What is the basis for moral law? Christianity? Islamic faith? Buddhism? Witchcraft? Atheism? What really decides what is moral? With freedom law, it can be consistently decided that what is freedom for one can be freedom for another, and what things violate the freedom of one cannot be freedoms for another. Morality has no such universal application.

So what about a hybrid? No such hybrid can exist. The issues that arise in inconsistency in moral law would still arise in a hybrid. In instances where morality called for universal charity to be forced by law, freedom law is violated. In cases where morality called for making certain clothing illegal, freedom of choice is violated. Where does it end? In cases where there are disagreements on morality, those in favor of moral law can use the law of the land in their favor, or can use it as an excuse for being immoral. When morality is not the responsibility of society it is passed off onto government. When it becomes the responsibility of law, of the government, then people use that as either a hammer to force compliance (even if your code of morality differs) or an excuse for immoral acts.

So what is the effect on faith, on moral code itself? When people comply by force of law they consider themselves in compliance, but are they moral? Is morality just a listing of acts or lack of acts? Is it just a matter of what is on the outside? For some maybe it is, but for most, faith and morality is a matter of the inside, the heart, the soul, the faith within. Such things are lost in a society of moral law.

I submit that morality is essential in a society. Great societies in history have always fallen. On the path to failing, those societies have generally gone through a period of comparative immorality. Was it the loss of the moral code or the corresponding attitude of self-indulgence and selfishness. Was it the lack of family structure or the ease of indoctrination it leads to, or both? Was it the failure of people to be moral or the failing of their faith in anything? Was it the loss of morality or the dependency people had on government enforcing it? Was it the loss of morality or the loss of faith itself?

I submit that morality, at least the action and inactions associated with it, are an outward expression of the state of society and the individuals in it. By the time morality is lost, faith and cohesion and even a true belief in freedom for all is already lost in society. Using law to try to hang on to that morality is like closing the gate after the horse has escaped. In fact, since the use of law to create morality reduces the need or motivation for faith or societal mores, it is more like sabotaging the gate and so that the horse can get out, then tying it shut.

I submit that freedom law, natural law, the rights of all men to be free, is the only standard by which law can be consistently written. I also submit that moral law is a farce, a concept that cannot be compatible with freedom, in spite of the fact that so much of morality and moral law complies with freedom law. So much of it matches. And so much of it feels like the right thing to moral people. I do not have a problem with morality. I do not have a problem with many of the things that those who seek moral law want. I think many of them would be good for society. I think a society that supports family values and minimal self destruction is a good thing. I think a society that cared nothing for that is a bad one or at least an unhealthy one, no matter how free its law might be. But a society that tries to use law to support such values is already on the path to destruction, and it will end in evil and tyranny no matter how much it may want to save itself.

I was finally pushed deep enough into introspection to find my own core by a fellow blogger. I mentioned him also in a recent post, stating that he was very influential to me. The main point of influence he had on me was in helping/pushing me to find my core principle. Also, in knowing his, it allows me to respect his point of view without being upset by it or frustrated by his inability to see what I consider “reason”. Black Flag, as I mentioned, believes in freedom. That is his core principle. I believe in freedom, but not for the sake of freedom itself.  Freedom is “good” to me because of what it does, what it brings us, which is opportunity. Freedom is good to him because it is freedom. In like manner, “opportunity”, or the “greatest potential” is good to me because it is the greatest potential.

The key in discovering this is to look at everything you philosophically consider “good” in life and in your thinking. Try to figure out why you think it is good. What is the reasoning. When there truly is no reason, it simply is good because it is, then you may have hit upon a core principle. Test this by seeing if all of your other reasoning seems to stem from this, or seems to have to be tested against this concept to be agreed with in your head.

When you realize this core, you are able to be consistent in your thinking more easily. You find fewer conflicts with your own philosophy, because you can conciously check it against your core. Also, when you can learn the core of others, then you can appreciate their arguments more and point out whether they are being consistent or not. Also, you tend to be les frustrated because you realize that they are arguing form another place. If a concept fits both of your core principles, you are far more likely to be successful in a debate with that sort of overlap.

The key first, however, is to know yourself. Know your thinking, know why you think that way. Know your core and you will know your philosophy. Recognize that we are all working form a different place sometimes, and you will find that it is much easier to debate, rather than argue. It is much easier to keep your emotions in check and simply exchange thoughts and ideas.