What I believe

I believe that the only legitimate functions of govenrment are:

1. To provide a defence against those who would harm liberty

2. To provide a court system that ties those who commit crimes against liberty and settles disputes against between people all based on objecive law.

3. To print and coin money based on a objective standard of measure.

And that is it.

This means that the federal government bears the responsibility of providing a military to protect the nation from foreign threats to liberty and life. The states and local government provide a police force to protect people from criminals who threaten life, property, and liberty.

It means that the court system exists to allow a person accused of a crime a speedy trial before his peers. It means that the courts allow people to air their complaints and settle disputes. All law however, is objective, not subjective. This means that law is written in plain everyday english and are clear and concise not allow wiggle room or is subject to interpretation.

I beleive that it is not the function of the government on any level to provide retirement, healthcare, recreation, research, or eduction among other things. It is not the function of government to regulate business.

The only additional legitimate function of state and local governments would be to maintain a road system.

While is short and sweet, this what I have arrived at in my beliefs. As I have posted here and refined my views by watching what others beleive and by looking at the world today, along with studying history, this is the only conclusion I can come to.

I believe that people need to learn the following:

1. Stay out of each others business and leave each other alone.

2. This is a great nation because it allows one the oppertunity to achieve. However, achievement is not a right and one is not entitled to achievement. One earns it by working hard, making mistakes, and learning from those mistakes.

3. One is entitled nothing, one earns it.

4. A right is not a get it free card. Consider the right to keep and bear arms. The government is under no obligation to provide a weapon, you have to purchase it. Your right is the ability to purchase a weapon and keep it on your property or person.

5. The private sector can do a far far superior job of providing oppertunity than the government could ever hope to do.

This is what I beleive.

Without commenting one way or another on your beliefs Cato, I'm curious how you commerace falls into this. What happens if VA decides to place an "travel through" tax on all WV'ians destined south? Or on WV goods entering into VA? Or they refuse to allow any good from or bound for WV to pass through their dock systems? Who addresses those issues?

How about the locks and dams on the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers? Can the federal government build and maintain them? How about Interstate highways?

ohio county wrote:How about the locks and dams on the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers? Can the federal government build and maintain them? How about Interstate highways?

What about the barge companies building and maintaining them. Why should the public be required to provide locks and dams?

Aaron wrote:Without commenting one way or another on your beliefs Cato, I'm curious how you commerace falls into this. What happens if VA decides to place an "travel through" tax on all WV'ians destined south? Or on WV goods entering into VA? Or they refuse to allow any good from or bound for WV to pass through their dock systems? Who addresses those issues?

the issue is settled in court based on objective law.

And by what authority would the government enact and enforce such laws?

If the only legitimate functions of government are to provide a defence against those who would harm liberty, to provide a court system that ties those who commit crimes against liberty and settles disputes against between people all based on objecive law, and to print and coin money based on a objective standard of measure, by what authority could the government enact laws regulating interstate commerce, for example?

All law however, is objective, not subjective. This means that law is written in plain everyday english and are clear and concise not allow wiggle room or is subject to interpretation.

How would we determine "objective law"? What is or is not "objective" is in the eyes of the beholder. Do you really think that any elected politicians anywhere are capable of enacting laws that are so concise as to not allow wiggle room or be subject to interpretation?

Can you, in all your wisdom, construct a law, for example, that prohibits one human being from taking the life of another, but allows for self-defense by a person against one who would do him mortal harm- and without making that law subject to interpretation by either a person threatened by another, or by a Court hearing the case of one charged with a homicide after the fact? I challenge you or anyone of your choice to write such a law that would not be subject to interpretation as to its meaning in particular situations and circumstances.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Without commenting one way or another on your beliefs Cato, I'm curious how you commerace falls into this. What happens if VA decides to place an "travel through" tax on all WV'ians destined south? Or on WV goods entering into VA? Or they refuse to allow any good from or bound for WV to pass through their dock systems? Who addresses those issues?

the issue is settled in court based on objective law.

So how do you reconcile the fact that commerace is a Congressional enumerated Constitutional responsibility?

ziggy wrote:And by what authority would the government enact and enforce such laws?

If the only legitimate functions of government are to provide a defence against those who would harm liberty, to provide a court system that ties those who commit crimes against liberty and settles disputes against between people all based on objecive law, and to print and coin money based on a objective standard of measure, by what authority could the government enact laws regulating interstate commerce, for example?

Explain to me any reason for the government to regulate interstate commerce.

ziggy wrote:How would we determine "objective law"? What is or is not "objective" is in the eyes of the beholder. Do you really think that any elected politicians anywhere are capable of enacting laws that are so concise as to not allow wiggle room or be subject to interpretation?

First and foremost, law need to be written in everyday English, not lawyereze. Secondly, all enacted law needs to deal with just one subject.

Do I think politicans are capable of enacting such laws? Yes, I do provided that the public holds them accountable to the governing standand , i.e. Constitution.

ziggy wrote:Can you, in all your wisdom, construct a law, for example, that prohibits one human being from taking the life of another, but allows for self-defense by a person against one who would do him mortal harm- and without making that law subject to interpretation by either a person threatened by another, or by a Court hearing the case of one charged with a homicide after the fact? I challenge you or anyone of your choice to write such a law that would not be subject to interpretation as to its meaning in particular situations and circumstances.

You basically did it yourself in your comment. Common sence and reality has to rule here. We can go back and forth for ever with various scenerios, but the fact of the matter will remain that defending one's self become evident in the circumstances of the situation.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Without commenting one way or another on your beliefs Cato, I'm curious how you commerace falls into this. What happens if VA decides to place an "travel through" tax on all WV'ians destined south? Or on WV goods entering into VA? Or they refuse to allow any good from or bound for WV to pass through their dock systems? Who addresses those issues?

the issue is settled in court based on objective law.

So how do you reconcile the fact that commerace is a Congressional enumerated Constitutional responsibility?

Personally, I believe the US Constitution needs to be rewritten. We've seen and been the victims of how politicans have abused their consitutional responsibility. The only way to correct that is void the Constitution and begin again correcting the mistakes and problems that have arisen from the original constitution. Speaking for myself, one of the first things I would correct is the remove and any wording that referred to the "general welfare". The second thing would be to spell out specifically the authority, duties, and limits of all three branches of government.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:And by what authority would the government enact and enforce such laws?

If the only legitimate functions of government are to provide a defence against those who would harm liberty, to provide a court system that ties those who commit crimes against liberty and settles disputes against between people all based on objecive law, and to print and coin money based on a objective standard of measure, by what authority could the government enact laws regulating interstate commerce, for example?

Explain to me any reason for the government to regulate interstate commerce.

In your reply to Aaron, you seemed to be suggesting that:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Without commenting one way or another on your beliefs Cato, I'm curious how you commerace falls into this. What happens if VA decides to place an "travel through" tax on all WV'ians destined south? Or on WV goods entering into VA? Or they refuse to allow any good from or bound for WV to pass through their dock systems? Who addresses those issues?

the issue is settled in court based on objective law.

What objective law? If there is no reason for the government to regulate interstate commerce, then what "objective law" would apply to the situation Aaron cites, and by what authority could the government enact and implement such law?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:Can you, in all your wisdom, construct a law, for example, that prohibits one human being from taking the life of another, but allows for self-defense by a person against one who would do him mortal harm- and without making that law subject to interpretation by either a person threatened by another, or by a Court hearing the case of one charged with a homicide after the fact? I challenge you or anyone of your choice to write such a law that would not be subject to interpretation as to its meaning in particular situations and circumstances.

You basically did it yourself in your comment. Common sence and reality has to rule here. We can go back and forth for ever with various scenerios, but the fact of the matter will remain that defending one's self become evident in the circumstances of the situation.

No, I did not do that. Under what I said above, every person confronted with a threat to his life has to make some judgemental determination (an interpretation) about how much force with which he can lawfully resist what he or she perceives to be a mortal threat (make an interpretation about to what degree that law applies to the particular circumstances)- just as we do today anyway. Likewise, under what I said above, a Court would need to make some interpretation of the law and the circumstances about whether the threat justified the defensive action that took the life of another- again just as we do today anyway.

How much of a threat justifies a mortal response? That is an interpretative judgement- the very thing you seek to avoid. You refer to "common sense and reality" has to rule. But "common sense" is not universal. The next person's or your or my "common sense" is someone else's non-sensical craziness, or vice-versa. What you propose would come closest to working in a Kingdom- where the King makes the law, interprets the law, and decides who has broken the law, and the penalties for violating the law. In a Kingdom, at least some degree of "common sense" prevails- that of the King. But in a society of freedoms and individual free wills, there will always be clashes about what constitutes "common sense", and there will always be the need for interpretations of the rules- however those rules are devised- because human minds, allowed the freedom to think for themselves, will disagree about what is and is not "common sense" and reasonable.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:And by what authority would the government enact and enforce such laws?

If the only legitimate functions of government are to provide a defence against those who would harm liberty, to provide a court system that ties those who commit crimes against liberty and settles disputes against between people all based on objecive law, and to print and coin money based on a objective standard of measure, by what authority could the government enact laws regulating interstate commerce, for example?

Explain to me any reason for the government to regulate interstate commerce.

In your reply to Aaron, you seemed to be suggesting that:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Without commenting one way or another on your beliefs Cato, I'm curious how you commerace falls into this. What happens if VA decides to place an "travel through" tax on all WV'ians destined south? Or on WV goods entering into VA? Or they refuse to allow any good from or bound for WV to pass through their dock systems? Who addresses those issues?

the issue is settled in court based on objective law.

What objective law? If there is no reason for the government to regulate interstate commerce, then what "objective law" would apply to the situation Aaron cites, and by what authority could the government enact and implement such law?

As I stated, the matter would be settled in court under objective law stating what was and wan't allowed. As I further stated, I do not be believe the Federal Government has any business regulating interstate commerce. I know that the US Constitution gives the Federal Government that authority and I know that the Federal government has abused that authority to the of hurting or destorying interstate business.

You are right you didn't. I just glaced over your post instead of breaking down every word.

You want a law to allows for one to defend themselves, here it is. "One may use what ever force they beleive necessary to defend themelves, their family, and their property. They can do so without regard to whether threat is armed or unarmed. The perpetrator nor his family shall not have any legal recourse against one defending his person, family, or property."

I don't believe in conditions and equal force stuff. When a person comes on your property uninvited and/or acts in a threatening manner toward you or your family, they have forfeited any rights or protections they have. It comes down to this, actions have consequences, so one needs to think about what they are doing before they do it.

Am I describing a monarachy as you alledge, no I'm not and if could be a little honest, you know I'm not.

Cato

"One may use what ever force they beleive necessary to defend themelves, their family, and their property. They can do so without regard to whether threat is armed or unarmed. The perpetrator nor his family shall not have any legal recourse against one defending his person, family, or property."

So under your above example, if I "believe" that I need to "defend" myself from my neighbor, who might be being belligerent with me because my tree shades his tomatoes, I can just kill him and not worry about any legal consequences, right? That would allow almost anyone to kill almost anyone else, claiming self-defense or defense of family, and without any police or other authority to make any interpretation of the law or of my action to determine how reasonable my action might have been.

Talk about actions having or not having consequences. Your law, without any interpretation or any need to determine if the action is reasonable under the circumstances, would be a license to kill on any bogus pretext of "self-defense".

Am I describing a monarachy as you alledge, no I'm not and if could be a little honest, you know I'm not.

I don't believe in conditions and equal force stuff.

You are not describing a monarchy.

But only in an absolute monarchy is there such absolute indisputable "common sense" and a non-allowance of "interpretation" of application of the law and non-consideration of "conditions" as you say you would expect.

Somehow you expect your "common sense" to be the same as everyone else's "common sense". In a society of freedom to think and believe independently of some central authority, that kind of universality is just not reality.

As I stated, the matter would be settled in court under objective law stating what was and wan't allowed. As I further stated, I do not be believe the Federal Government has any business regulating interstate commerce.

Those two sentences seem to be directly contradictory to one another.

If there were no federal regulation of interstate commerce, there would be no "objective law stating what was and was not allowed". Each state would have its own laws. And certainly Ohio law would not be "objective" as relates to commerce with other states, nor would others states laws be "objective" as relates to Ohio, or any other state. And so the scenario Aaron offers would have no solution other than the raw might of one state to prevail over another- just as we see in international relations around the world today.

The "United States" of America would be anything but united.

ziggy wrote:

You are not describing a monarchy.

But only in an absolute monarchy is there such absolute indisputable "common sense" and a non-allowance of "interpretation" of application of the law and non-consideration of "conditions" as you say you would expect.

Somehow you expect your "common sense" to be the same as everyone else's "common sense". In a society of freedom to think and believe independently of some central authority, that kind of universality is just not reality.

First, I left a word out, I am not describing a monarchy, you are right on that point. And you are right I do expect common sences to be the similiar with people or else it wouldn't be COMMON sence.

"Common sense" is not common.

ziggy wrote:

As I stated, the matter would be settled in court under objective law stating what was and wan't allowed. As I further stated, I do not be believe the Federal Government has any business regulating interstate commerce.

Those two sentences seem to be directly contradictory to one another.

If there were no federal regulation of interstate commerce, there would be no "objective law stating what was and was not allowed". Each state would have its own laws. And certainly Ohio law would not be "objective" as relates to commerce with other states, nor would others states laws be "objective" as relates to Ohio, or any other state. And so the scenario Aaron offers would have no solution other than the raw might of one state to prevail over another- just as we see in international relations around the world today.

The "United States" of America would be anything but united.

There is no contradiction there. One statement is as things should be if the US Constitution were actually followed and the other is my opinion of how things should be. And you are right if how I htink things hould be wer the case there would be no need for objective law

Why would we not be united? We band together for a common defence against foreign enemies and we are united by our liberty. Additonally free trade would further unite the nation. So explain to me why we wouldn't be united?

ziggy wrote:

"One may use what ever force they beleive necessary to defend themelves, their family, and their property. They can do so without regard to whether threat is armed or unarmed. The perpetrator nor his family shall not have any legal recourse against one defending his person, family, or property."

So under your above example, if I "believe" that I need to "defend" myself from my neighbor, who might be being belligerent with me because my tree shades his tomatoes, I can just kill him and not worry about any legal consequences, right? That would allow almost anyone to kill almost anyone else, claiming self-defense or defense of family, and without any police or other authority to make any interpretation of the law or of my action to determine how reasonable my action might have been.

I will hand you one thing, when you come up with a stupid scenerio, you do a good job of it. Someone yelling at you because your tree shades his tomatos is a long ways from someone entering your property uninvited and threatening you.

ziggy wrote:Talk about actions having or not having consequences. Your law, without any interpretation or any need to determine if the action is reasonable under the circumstances, would be a license to kill on any bogus pretext of "self-defense".

The law would not be subject to interpretation, as you allude, a person's actions would ahve to be determined to meet the standard set by the law. Let me give you a real life example. At one time in West Virginia, before one could use deadly force to defend themselves from an intruder in their home they had to retreat to the farthest room in their house. What consitutes the farthest room in a person's house? What if the intruder breaks in and confronts you in your bedroom and you don't have time to retreat? That is subjective law. It is subject to interpretation and can be interpreted differently by differeing judges.

The law needs to be such that one can defend themselves without having to worry about meeting a subjective standard. Then if questions arise about the circumstances of the event, the law is the standard and the circumstances will speak for themselves.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Without commenting one way or another on your beliefs Cato, I'm curious how you commerace falls into this. What happens if VA decides to place an "travel through" tax on all WV'ians destined south? Or on WV goods entering into VA? Or they refuse to allow any good from or bound for WV to pass through their dock systems? Who addresses those issues?

the issue is settled in court based on objective law.

So how do you reconcile the fact that commerace is a Congressional enumerated Constitutional responsibility?

Personally, I believe the US Constitution needs to be rewritten. We've seen and been the victims of how politicans have abused their consitutional responsibility. The only way to correct that is void the Constitution and begin again correcting the mistakes and problems that have arisen from the original constitution. Speaking for myself, one of the first things I would correct is the remove and any wording that referred to the "general welfare". The second thing would be to spell out specifically the authority, duties, and limits of all three branches of government.

That's all well and good but for now, commerace is a constitutionally enumerate Congression responsibility.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Without commenting one way or another on your beliefs Cato, I'm curious how you commerace falls into this. What happens if VA decides to place an "travel through" tax on all WV'ians destined south? Or on WV goods entering into VA? Or they refuse to allow any good from or bound for WV to pass through their dock systems? Who addresses those issues?

the issue is settled in court based on objective law.

So how do you reconcile the fact that commerace is a Congressional enumerated Constitutional responsibility?

Personally, I believe the US Constitution needs to be rewritten. We've seen and been the victims of how politicans have abused their consitutional responsibility. The only way to correct that is void the Constitution and begin again correcting the mistakes and problems that have arisen from the original constitution. Speaking for myself, one of the first things I would correct is the remove and any wording that referred to the "general welfare". The second thing would be to spell out specifically the authority, duties, and limits of all three branches of government.

That's all well and good but for now, commerace is a constitutionally enumerate Congression responsibility.

And as I have already said, the US Constitution needs to be voided and rewritten. The politicans and a good number of judges have perverted the spirit of US Constitution that it is unfixable.

ziggy wrote:"Common sense" is not common.

Maybe not to people like you, but to the average person it is.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:"Common sense" is not common.

Maybe not to people like you, but to the average person it is.

So everyone should think "average", should have the same "average" values, and my thinking should be the same "average" as your thinking, right? What about individual liberties to think as one pleases and to live as one pleases and to let others do likewise?

Cato wrote:I believe that the only legitimate functions of govenrment are:

1. To provide a defence against those who would harm liberty

2. To provide a court system that ties those who commit crimes against liberty and settles disputes against between people all based on objecive law.

3. To print and coin money based on a objective standard of measure.

And that is it.

This means that the federal government bears the responsibility of providing a military to protect the nation from foreign threats to liberty and life. The states and local government provide a police force to protect people from criminals who threaten life, property, and liberty.

It means that the court system exists to allow a person accused of a crime a speedy trial before his peers. It means that the courts allow people to air their complaints and settle disputes. All law however, is objective, not subjective. This means that law is written in plain everyday english and are clear and concise not allow wiggle room or is subject to interpretation.

I beleive that it is not the function of the government on any level to provide retirement, healthcare, recreation, research, or eduction among other things. It is not the function of government to regulate business.

The only additional legitimate function of state and local governments would be to maintain a road system.

While is short and sweet, this what I have arrived at in my beliefs. As I have posted here and refined my views by watching what others beleive and by looking at the world today, along with studying history, this is the only conclusion I can come to.

I believe that people need to learn the following:

1. Stay out of each others business and leave each other alone.

2. This is a great nation because it allows one the oppertunity to achieve. However, achievement is not a right and one is not entitled to achievement. One earns it by working hard, making mistakes, and learning from those mistakes.

3. One is entitled nothing, one earns it.

4. A right is not a get it free card. Consider the right to keep and bear arms. The government is under no obligation to provide a weapon, you have to purchase it. Your right is the ability to purchase a weapon and keep it on your property or person.

5. The private sector can do a far far superior job of providing oppertunity than the government could ever hope to do.

This is what I beleive.

So is all this "common sense"? Or just what Cato happens to believe?