Constitutionalism

Today, I was confronted with a number of views, some of which offend my own personal philosophy more than others. Once again, I will state, my philosophy is completely and totally linked with my theology, and the two can never be seperated. That being said, perhaps I should better explain the rest of what I believe, which may put me at odds with your average libertarian, and most constitutionalists, and pretty much every conservative who has yet to consider my ideas. This philosophy is most certainly radical. I'm not ashamed to say it, I am a radical. I also wish to run for office someday, and if successful, I would love to destroy, completely, the power our government has gained over the lives of the American people, through legal means, by way of the construction of a new goverment, which would be extremely and explicitly limited in domestic policy. This will almost certainly require a complete overhaul of the government. Or, actually, a new government. 

Now, having laid that out, here I may possibly break with my Constitutionalist friends if I haven't done it already. I was discussing the Constitution with a friend in class, when I realised, perhaps he was right. He was arguing that what I would call tyranny of the majority, which is the current social policy of the United States government as well as the governments of the several states, was completely Constitutional if held to certain limits. Also, I am a believer in Lockean principles. While he combined Locke with Hobbes, with whom I have endless disagreement based on theology and the belief in the natural good of man, assuming he recognizes the love of Christ, he did make clear arguments based on social contract theory which mandate entering into a contract for reasons of practicality. Perhaps Locke was wrong by my philosophy too, although he would still be very close, because he allowed God into his methods and based his philosophy of grace and God himself.

Let me make something clear. I am never practical excepting in my own personal affairs. I do not give a darn what the implications are for society, there is no justification for tyranny on the level which it is exerted by our government, which is one of, if not the, freest civilized country in the world. Practicality is no concern in philosophy, unless you write it in to your philosophy. It is more prevelant in atheistic, agnostic or secular philosophy, because it is assumed that there is no constant standard of good or bad, right or wrong, where it must be defined by the philosophy itself. However, I assume that we are all immortal if we choose, and that physical harm or suffering is not nearly the worst outcome in life, and that this bodily life has only one purpose, to better understand God. This life holds no fear for me.

Also, I hold a number of things to be psychologically true. I find that all of the rules that it teaches about unconscious thought are negated by conscious thought. If I was coming up with this theory because I am psychologically prone to, would it be invalidated because it was natural? If you are aware of these psychologial tendencies, analyze them, analyze yourself, and question your logic and reasoning in your philosophy, the effects of unconscious psychology do not apply. It is just as likely that these tendencies could lead to the right answer as it is that they will lead to thw wrong answer. I say personally, and it cannot be held otherwise unless you dispute my theology, that people can be essentially good, and can be trusted. I also hold that they have responsibility for their own thoughts and actions, barring mental incapacitation.

Interestingly enough, I still believe that the government should protect the weak, meaning that any harm that you do to someone must be authorized by all parties involved. This requires additional clarification, which I will provide in future postings. This is one of only two functions which I hold to be justified. The other function is the protection of the people from foreign enemies, namely war. Also, I have no love for state's rights in an ideal situation. I see no reason why tyranny of the majority should be okay at the state level but not the federal. My only concern is the rights of the individual, and of entities created by the free association of people. This is my only goal in government, to protect and promote the rights (via negative freedoms, not positive in most circumstances) of the people to be free from all oppression. Anything else should not be expected from my politics, because I believe it to be inherently wrong. 

Now, after having seen this, tell me if you agree with my conclusion. If you are almost anyone in the mainstream of America, you will disagree, because you have been told that you need government in your life, and have never been presented with a counterpoint to this, because it was held to simply be evident by society, and by human nature. Consider for a moment my philosophy, because I believe if nothing else, you will at least find it to be valid. Consider it on its merits. If you do not know my theological basis, ask me, I would love to explain it in all detail. I would say that where some apply the Constitution as being the guiding principle to society, others would say that it is human nature, bred into us by evolution. I place God at the heart of society, which will lead to an obviously different conclusion. So please, consider the methods by which the philosophy and the final conclusions are reached. If you had drawn your guidance from the same sources which I used, would your own conclusion be so different?