Title page-Contents



Contents (see same)



The economic cycle

Economic growth

Capitalism & Socialism

Good and bad points

Myth of competition



Types of freedom

More contents on next page




contents continued

Maximizing freedom

The relational concept of freedom

Maximizing freedom

Forming a constitution

The law of liberty

A model constitution

Further interpretation of the constitutional principles

The principle of merchandising

Biochemical effects

Definition of pornography


Three proposed laws

Three proposed laws

    1. Mandatory population stabilization
    2. Public pornography ban

3. Tobacco products ban

On government and banning pornography

On overpopulation

On mandatory population stabilization

On immigration

More on pornography




The definition of Natural Law I am referring to is (from Webster):

Rules of conduct supposedly inherent in the

relations between human beings and discoverable by reason.

And I would add: proceeding from nature, as God so created it.

This is not to be confused with naturalism, which denies the existence of God.

Because many of these essays are short I have not included an index, but rather I have added the major subtitles to the table of contents.

The acronyms (abbreviations) used in part 1 designate the subtitles. For example, see GAAA refers to the subtitle "God as an Actor".

The bible cross references to each subject are not complete but only an/some





Godís infinite nature

Logic of Godís existence Ė 3 proofs

Illogic of other sprits

Language of the day



God as an actor

Need for Faith

Not taking all of the Bible literally

Evolution and Creation




Worry-free lifestyle and friendship





Definition of Religion

God as king


Godís Infinite Nature

God is infinite (and omnipotent), including all material and non-material things and has existence from ever (backward) too ever (forward) in time. Therefore nothing exists outside of God, else somethingís would be separated from god, that is, have an existence other than being of God. Therefore everything is "part of" God. Even empty space is part of God.



Logic of Godís Existence Ė 3 Proofs

Proof 1 Ė Modern physics theory (the big bang theory) concludes that the universe possibly came into existence from mathematical point, that is to say, from nothing.

Paraphrasing Thomas Aquinas, something cannot come from nothing, therefore something exists which is beyond human understanding and that something is commonly known as God.

Proof 2- see GAAA, paragraph 1.

Proof 3- All the prophecies of the bible. For example the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the coming of Jesus, which were fulfilled. And many others, some which are already fulfilled, some which are not yet.



Illogic of Other Sprits

If satan existed, being the complete epitome of evil such by logic would destroy itself. Therefore satan cannot exist. Furthermore since God is an infinite being God is therefore singular, that is to say there is only one super-natural being of any sort and that is God.

All bad things are then, I believe, of ignorance, fear and natural occurrence only.


Language of the Day

But Jesus talked of the devil numerous times.

However it needs to be considered that 2000 years ago people did not know the cause of rain, lighting, disease, anything about chemistry, etc.

So to talk about sin as ignorance, fear and misinterpretation of what our feelings mean would not have been understood by people back then.

Therefore Jesus used the term devil because it was the language of the day in referring to the cause of sin.





It may be asked, God doesnít exist because God wouldnít permit so much suffering to occur. But if we could do the right thing all the time and never make a mistake what kind of existence would we have (if God solved all our problems for us Ė what would we do?). For if we dropped an egg on the floor it really wouldnít have dropped. Or if we threw a match in the leaves it wouldnít star a forest fire. Or if we fell off the roof we wouldnít get hurt.

Now this on the face of it might seem okay, we could do anything without harm! But then if we wanted to mow the lawn it would al. If we wished to drink a glass of water it would already be drunk. If we went to cook a meal it would already be cooked. The sandwich we want to eat would already be in our mouths, the chewing we needed to do would already be done. And last but not least the thought we have would already be had.

So in fact we would have no (human) existence. I believe this is what Jesus meant when he said, "an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Matt. 12-39). For if we wish miracles, we ask not only that things be done for us but that there be less nature (and more super-natural). But as shown above we know not what we ask as this would be no existence at all.

Rather God in love has made a real world always to have real problems, but the hope of the Kingdom is that tragic large-scale problems can be pared down. So people would only have to deal with easy problems like when to plant, when to eat, what to build, etc.

But surely God grieves over suffering. In the bible it says so (see Mark 1:41, John 11:35 etc.). But the sooner we tackle our problems the sooner we can achieve a better world. And always there is hope of this better world and the resurrection when we shall live for evermore.




Has God ever intervened since creation? This is a touchy question. For if God has intervened just once then one might ask why not more often to prevent suffering. But it shown from the above if essay that if God intervened all the time, probably just the majority of the time people could not have any conscious existence. Likewise it probably can be concluded that God doesnít want to force thought or behavior upon people but want us to choose such, for if itís forced we donít make a conscious choice.

Also if God intervened would we believe it? Would we obey? Would superstition be multiplied, or laziness (see NFF).

But Jesus was intervention by god (see GAAA) to show us the way to a better world. Now has God intervened more than once? Perhaps so, but I believe to consider the whole Old Testament as Godís intervention rather than mostly historical is a mistake (see NTATBL).

To conclude I think God probably intervenes as little as possible, and we must not rest our hopes of a better world solely on Godís intervention, but must as God instructed us (see Matt 25:31-46, Luke 6:46) be workers toward that better world.

God as an Actor

Particularly considering the state of knowledge 2000 years ago, I believe Jesus had more wisdom than humanly possible.

I would conclude Jesus was God acting out the role of a human. In such a role Jesus never denies being God, only, for the sake of teaching us the gospel and how to treat each other, God played the role of a person. To simply preach he was God and tell people what to do would only have:

  1. Cut away from the example of how a person should act.
  2. Caused people to argue with God more.
  3. Neglicicted the fact that even as Jesus God is everything else in the universe (see also GIN and John 3:12).

A reading of the New Testament however shows how clearly Jesus states that he is God, particularly when considering the stipulations above.

With the miracles being true (it would be interesting to see if archeologists could find pig bones at the gerasenes site, Luke 8:26-39) it shows how scientifically ignorant people were then not to believe such supernatural acts. Further since God infallibly knew what "he" was doing we should have all confidence that Godís teachings are most important to follow.


Need for Faith

Now suppose one would believe in God only if God would reveal Godsself. But

suppose God did, might one not say "this is an imposter sprit". So all in all one can only

believe by faith. But God has created a perfect order in the world, therefore such

other sprits exist not, only being unorderlyness between God and Godís image (people).

Now one might still say "but God could make us believe", but this is like saying that

we are forced to do so, that is our will is changed so we must do it, so we donít have the

ability to make decisions, which wasnít the purpose of creating humans.

Therefore you definitely need faith over and above proof.


Not Taking all the Bible Literally

Should the entire Bible (particularly the Old Testament) be taken as literal truth from God? Even Jesus said otherwise (see Mark 10:2-9, Matt 5:33-9, John 5:37).

But I believe there are spots in the Old Testament, like the Ten Commandments, where God did intercede. The fact that there is a New Testament shows the Old one wasnít good enough. I perceive the Old Testament as mostly history with the Gospels and Revelation being Godís direct word as Jesus was God (see GAAA).




Evolution & Creation

In the Christian Faith is the Theory of Evolution an idea opposite to that of creation?

The idea of extreme creationism is that the universe including plants, animals and people were created in one week "as is", without any sort of "progression", change", "evolution" or "nature" to reality (all these words being logically similar ideas).

This certainly would be a harsh reality, and in Genesis it states that what was created is good. Jesus too states that we are to do good works. How are we to do good works if there is no "nature" to the world!

However it is completely consistent to suppose that evolution itself was created. That is the universe upon creation was given a certain "nature" to it, which leads unto biological evolution.

Evolution then is part of the nature of the world that has been created. Human evolution is an important subject in the improvement of peoples health, as knowing the that our genetic makeup has been structured by our evolutionary ancestors environment can be a powerful clue to understanding present day human biology therefore health issues.

The creation is beyond human understanding. Modern science has concluded the universe started in a "big bang". This must have been a supernatural event, and is in the initial act of creation totally beyond human understanding. God can only express it to us in poetic style. The supernatural world is infinite, instantaneous, everywhere and one Ė God. The natural world as God created it has order and meaning.

So I have no problem with the creation story in Genesis as poetry, expressing Gods act of creation in some way we can understand a bit. After all God is perfectly capable of writing poetry if it expresses the situation better than prose.



Primitive people where Hunter-Gathers (before McDonalds) and in gathering foods a bitter taste usually translates to plants that are poisonous or unhealthy. Whereas a sweet taste 99 times out of 100 is something safe to eat. So though evolution people developed an instinct for liking a sweet taste.

Now tens of thousands of years ago only a small amount of sugar was actually in the food eaten. But today with the ability to refine 100% sugar we consume much much more than primitive people did, which is unhealthy. So we have this dilemma that the instinct to like a sweet taste is there, and we now have the ability to produce too much sweets.


The recommendations now are to cut back on saturated animal fats. This makes evolutionary sense too, as the cattle primitive man ate are really quite different from todayís beef. Why? Over the course of the last two thousand years or so people have been breeding cattle for size. That means fat fat fat. So now todayís cattle are probably 5 times or more as fat as the ancestral animals were. Therefore in eating the same amount of protein as primitive man we are getting much much more saturated fat than they did.

So todays guidelines on fat do fit well with the concept of eating a "primitive diet" which people evolved into over 100,000s of years.



Firstly let me say I am not talking here about discriminating or treating people badly because of any disabilities the have that are genetic in origin (or non-genetic)

Nor am I taking at all about how Hitler corrupted the word eugenics. What he was doing was racial extermination, racial superiority ideas, terrible things that have nothing to do with the idea of genetic health.

There are 2 major problems with the gene pool currently.

-In centuries past warfare and disease toke many lives, often with the weakest (genetically) dying in statistically larger numbers. If we want a world without warfare and disease (I do) then we must address the need to keep the gene pool healthy in other ways.

-Modern medicine allows people to live to childbearing age who used to die before then. These same people then pass their defective genes on to a new generation if they chose to have children, and many of them are choosing to do so.

Also the use of harmful drugs and pollution is damaging the gene pool currently.

The result of all this is more and more unhealthy people. This causes suffering for the people involved, as well as driving up the general cost of health care and the cost of living though decreased productivity. This sounds unkind to say even though it is true. But it is not unkind; the goal here is not to treat anyone alive badly, just the opposite. Foregoing childbearing if one knows they have genetic abnormalities is a responsible thing to do, and we should not be ashamed to talk about it as such.



Worry-free Lifestyle and Friendship

I believe one should try to live a worry-free lifestyle (see Matt 6:25-34 likewise Luke 12:22-31, Matt 11:28) and not strain over anything, just do what one is able (see Mark 4:26-29, John 3:8).

Friendship is an important topic (see Matt 5:14-16, John 15:14-15). Friendship may be a biological, economic and social necessity (sharing, helping, networking, etc.). We may need to read between the lines in the New Testament as often it may be of implied significance.



When horses are put into a pasture they usually do it in pairs. If one horse is left alone it prances up and down the fence line looking for another.

This is because horses are gregarious animals.

Man also is semi-gregarious and prolonged loneness results in distress and unhappiness.

Psychology is only making matters worse because when you call a lonely person "mentally ill" it only makes them feel more rejected. This is also contrary to what the Gospels teach, as in: Matt. 5:22 " But I say to you, that who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; whoever says Raca* to his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says you fool shall be liable to the hell of fire."

See also Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43.

*Raca is defined as: a word expressing contempt for intellectual capacity or moral worth.



Along the same line one of the major problems today is the lack of relationships people have. Children move far away from parents and friends in the community they grew up in, this leads to a lack of continuity and substance in relationships. This is the major cause of peopleís unhappiness, not genetics.

This, in my opinion, all can be traced back to the invention of the automobile. 100 years ago most people lived in the same geographical area. This allowed long term community and family relationships. After the invention of this began to change. People got what I call "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence syndrome" and began to move around a lot. Today it is the exception in suburban culture to find people that havenít moved long distances multiple times in their lifetime.



The Islamic world goes to one extreme of being over-"modest" and the West has now gone to the other extreme of being overly immodest. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In the past America was good about this up unto the 1940ís, but now has gone way downhill.

Modesty is not a question of being ashamed of oneís body, only recognizing sexual feelings are real and can get addictive and dangerously out of control. Speaking as a male, much of these feeling are of course instinctive and unfortunately quite automatic, so the best and easiest way to control oneself is to avoid exposure.

Even bare shoulders, high shirts, tight pants are all inappropriate - fe-male and male.

The media, newspapers, radios and of course TV have a big big problem on this issue. TV of course is totally out of order, but even newspapers and magazines are very very bad with no proper policy on pornography, let alone immodesty, particularly in advertisements. Please make a definite effort not to subscribe or support them. And 90% of the secular publications are like this.


Please read the Book of Revelation at least once a year in your church.

This is because Revelation 1:3 (NRSV) reads: "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecyÖ" and if God says we should read it aloud, we ought to do so.

I agree with people who do not like the gender-neutral translation of the New Revised Standard Version. However I do feel that the translation of this passage is correct. It differs in an important way from previous translations, which is it calls for reading aloud the words of the Book of Revelation.


Definition of Religion

I support the separation of church and state. Now it becomes difficult to uphold the 1st amendment (clause on religion) when religion is given an open-ended definition.

I believe instead that religion should be given a definition like this:

That which the trail and error of history has shown to have some possible merit.

This would then limit religion to what is normally called the major religions and none else (and exclude unsubstantiated or widely discredited ideas).


God as King

As far as leadership goes the epitome of such is a king, for they are the leaders and the subjects are to be obedient. There is one king, God with whom we must be obedient (as far as understanding prompts us) as Godís teachings are in precept infallible. But between people this should never be least we underestimate the vast difference between Godís knowledge and ours. Only equable, democratic, cooperative and mutually edifying relationship should exist among people.



















Currently anything qualifying as a good or service would "add" to the GNP as so figured, be it cigarettes, overcharging on products, luxury items, etc. The following idea hopes to provide more distinction between items good or bad for the economy.



Goods & Services

Dead End

Dead End

that don't facilitate more (G & S)

Goods & Services


The principle is this:

Only goods and services that facilitate (efficiently and sustainably) the production of more goods and services are good for the economy.

Now this is a self-defining fact, for if goods and services are not facilitated to be produced the economy doesnít exist. Furthermore it fits well with the concept of GNP as it attempts to maximize production of goods and services (although this alone is not okay, only Net National Welfare is okay).

By facilitate it is meant goods and services that provide parts, distribution, health (including food, shelter, etc.), production machines, etc.

An example: mind altering chemicals. The use of such diminishes ones ability to produce therefore it doesn't facilitate production, therefore it is bad for the economy. All money spent on mind-altering chemicals should be considered as negative amounts that drain the economy.

I hope to perhaps use this idea to help tie in consumer economics (household spending) with the concept of business productivity to get an across the board productivity concept (business and household interaction). Below is a list of some facilitators and non-facilitators.






Mind altering chemicals


Health Care






Manufactured Goods as:


Hardware items


Household utensils

Luxury items as:

Office supplies


Industrial equipment

Extravagant Autos

High tech items, etc.

" Houses


" Clothing






Non-edifying or excessive


Fiction books, TV







Plants (for oxygen, etc.)


Non-educational or excessive

Resources, as:








Stone, etc.


Junk Food





Total GNP and how it is spent






Level 1- GNP meets needs at a sustenance level.

Level 2- GNP goes beyond sustenance level needs.

Extravagance = contraction (see last chapter)

Practical planning and investment = expansion

If there is only enough GNP for level #1 then there is only hand to mouth existence.

If GNP is < needed for level #1 then there is hunger, etc.

If extra GNP (level #2, including extra time and resources) is spent wisely then investment multiplies the ability to meet needs beyond hand to mouth. GNP would expand until a steady state is achieved (with the environment, resources, current technology, current management etc).

But if some of the GNP is spent on extravagance then:

If over time extravagance = the increase in level #2 GNP, then GNP

holds steady.

If over time extravagance > the increase in level #2 GNP, then GNP


If over time extravagance < the increase in level #2 GNP, then GNP


Could this be the cause of business cycles? As wealth increases people spend more on extravagance which contracts GNP forcing people to he more practical consumers which expands GNP and the cycle repeats?



In an ideal socialist system all the goods and services people produce are owned by the state and distributed equally among all the people.

In a purely capitalist system the goods and services people produce are owned by those who earned them and then traded to others for their goods and services.

Some Good and Bad Points of Socialism

Some of the good points.

All the wealth is shared equally among all the people.

However sharing is not a new idea, it goes back well b modern socialist doctrine. Hunter-gather cultures shared food, etc., later sharing occurred in traditions of family and community and in the world's religions (for example in Christianity: Matt 19:21-26), etc. I believe for a capitalist system to be successful sharing is also very important. That is those who have had the good fortune and opportunity to earn a great deal of wealth should share and invest it so others can have opportunity also

So does this make religion, or capitalism the same as socialism? No for in religion it is a matter of conscience for one to share. In capitalism it is voluntary for people to share and not even necessarily promoted by the state. In socialism it is a mandatory requirement of the state that people share and one can he punished for not obeying.

Another good point of the socialist system is that it is cooperative system, at least in ideal.

Some bad points of the socialist system.

It is unethical, that is for someone not to be able to keep what they have earned is unethical. I presume this unethical standard has been around for a long time also, it also can be found in the bible at: 2 Timothy 2:6.

A socialist system is a centralized system. This creates a number of serious problems. It adds bureaucracy because it adds a layer of collection and distribution that is unnecessary in the decenta1ized Capitalist system

It is bad for distribution. This had been seen in practice in the Eastern European countries, where distribution by the state, though theoretically run by everyone, means decisions were made by a few people. Such a system is less sensitive to peoples desires arid choices of products, nor do prices reflect well the actual cost of goods sold. This in fact is by definition, for if everyone was given a choice what to do with what they earned then it wouldnít be a socialist system.

The facts that would lend to people coming up with new ideas and innovations are less available because there is poor feedback a local leve1 between producers and consumers centralized system.

In capitalism what the consumer chooses to purchase ultimately determines what gets produced. So the consumer actually has the ultimate control over production. The

same holds true for workers shifting to different types of production. With wage differential (capitalism) it tends to become the choice of the workers. With less wage differential (socialism) it tends to become a managers choice.

This of course is why a system of choice and a decentralized system (capitalism) works much better for consumers and workers because individuals themselves have a much better idea of what their needs, abilities and situations actually are. Also the opportunity it allows to a far greater number of people to be able to give their input1 ideas and innovations into the system, so that even with mistakes people' overall are much better off.

To summarize: goods and services are produced and sold less efficiently under socialism because:

1. Less sensitive and not "automatic" feedback of demand.

2. Less price differential means the real spectrum of demand is unknown.

3. Shifting workers to different production is less efficient because there is less incentive and or also less choice, as is a bureaucratic requirement.



Myth of Competition

One of the biggest myths about capitalism is that it needs to he a competitive system.

This is very far from the truth, for in any truly competitive system we are right back to the law of the jungle fighting against each other, and in a truly competitive system you could only end up with one "winner". What kind of system would that be?

Therefore from the standpoint of logic a competitive system wouldn't be beneficial.

However capitalism is not competitive, rather, as stated before it is a system where people are allowed to keep what they earn, this is ethical.

I would instead like to use a new term: Free Initiative Efficiency instead of economic competition.

Now the results of this fact sometimes appear to be competition. For example if two people are selling furniture and one is able to produce it cheaper because they are, lets say, a more efficient worker. Therefore one person goes out of business. One could say thatís competition, the fact is, it is not competition only a consequence of the situation.

Competition itself is an attitude where people are trying to compete with one another. In fact, as stated earlier, to make a capitalist system work, people who are fortunate to earn lots of wealth must share that wealth in order to create opportunity for the good of the system economy

One might argue that clearly copyrights or patents are set up to produce competitive situations, but again this is only keeping with the ethical nature of keeping what one earns, furthermore with things like copyrights this only helps to prevent unnecessary duplication, etc.

Now this issue of competitiveness vs cooperation has only been briefly touched here, however it is important for economists not to miss the true nature of capitalism, for in not realizing the supreme importance of cooperation not competition we get out of the path from the best economic theories and practical policies.

Closing Points

Now by showing some of the bad points of socialism some of the good points of capitalism have been shown, and why capitalism overall is a more effective system than socialism.

Also some of the pitfalls of capitalism were touched on which are;

1. Sharing is important to the economy but must be voluntary, therefore if people don't voluntarily share it depresses the economy.

    1. The tendency to think the capitalist system should be competitive not cooperative, is wrong and leads to poor theory and policy.





































Freedom is an important subject.

Since ancient times people have struggled to overcome obstacles to freedom. Freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom from oppression, freedom to chose your job*, to chose where you 1ive, freedom of expression, etc.

Rather than an open-ended concept however I would like to categorize freedom into several types

1. Personal Freedom

2. The Relational Concept of Freedom

3. Freedom from Poverty

Personal freedom is something like getting up on the weekend and going out and breathing the fresh air and smelling the flowers and knowing you can do what you want to that day.

I think of personal freedom as having much to do with our relationship with God. As God said "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free and if the son shall set you free, you shall he free indeed', and it is written, "whoever sins is a slave to sin".

Another type of freedom is what I call the relational concept of freedom. It involves one person doing something, which maybe is in conflict with what someone else wants to do. For example, if someone wants to go swimming in a spot in some in some country pond and someone else wants to go fishing at the same spot. Or two people both want to use the same parking space.

The relational concept of freedom is what is involved in government and legal affairs. The term individual rights actually refers to one individuals rights in relation to another individuals rights, not to something akin to the personal type of freedom of being able to do whatever one wants.

Many mistakes can be made if one uses the personal type of freedom in the exercise of government. In referring to government one should use the relational concept of freedom.

A third type of freedom is freedom from poverty. This particularly ecological relationships, that is natural biological rather than manmade requirements.



* Not to be confused with job opportunity.








" If law is a form of authority; if authority implies coercion, and coercion restraint; if the essence of freedom is the absence of restraint it is obvious that, implicit in any discussion of law, is the problem of freedom. To the extent that law restrains man from interfering with the activities of others, he is not free. But to the extent that the restraint permits the activities of others, then they are free. Thus, where law exists, freedom is created at the same time it is denied. By denying one the freedom to kill, law gives everyone else that much more freedom to live; by denying one the freedom to steal, law gives everyone else that much more freedom to enjoy his possessions. By denying one the freedom to spend all of his earnings (taxation), the law gives others that much more freedom to travel (roads), to obtain an education (schools). Indeed, the freedom to do what law permits one to do would be nonexistent if it did not, at the same time, effectively prevent everyone else from interfering with that freedom. Freedom, thus conceived, is a relational concept; the references above to "him," "others," to "one," "everyone else," suggests that, when it is protected by law it consists of rights against other human beings. When so viewed, "freedom"-like "property" and other abstract concepts of law-loses a certain aura of the mystical, and permits of translation into concrete positive terms.1"







1 Julius Cohen, 'The relation of Law to Freedom and Authority", Freedom and Authority in our time Twelfth Symposium of the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, ed. Lyman Bryson, Louis Finkelstein, R.M. Maciver, Richard Mckeon (The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, in relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc. New York, 1953) p. 217.








Maximizing Freedom

Considering the minimum amount of freedom 2 people can have, that is neither can do anything they want; and the maximum freedom, that is both can do everything they want.

Considering the relational nature of freedom*, it follows from the last page that there are two basic ways freedom is denied. By physical actions, i.e. assaults etc. and by mental anguish, that is others not doing what you wish they would denies you a freedom of "desires unfulfilled"

Now with every action there is a desire also. But until a desire is acted upon it is only a desire.

If we assume to give actions and desires equal weight and the desires + actions of any group always a constant value, then: if A pursues a action we have Aa (the action) + Aad (the desire of the action) fulfilled (freedom to do it)

If D doesn't want A to do it then we have only Bd unfulfilled, so Aa + Arid > Bd. So freedom is maximized.

If B acts their desire to stop A then Aa + Aad = Bd + Bda, or there is less freedom.

If A tries to stop B from stopping them, then every ones actions and desires maybe stopped and all freedom annulled.

Of course then if there is no conflict at all freedom is at it 's maximum

Therefore the maximum possible freedom can only be achieved by going by the rule of not allowing physical actions against others.

We can state the principle of maximum freedom as:

No one has the right to physically interfere with an others se1f or property, conversely;

One has the right to do anything one pleases as long as it doesn't physically interfere with an others self or property

Forming a Constitution

Taking the above principle and adding to it the idea of groups (and renaming it);

Law of Liberty

No person or group of persons shall physically interfere with a persons self, or a persons or group of persons property.


* Here a certain level of opportunity is assumed, and the opportunity factor in freedom is not considered but the relations among people only, although eventually opportunity would be also intertwined.

Now lets consider some of these relationships mathematically. The forgoing principle applies to all of the following cases. A group is defined as any possible subgroup of the whole society. The whole is equated with government, as in a democratic society government represents the union of the people.

person vs person

group vs person

group vs group

person vs whole

group vs whole

who1e vs whole

If one wishes to add the terms saying the maximum possible cannot be exceeded , then;

person + person < whole

group + person <= "

group + group <= "

person + whole > "

group + whole > "

whole + whole > "

So one can represent the rights of the whole as superseding the Law of Liberty in cases where the whole cannot conflict with itself (mathematical1y equal to or exceed its own value

But to compromise these two ideas (allowing whole vs group/person/whole, or mathematical1y not allowing whole vs group/person/whole we might say that some of the time society as a whole (government has a right to do anything that they want regardless of whose interests are superceded) and some of the time government must respect the rights of individuals. Restated: government may do whatever they feel is in societies best interest even superseding the rights of individuals and groups however there should be 1imits on the same.

Now guessing on a mix of limits and government's right to do whatever seems in the best interest to society I would simply use the idea that government should uphold the Law of Liberty as stated, except in the case of the whole. And as the whole it should have every right over others property but the right to interfere with a persons self limited to items of positive medical benefit. Now incorporating all these ideas into a model constitution:

* * * * * *

A Model Constitution

  1. The legislature shall be elected democratically.

2. No persons or group of persons shall physically interfere with a persons self, or a persons or group of persons property.

3. The country as a whole, through its elected legislature, shall have the right to pass any laws it deems necessary except those violating #l above, and #2 except in the case as regards the countries (not any person or group less than the country) interest vs a persons or groups property or a persons self (to be limited to items of positive medical benefit).

4. The legislature shall pass laws as necessary to enforce, comply, and as pertains to the above.


Now what else is the present U.S. Constitution made up of other than the things associated with the above principles? I would suppose 3 other factors;

-Housekeeping (rules for elections, etc.)

-Other principles (separation of powers, etc)

-Legislation which needs to be protected from easy change by incorporation in the constitution as it is less readily amended compared to legislative laws.


Further Interpretation of the Constitutional Principles

Expanding on chart #1 we want to ask, should it be against the law to hurt oneself, Using a similar question from the mental anguish side of the chart #l, should it be against the law for one to be offended by ones own actions. In terms of common sense this would he illogical. Conversely then on the physical side it should be the opposite, that is it should be against the law to physically harm oneself.

Now tying this in with the Law of Liberty and the question of selling items by a principle that;

The Principle of Merchandising

It is illegal to sell goods whose primary use by the buyer will harm themselves or others (regardless of consent).

This would apply to both the seller not being allowed to sell such products or the buyer not being allowed to purchase such products. However we cannot extend the idea of self-harm being illegal to property. So an individual has the right to destroy their own property, further someone may give consent to another to destroy their property.

Considering a case study. Company B puts a harmful additive in a product. This by the Principle of Merchandising is against the law.

Now lets consider the definition of physical more completely. What is physical and what isnít? In the common sense we think of physical assaults. However we should add chemical effects, bright lights, excessive noise, etc.

So it is apparent the degree of the physical effects or/and the amount of harm needs to be part of the definition

So how should this line be drawn? With assaults perhaps just consider such as


Chart #1 Ė Maximizing Freedom

___Most trivial___ offends you if your neighbor sneezes







































physical (degree of assault might be considered, but this has more to do with sentencing).

But in things such as selling of goods, bright lights, noise etc. Where should the line be drawn? It must have to do with degree of harm, arid with things like noise this must be Scientifically established. Letís consider it as a matter of permanent harm or not.

But with the selling of goods, what degree of permanent harm should be outlawed? After all sugar will decay ones teeth, doing permanent harm. Should sugar be outlawed? Along with degree of permanent damage letís consider it a matter of individuals being able to change their own behavior or not. So the qualification of illegal physical harm concerns ones own behavior, as well as things imposed from the outside.

With noise if someone blasts a stereo at excessive decibels at your property, this is something imposed from the outside, and if it could cause permanent damage it would be illegal.

Whereas if you cause damage from sweets the maxim is rather the behavior is changeable, although a vague topic; but this definition is needed if we want to put any importance on allowing people freedom of choice, which is, of course, what we want to maximize.

So although you could ruin your teeth with sugar it is behavior that might reasonably be expected to be changed if one wants to.

However something addictive by definition is a situation where the possibility of changing ones behavior is so reduced that it should be out1awed. Now some question could arise over degree of harm and degree of addiction. However by drawing a line properly the question can be answered by saying anything worse than such and such is outlawed, and less is not.

Consider drawing the line at a substance 1ike cigarettes where the addiction and permanent effects are substantial. So anything cigarettes or greater in addiction and harm is outlawed, and everything less (a situation where there is more hope of the individual (with/without help) overcoming the problem) is legal. Alcohol is harmful, but we need to put the emphasize on product labeling and education but with cigarettes we need to ban them.

Now this then answers most questions because a dividing point is established.


Biochemical Effects

A human is a biological organism. All internal human activity is a biological reaction of somesort even our thoughts, therefore anything that can effect our thoughts effects ones biology. Can it be determined rather that is harmful or helpful for every possible effect? Certainly not. To maximize freedom by the Law of Liberty mental interference

(anguish) gets canceled out leaving only physical interference. But a distinction must be made as to what is physical and what is mental. However it has just been stated that from the biological facts that everything even our mentality has a base in physical-ness.

Here the idea of permanent effects can be resorted to again. For example if we should hurt someoneís feelings, hopefully the possibility exists of repenting, saying

Chart #2 Ė Expansion of chart #1 to show some specific "limits".




Mental Anguish








































something nice and being forgiven, and making up the breech, therefore no permanent effects.

Therefore I will quickly move through all these mental influences and eliminate them by that maxim/idea, up too things we see in the courts like payments for mental anguish, liable, etc. I am going to include pornography in this limit, as studies and history have shown that pornography has a pronounced detrimental effect on behavior such that it can be considered hero rust be some sort of unknown biological reaction that is harmful to a permanent or not easily repairable extent, which is caused by dwelling on pornographic media.

Therefore I would include pornography on the edge of this dividing line.

Here then a definition of pornography is needed which might be:

Definition of Pornography

Public communication explicitly describing or depicting unclothed human

anatomy for other than medical or scientific reasons (explicitly describing or depicting refers to non-incidental or non-intentional description or depiction of unclothed human anatomy as such).


Now what right does the government have to interfere with someoneís self? As stated this should be limited to medical necessities. Where should the line be drawn here? Consider a sequence such as shown on chart #3

























The possibility exists in using principles, and seeking the limits and boundaries these principles might imply that an outline for government and laws toward completeness might be pursued.

What has been lost/changed by these principles? What is done now is essentially the same as under these principles, except for certain changes such as banning cigarettes, which is way out of line with current policies anyhow.

With pornography the idea of free speech (as a mental influence) has been considered. This has always been along the borderline of dispute. So drawing a line around there is not something critically different. What has been preserved is the vast majority of free speech for good reasons.










incarceration for incarceration to

Criminal offense control overpopulation

none quarantine increasing government imposition

| against individuals



legal for governments to impose illegal for governments to

on individuals when necessary impose on individuals ever












Section 1. Three Proposed laws

Mandatory Population Stabilization

It be proposed to set the limit to the U.S. population at 260 million. If this limit is exceeded then the numbers (below) at X shall be 20 and at Y shall be 21. For each million people over the limit the numbers at X and Y shall be lowered by one.

If a male begets X children he shall be required to have himself sterilized. Failure to do so shall result in imprisonment until the age of 45.

If a female conceives X children she shall not be asked, or required, to have sterilization, however if she has Y children, by whatever means, she shall be required to do the same as above for males.

Any I immigration into the country shall be admitted only if there is an equal emigration out, unless the country immigrated from has an equal population stabilization policy, in which case immigration to and from shall not be restricted.

Anyone having y or more children, or pregnant with a X child or more, when the bill starts, shall not be subject to the above requirements unless 5 a following child is born.

Those who, due to unmanipulated circumstances of multiple hi ribs, exceed the limit, but would not have had a single child been born, shall not be Subject to the above requirements unless following child is born


Public Pornography Ban

Al1 pornographic media shall be banned.

Tobacco Products Ban

The sale of or private manufacture of cigarettes, cigars, snuff or the like shall be banned as well as the growing of tobacco


Section 2. On government and banning pornography

What if the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or parts thereof, should not be in the best interest of the people? Should we remain beholden to that which is not in our best interest? Why should there be any government or laws, particularly if one would be "free" to speak or do whatever one wanted without the same?

However if two people should each want to do something that is in contradiction to the other, how is the conflict resolved?

One way is to fight it out, the victor, having defeated his or her foe, gets his or her way. The other way is to come to some mutual agreement for resolving the conflict without fighting. In a democratic system this is done by abiding by the rule of majority (vote) as to the laws (rules) to be set forth. If we are to assume that the people who don't get their way (though agree to abide else fall under penalty of law), are oppressed, then majority rule is the only way to minimize oppression. For if the minority (of opinion) sets the law, then the most people (the majority) are oppressed and oppression is not minimized. Thus, democracy seems to be a most reasonable form of government.

Is this not then a prima fade reason for the establishment of government and laws, to resolve conflicts of interest?

I would say there are 3 basic reasons for government:

1. For people to do what is in their best interest.

2. To engage in collective projects.

3. To resolve conflicts of interest, both those among individuals and those among groups who disagree as to whatís in their best interest to do.

Therefore considering these things to be so there is absolutely no reason why, at any time, absolutely any law should not be enacted that people feel is in their best interest. And if all or part of the Constitution, is not in the peoples best interest it should be changed. Specifically if freedom of speech is not in our best interest there is no reason it should not be changed.

But it is not my contention that freedom of speech is not in our best interest, nor should it be abolished, only that we have a perfect right to do so if we wish. And that any exception to the rule of freedom of speech that is in our best interest to exclude, should, absolutely, be so excluded. Specifically I believe we should exclude pornography from this amendment, if the courts should not, or will not, interpret this clause to exclude (public) pornography.

Does this mean we should be opposed to the concept of freedom, including the articles in the Bill of Rights?

No because it is in societies best interest to allow an individual the maximum freedom to make their own decisions and follow their own course. The Bill of Rights is an expression of this, but it is by no means an invitation to not having laws.

Rather society is a delicate balance between an individual doing what they want, and rather this interferes with other individuals doing what they want; and a group of people doing what they want and rather this interferes with what another group wants, and pa the p that into interferes with what an individual wants, and vice versa

Therefore ones rights are only what is justifiable. Easily justifiable rights are ca11ed inalienable rights.

Freedom to express ones opinions is a fair dea1 not conflicting because we all have the right to listen or not and opinions are not something one ought to regulate.

Currently certain forms of speech are not considered a justifiable right, but are against the law; such as liable, treason, defamation of character, product labeling, perjury, etc. However if we are going to exclude items from the first amendment then we must be sure to make clear what is excluded and what is not, as the items that should be included in the important idea of freedom of speech are important and should be protected.

Is pornography justifiable? What's right and what's wrong? Well this isn't totally the issue, the issue is just as well that in a democratic society majority rules and if the majority feels pornography should be banned we ought to do so.

As far as whatís right and what's wrong perhaps only history will show rather allowing public sale of pornographic materials and public pornographic actions is beneficial to individual freedom or not.


Section 3. On overpopulation

On overpopulation I feel that, in collectively and democratically planning to stabilize our population, the right of all individuals, who so choose, to seek their happiness through the embodiment of a family, must be protected.

Why is this right jeopardized? Controlling the population by voluntary means requires the education, i.e. the motivation of people to have fewer children. Quite possibly in the "developed" nations this has already "worked". Many people raise no families at all. Others continue to have 4-5 or more children. Is it right that the "motivated" people should bear the burden, in essence, not just choosing not to raise a family, but making a sacrifice not to do so? Is this a right that anyone should have to sacrifice entirely? I believe this is why we should have a law, so as to deal with this problem equably.

This is an issue that goes beyond the voluntary measures of all but the total democratic body of the nation at large. Certainly rules affect people, as these rules would. But lack of rules can affect people as much. Freedom is justice; freedom is in reality not without it.

As stated in section 2 we can have freedom while having rules and regulations because such rules can serve to mediate differences of opinions among people. Having a mandatory law to stabilize the population is such a "freedom rule" because it balances the rights of one person to another in meeting the goal of preventing overpopulation.

Let us guide ourselves, not through wishful thinking and piecemeal approaches, afraid of setting appropriate and desirable rules but let us consider that fairness dictates that all people be treated equally in this matter, and nothing be left to chance or suppositions.


Section 4. On Mandatory population stabilization

On the seemingly harsh law on population (section 1), let me say this, that having a law dependent on incentive measures (tax cuts, etc.) would preference controlling the population growth on ones economic status which I find unacceptable. And to have no law at all would not solve the problem. So the only alternative is a "requirement" type law. Though seemingly harsh I have tried to write it with the least mandatory measures possible considering the nature of the requirement. However I feel the people have a right to employ any measure, democratically decided as being in the public interest, even mandatory sterilization.

However it is my hope that this law as written would forgo the need for this, and that if enacted the vast majority of people would not need to comply (having less children than the limit) or would comply with voluntary sterilization. The law is triggered by a predetermined population size so perhaps it would never have to be implemented at all as long as people succeed in voluntarily keeping the population from reaching that point. But it Is needed to assure people that action will be taken if necessary, so, as previously mentioned, no one feels they have to give up having a family to prevent overpopulation, therefore assuring that the responsibility of controlling population growth is shared equably.


Section 5 . On immigration

Immigration is a critical issue. It is also a very simple issue. If the United States has a birthrate near replacement level but allows Immigration from countries with high birthrates, then the U.S. and world population will rise. This hurts both them and us by not solving the overpopulation problem anywhere. We are forced to deal with their high birthrate problem, which we only encourage by giving the impression that overpopulation does not matter to us.

Therefore a National Population Policy must include a ban on immigration from countries without similar policies.




It is necessary for governments to ban pornography so that individuals can avoid pornographic addiction.

Normally our feelings, our influences on each other and our will can be separated enough that persuasion and experience alone is enough for people to learn right and wrong.

But with pornography these factors are so intermingled that I believe it will be found to be a biological fact that we need support from governmental policy banning pornography for individuals to learn proper conduct.


Pornography and the First Amendment Freedom of Speech and of the Press.

The idea of freedom of speech and of the press is to allow a discourse of various ideas so that, hopefully, good ideas can be found. Speech is not an end in itself but a means to ideas that can benefit society.

There are some forms of speech and press that are so far from any civilized discourse there is no justification for protection by the First Amendment.

How can legitimate arguments are protected? I propose a principle similar to the Idea often followed, that the First Amendment should refer to political speech. Here is the policy:

1. Any speech or press to be enjoyed by a person unto a interest pertaining to their own person shall be subject to such laws as to protect against liable, slander, etc. , and health and welfare.

2. Any speech or press to be enjoyed by a person unto an interest pertaining to community interests shall be protected by the First Amendment

Application of these Principles

The fol1owing are some current laws, all of which might currently be considered as violations of free speech. Notice how they all would fall under #1.




Product labeling (FDA laws to list ingredients, etc.)

Roadside advertising regulations.


All news, public debate, etc. would fall under #2.