Basis for my gov belief's

[steve74baywin]

All of the "opt out" exemptions. Septic tank and well owners, local roads only, federal taxes but not for war (I'd be on that list), all the "sovereign citizen" exceptions, child labor, the abortion camps, the "english language only" groups, all the social agenda items get real sticky, racists, all the different religions, bicyclists, etc etc etc., toxic waste management.

While faith in the honesty, integrity, respect, and common sense logic of our brothers and sisters on this planet is admirable, history notes it is also very naive. Again, an ideal. Humanity has been entangled in violence as long as there has been humanity, as evidenced by flesh shredding cuspid teeth still in our mouths.

While I am optimistic about resolving the consequences of global warming, I'm not as optimistic that my fellow humans behavior can change at the level needed to realize your vision of an ideal limited government. Weiner comes to mind.

neal

They wouldn't be "opt out" exemptions, the gov is set and limited. They would be things people choose to do above, beyond and separate from the gov.

Septic Tank and Well owners.
They pay to install, upkeep and run those systems they own that are on their property. Someone else is on a system provided by the community. In this county there is the Counties water system. People who use it get a usage bill. I do not know if some money for it comes from a general tax or not, but that would end. Only those who use it would pay. So nothing additional here, except if property taxes contributed to such a system that would end. Might I add how unjust that sounds to tax someone for county water who doesn't use it and they also have to pay for there well and septic out of their own pocket.

Someone only wanting to use local roads.
Currently local and interstate are funded from different sources anyway.
This gets a bit trickie partly due to the fact that we have roads in already that were done via the unconstitutional method. This is maybe one of the few useful things our elected officials could work on. I would assume interstates is on what is called public land, actually might be federal, which federal shouldn't own anything in a Libertarian system.(I think), if they do that is us again, public. Seems to me the upkeep would have to paid for by those who use it. So this would be an additional thing set up, but we'd be doing away with so many government agencies we'd still be way ahead. But either way, if you use it you pay, if you don't, you don't pay.
Other roads put in privately would not be a gov thing.

Not for WAR
The military would only be for defense. So none of our money goes to war. If some one thought something was needed in a country like Iraq or Lybia, they are free to go, and who ever wants to fund such an adventure could do it. But it wouldn't be a gov thing, it wouldn't be our military.

all the "sovereign citizen" exceptions, child labor, the abortion camps, the "english language only" groups, all the social agenda items get real sticky, racists, all the different religions, bicyclists, etc etc etc

I'm not sure why that would add anything to a limited Libertarian form of gov. The gov doesn't or wouldn't dictate in these matters.
Let me make sure we are talking about the same thing, A gov set up to protect my rights to be King of my property.(self and what I own).
Racist? What needs to be done for that? Some guy hates blacks, he still can't hurt or kill one. That be violating one of the basics few things the gov is set up for. Oh, do you mean if for example some guy owns an auto repair shop and he hates blacks and doesn't want to hire one? Well, he owns the shop, that is what he can choose to do. I'd look at him as an idiot and would do what I could to give my money elsewhere. But no laws for that.
Religion? They can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

[steve74baywin]

I think this here is a good piece on where my belief's come from. Even though I posted it in another thread, I think it is good here also.

http://www.nccs.net/articles/ril17.html

Natural Law
The Ultimate Source of Constitutional Law

"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)

The Founders DID NOT establish the Constitution for the purpose of granting rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator­ endowed rights to life, liberty, and property.

Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.."

Herein lay the security for men's individual rights - an immut­able code of law, sanctioned by the Creator of man's rights, and designed to promote, preserve, and protect him and his fellows in the enjoyment of their rights. They believed that such natural law, revealed to man through his reason, was capable of being understood by both the ploughman and the professor. Sir William Blackstone, whose writings trained American's lawyers for its first century, capsulized such reasoning:

"For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the...direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws."

What are those natural laws? Blackstone continued:

"Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due.."

The Founders saw these as moral duties between individuals. Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society . their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."

Americas leaders of 1787 had studied Cicero, Polybius, Coke, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, among others, as well as the history of the rise and fall of governments, and they recognized these underlying principles of law as those of the Decalogue, the Golden Rule, and the deepest thought of the ages.

An example of the harmony of natural law and natural rights is Blackstone's "that we should live honestly" - otherwise known as "thou shalt not steal" - whose corresponding natural right is that of individual freedom to acquire and own, through honest initiative, private property. In the Founders' view, this law and this right were inalterable and of a higher order than any written law of man. Thus, the Constitution confirmed the law and secured the right and bound both individuals and their representatives in government to a moral code which did not permit either to take the earnings of another without his consent. Under this code, individuals could not band together and do, through government's coercive power, that which was not lawful between individuals.

America's Constitution is the culmination of the best reasoning of men of all time and is based on the most profound and beneficial values mankind has been able to fathom. It is, as William E. Gladstone observed, "The Most Wonderful Work Ever Struck Off At A Given Time By he Brain And Purpose Of Man."

We should dedicate ourselves to rediscovering and preserving an understanding of our Constitution's basis in natural law for the protec­tion of natural rights - principles which have provided American citizens with more protection for individual rights, while guaranteeing more freedom, than any people on earth.

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." -John Locke

[steve74baywin]

The things in the above or last post in this thread that relate to much of the views that I express often, and counter much opposition from I will mention here.

Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.

Herein lay the security for men's individual rights - an immut­able code of law, sanctioned by the Creator of man's rights, and designed to promote, preserve, and protect him and his fellows in the enjoyment of their rights. They believed that such natural law, revealed to man through his reason, was capable of being understood by both the ploughman and the professor. Sir William Blackstone, whose writings trained American's lawyers for its first century, capsulized such reasoning:

The Founders saw these as moral duties between individuals. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society . their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."

The above, and the quote below means, what I know inside I can't do to you, doesn't go away or isn't abolished because I set up a group. If I can't walk into your house and punish you for a plant say, then neither can some group I set up.

Thus, the Constitution confirmed the law and secured the right and bound both individuals and their representatives in government to a moral code which did not permit either to take the earnings of another without his consent. Under this code, individuals could not band together and do, through government's coercive power, that which was not lawful between individuals.