1. Laws should secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. George Sutherland, who became a United States Supreme Court Justice said, “‘The individual...has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his life, the right to his liberty, and the right to his property. The three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes life worth living. To give him liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.’ From the Declaration of Independence we read, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted". Our lives, with their attendant liberty and property, are precious to us. In order to protect them, we organize ourselves and sponsor a government. The government passes and enforces laws to punish those who dare infringe on the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus protected, we can engage in other pursuits that make life worth living. Unfortunately, the fire that cooks our food can turn it to ashes. The scalpel that heals can also maim. The pen that shares knowledge can also spread lies. And the government that defends can also kill, steal, and enslave. As the Declaration continues, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". Therefore, my policy is to examine a law and ask, "Is this law written to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual equally or does it do so at another person's expense?" We each have equal claim on our life, our liberty, and our property. Laws should be written to defend that equal claim. I cannot exercise my liberty at the expense of your life, liberty, or property and you cannot exercise your liberty at the expense of my life, liberty, or property. The complexity of government is in appropriately defending that balance. 2. They should restrain crime, but never control conscience. Laws should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. It is quite understandable that laws should restrain crime and punish guilt, but how could a law control conscience or suppress the freedom of the soul? Is this just flowery language, describing impossibilities? No, this refers to the just extent of the law. All true crimes are immoral, but not all immorality is criminal. How can we tell the difference? One simple way is to consider how you ought to respond to your neighbor's immorality. If your neighbor is intent on killing a random pedestrian, are you justified in using force to stop him? Of course! If your neighbor refuses to contribute to your favorite charitable organization, are you justified in using force to mandate his contribution? Of course not! Both of your neighbor's decisions might infuriate you, but only one should be punishable by law. This can also be thought of as the appropriate separation of church and state. A religion might tell you what you should or shouldn't say or eat or drink or do in the privacy of your home. A preacher might ask for donations for the poor, or recommend serving your community, or tell you how you ought to spend your time and money to live a righteous life. But if you refuse, the worst punishment you face is excommunication from that religion. And thus it ought to be. These are matters of conscience. The state has no right to intervene unless you decide to violate someone's equal claim to their own life, liberty, and justly acquired property. 3. Laws should be administered in equity and justice. The commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense and according to the offender's tendency to commit crime. The United States Constitution specifies that, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity..." Why equity? What is equity? Webster's 1828 dictionary gives this definition from Blackstone: "Equity then is the law of reason, giving remedy in cases to which the courts of law are not competent. Hence a court of equity is a court which corrects the operation of the literal text of the law." The dictionary adds, "doing that to another which the laws of God and man, and of reason, give him a right to claim. It is the treating of a person according to justice and reason." Laws administered in equity can be scaled back when they ought not to apply and extended when they are deficient. A way to provide equity is through a jury trial. Surely a panel of experts and lawyers could more easily decide the exact facts of a case, and exactly which laws are broken. But in the interest of equity, we leave it to ordinary people with no vested interest in the case to make decisions of guilt. Though lawyers and judges may try to stifle it, a jury still has the opportunity to extend mercy when mercy is due and close loopholes when justice demands. 4. We should obey the laws and sustain our respective governments while protected in our inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments. If we do not exercise our common right to self defense in an orderly manner, such as through written laws and established government, we leave ourselves open to criminals who would organize themselves to deprive us of our lives, liberty, and property. If we have such a government that thus protects us, we ought to sustain it, and adhere to its laws. 5. We should step forward and use our abilities in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment. We should appeal to the government when personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character is infringed; but are justified in defending ourselves, our friends, and property in times of emergency. Part of sustaining a good government is yielding to its mechanisms in order to ensure that justice does prevail. As a group we can pool our resources into a government to better pursue justice. However, this does not mean we abdicate the right to self-defense! Only a government that deprives you of 100% of your liberty can dare to think it might protect you 100% of the time. While we should defer to government at times in order to better maintain our liberty, we forever retain the responsibility to be our own first line of defense or suffer the consequences of our inaction. 6. I have other strong beliefs regarding the essential nature of education, charity, community cooperation, financial planning, etc. However, the choice to participate in these things is a matter of conscience and not crime; therefore, they are outside the scope of government and the law as long as our activities in them do not result in force or fraud against the life, liberty, and property of those around us. This statement refers back to items 1 and 2. I seriously believe that if the members of a community do not attend to such things as education, charity, healthcare, scientific progress, financial stability, and even art, that community will stagnate, deteriorate, and fail. However, I also believe that a respect for each person's individual right to their life, their liberty, and their property is a necessary foundation for the success of any one of those endeavors. Whenever a well-meaning majority, an ambitious bureaucrat, or a catering politician violates an inalienable right for the sake of social welfare, another crack is made in the foundation of that society until it falls apart in chaos. A slavedriver, a thief, and a tyrant each use force or fraud to provide for their own wants and needs. They could use labor, exchange, and cooperation, but instead choose to shift their burdens onto others. We have the same choice before us. How will we try to build our society? Do we force our neighbors to work for us and support our ideas, or will we recognize their equal claim to liberty and build society on a firm foundation?