The role of morality in government and our laws

Everyone has their own definition of morality, but is there an objective standard? I see the beginnings of one in the foundations of a few ideas:

Desire, the foundation of our inalienable agency: Wanting what cannot be - to defy nature. Wanting without working. Wanting to build and grow to full potential. Nature is the only moral path.

Family, the foundation of sustenance, security, and social synergy: Submission being the tool of tyrants through the abdication of responsibility; the futile attempt to dismiss one's own inalienable judgment, responsibility, and desires for those of another. Mutual respect unlocks the beauty and power of society from the family to the state.

Faith, the foundation of growth: Ignorance holds the premise that knowledge can truly exist without, or even contrary to, experience. Experience is required for accurate, and complete understanding, and those who would deny experience prefer to maintain a monopoly on social power. Faith is a student's learning tool through the assumption of unsupported facts, not a manifestation of knowledge or spiritual development.

The respective virtues then seem to be: Natural desire for industry and development/ascension, social equality and mutual respect, and lastly, faith as a developmental tool for obtaining experience.

Government is the law, and Good government is moral laws. Therefore, laws must support personal industry and growth in social equality with faith that experience will educate and ascend the masses.

Education reform

Students ought to be grouped by common attributes in the subjects of their studies respectively. Age-based grade levels make sense for physical activities like PE, literature, art, and recreation/play. Intellectual-based grade levels make sense for intellectual subjects like math and language, while IQ-based grade levels follow subjects which develop problem solving and learning, such as science and engineering; both of which are typically introduced far too late in the children's lives to allow even modest development. No subject should immediately follow another of the same genre, and no teacher should be allowed to test or discipline the same students which they teach. Furthermore, testing, accounting, and discipline are so different from teaching that they disrupt it greatly, and therefore logically belong to a class of teachers which I will call Class Administrators, who know the students by name and also serve as their advocate with each teacher. Then arises the need for practical development of their skills; separate from academia and married with industry.

And then there is the question of why we don't have school choice already!

Nuclear Defense

A strong offense is the first line of security. We have that, and shrinking our nuclear arsenal does not advance our security, unless it is in exchange for the second line of security, a good defense. This is where the short (foreign-based missile), medium (air/space-based laser), and long-ranged (home-based missile) missile defense system makes sense. If their nuclear power is required, then go nuclear! Peace through power.

Our Republic

I assert that it is not meaningless to distinguish American government as a republic, because the common form of government is not a republic, but a parliament; there being very important and profound distinctions between the two. Now the claim originally cited would be true if the implied word "just" were inserted as follows: "America is a republic, not JUST a democracy." But why is a republic so different from a parliament, that America finds herself so unique from the traditional political mechanisms of Europe and Japan? What other country in the world has a republican president, like America? The answers to these questions begin us on the journey of discovering the truths of political freedom and government. They also illuminate the deep psychological need of Americans to distinguish the republican form of their government from the rest of the world; on that note, observe that Iraq adopted the parliamentary and not republican form of democracy, as has been the legacy of the UN (Europe) for all previous government organizations/establishments.

Now I must add that any claim of democracy is removed from the idea of rule by the people. In statistics, numbers have no meaning, but are only representations of observations with respect to a weighted basis. Technically, every number must move beyond the object it is measuring and declare the weighted standard with respect to which it has been measured. Similarly, (and this is a crucial point) the rule of the people is always with respect to something (the simplest being my view for democracy, and being unpracticed since the beginning of time). The senate brings the loosely represented rule of the people (who voted) with respect to their division among the fifty states, while the House brings the loosely represented rule of the people with respect to those who vote. Loosely represented because the representatives are granted power to disregard the will of the people at their every whim and fancy; personally, I would not prefer to use the term "representation" when speaking of any existing political process, including America's. Then there is the parliament's party-based, proportionally allocated (by electoral support) system for claiming the democratic, rule of the people. Nevertheless, I wish to make it clear that I am not advocating the rule of the people, but the rule of the individuals in equality.

BTW, just as a side note, America was formed as a confederation, not a federation, and without the limitations of the Bill of Rights (for a substantial period of time). The only reason she was limited was because she was young. Limited in powers, not authority, as an empty book is limited in content, not in ink supplies; it was just a matter of time before the pages were filled, and the weight began to crush the table (her citizens which support her).

Socialized medicine

So we hear the democrats advocating social health care insurance with great zeal and Republicans balking at the same with election year fervor. But don't be intimidated by the emotions, and the intentionally deceptive rhetoric, because the entire issue boils down to very simple principles after we consider the basis of human nature itself.
Anything on a massive scale is difficult to understand and national health care is on that scale. Also, risk is difficult to see, because it is a game of probabilities, so insurance is also a concept which is not real to most people either. Put them together as national health care insurance and we have a massively unreal agenda. If you want proof about socialized medicine, I invite you to join the US Army. Anyone who has ever served our country honorably for eight years will readily attest to the deficiencies of socialized medicine .. at least, once they realize that this is the only kind of medicine available to servicemen within the Armed Forces (socialized) network. It may keep you alive, but there is much more to life than just being alive. Short of joining the services, no amount of "data" (all statistics are interpreted, anyhow) will convey the reality of socialized health care, but philosophy can shed some light on the possibilities by bringing it into the framework that we can all understand: individualized value. While discussion of the value, sacrifice, resources, training, technology, and risks in light of human nature and its basis in the free market for civilization thoroughly refutes socialism in all its forms, the philosophy of equality simplifies everything down to the question, "Is it right to force a man at gun point to give to another, simply because he has something to be given to someone who desires it with justification for any cause?" Now health appears to be a noble cause, as do a great many other agendas, but life is not so important to kill equality, freedom, and civilization. Now some may say that a thief is not a thief when the law supports him, but I say that such laws are equally criminal in suppressing one group for the benefit of another, regardless of the means employed (suppression implying the use of any form[s] of coercion). Finally, just as national insurance is a cover for theft (unless government puts down her guns and enters the business world of free competition), so also are "incentives" a cover for bribery and enslavement; make no mistake that when the grip of greedy weakens and falls off, the guns just as quickly rise. Now don't let my gun analogies be taken to literally, because the lack of resistance averts mortal combat, but make no mistake that compliance alone does NOT imply freedom or volition. For the gun is always the principle motivator when the sovereign individual refuses to surrender to the mercy of the government, her agents, and her prisons. Now, don't get me wrong, health care is wonderful, but only when it supports the more beautiful happiness of freedom, earned value, and responsibility. The responsibility of government has nothing to do with the health of her citizens, but notice the only phrase in the preamble is the one which I identified as being the most abused for agendas unrelated to the founder's intent: promote the general welfare .. I hope that no one here would challenge the idea that the founding fathers had not envisioned any form or degree of social medicine, or social anything for that matter, in their construction of the constitution.

"To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true." Ayn Rand