Chicago John,

To hit a couple of high points as I may or may not have time to get back to this until late Sunday. Which I look forward to as you've raised some interesting points.

"Government of Laws - In that certain rules of behavior are based on formal laws enacted and enforced by people we elected with the intent that they apply to all (hopefully equally). As opposed to someone or some arbitrary group having the right to rule by fiat, to ignore the law (codified versus informal) or change it at will. To apply the law only when and if they see fit. The Constitution was, in part, a reaction to this sort of thing. Were we talking at cross purposes here?

Social Contract - The Constitution is the primary (or supreme, if you like) social contract in this country. I believe that as long as I want to enjoy the benefits, I either have to go along with the parts I don't personally like, go somewhere else or realize that I'll have to suffer the consequences. As it provides a way to change it, I prefer to work with-in th system.

In response to my question on the right of society to moderate behavior you said I think that the only time the public has a right to dictate my behavior is when I pose a direct risk to society. If I am insane or criminal, then society should do something to limit my actions

By "direct harm" I'm guessing you mean physical? (As opposed to emotional). And you've indicated earlier that you believe the government has certain functions (which have been expanded beyond their intended scope). Literal interpretation of the Constitution, with original intent being a necessary part. So those functions (as defined) are acceptable?

But the definition of harm is made by.....who? Is smoking "harm". What about second hand smoke? If a corporation pollutes the aquifer, is that harm? Who should stop them, if it is. Where does discipline of a child start and abuse begin? Is discrimination harm? I'm looking for a general rule, though, not necessarily specifics.

I'll also suggest that you need to look up some of the current efforts in tort reform that do seem to make bringing even non-frivolous lawsuits more difficult and in limiting the amount of awards for doing actual harm.

On the trans-continental railroads. I think they were conceived and financed by large corporations and banks, with the cooperation of the government who provided military protection and land grants. Backed by factories and mines. All organized and run along lines antitheical to the "rugged individualism" you talked about. They were physically built by workers hired or imported for the job, again with little regard for individuality. They were built for financial gain, mingled with a little hubris.

Regards

John