In my view, both the rule of the and the rule of empathy are key to the idea of limited government. Because the king was not constrained by law and was removed from the people, the king did much that harmed others. Societies ruled by cumbersome lists of laws that follow from a "black & white" perspective cast aside the importance of empathy - the very reason for the creation of law.
The goal of a limited government is to write laws that protect as much as possible while controlling as little as possible.
Because people have asked for me to outline some specifics on my views, I'm going to address five specific policy clusters based on adherence to both previous law and empathy. I expect that the outlining will go far toward explaining how broad the term "limited government" is for me.
Marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships - by any other name
I believe that the ability of any consenting people to enter a contract of the same value as any other should be a fundamental right. It makes no sense to me to exclude certain groups of people from having legal contractual status because they don't fit a very old definition of propriety in relationship status. This goes beyond people who are homosexual. It goes to every man, woman, and other who wish to have legal rights of the same kind as are now granted to persons who are married.
It's an LGBTQIOStraight issue - not an issue for just one or two sub-sets of that acronym.
At the same time, I feel that the word "marriage" should be removed from the law. I'd rather see all rights merged under the banner of 'civil union", "civil contract", or "domestic partnership" because marriage has a history - both common and legal - as a religious practice. I, personally, don't want to be known as married, should I ever find someone who I'd want to spend my life with. I also think that it's wrong that people have to get minister's licence (or be a special state employee, like a judge) in order to perform unionizing ceremonies.
Like it or not, marriage is broadly a religious issue, and I support separating it from the state.
Which leads me to..
Separation of church and state
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
These word were originally intended to separate the federal government from the affairs of religion. It was a touchy issue, because some states had set up their own official churches. Under the "Incorporation doctrine" and the 14th amendment, the separation of church and state was applied to all levels of government.
Thus, if we look at only the law, the picture is murky. The intent of the founders was to prevent the exclusion or supremacy of a particular sect of religious belief. If we look at the rule of empathy, I feel that the conclusion we should come to is that all things of official public nature (public land, public funds, public proclamations) should respect no establishment of religion (symbols, prayers, religious congregations, and so on) in general public space.
This does not mean that mention of one's beliefs should be restricted in public. This does not mean that students should be disallowed from publicly praying of their own volition on school grounds. It also does not mean that we shouldn't allow for certain public spaces to be for the free expression of personal beliefs if equal access to using that space is made law.
Though atheism is a lack of belief, not a religion, I expect that the founders would have interpreted proclamations of nonbelief to be of religious nature just as much as religious statements. Thus I'm known to say the following as a simple summary - as a literary device, if you will - of my views:
"We shouldn't have "In God We Trust" or "There Is No God" on our government's currency."
Abortion, adoption, and biological research
I'm not sure how many people know why Roe v Wade was such a great decision. It was an excellent decision because it both upheld the idea that we have no reliable way of determining personhood at this point in medical science, and because it instead re-focused us as a nation on the question of the viability of life.
What the decision ultimately imparted was that abortions happen for many reasons, and none of these can be put aside by concern for a life form that is unable to survive outside of the womb - even with special medical attention. Moreover, it established that women must be able to make their decisions once they have access to enough information to carefully consider their options. That time period was set at 24 weeks, which is roughly the time when a woman learns key facts about her pregnancy.
Though most abortions are performed within the first two months and are now done through medication, this protection in Roe v Wade is important for women who have complications later in their terms.
To respect the life, overall well-being, conscience, and privacy of a woman is not to diminish the value of the potential of bringing a new person into the world. It saddens me that some portray it as such.
On a related note, this means that biological research and adoption must also be based on open-access policies. If a fetus cannot be determined to be a person or livable living entity (much less can an embryo), then all manner of research on such organisms should be permitted. If we want to ensure that all viable life (that won't harm the woman) is carried to term and thrives, we must open adoption access to people of all ethnicities and orientations.
And, yes, people who are homosexual and people who are transsexual make fine parents.
National defense and security
Part of the founders' goal was to ensure that the people of the country would be protected from external and internal forces that intended them harm. For this reason, they established a right to bear arms and and a national military.
It makes sense to not engage in what I see as entangling alliances - pacts in which we are obligated to go along with the wishes of other countries. It does not make sense to never create treaties, engage in cooperative international action, or act on international problems.
It makes sense to not engage in treating citizens like potential terrorists - as people who should be scrutinized, pre-emptively blacklisted, denied access to instruments of self-defense, and possibly detained by police or the military for suspicions of involvement in harmful activity. It does make sense to correlate public data to identify those who have histories of violence, outstanding warrants, records of collecting materials with which bombs may be made, and predispositions or conditions that may lead a person to violent action. It also makes sense to ban the household ownership of instruments that were designed to cause widespread harm - like submachineguns.
There is a fundamental difference between tracking and suspecting citizens, and merging data and being informed of possible problems. The difference is in the assumption being made about human behavior.
I think that the best thing that we could do to ensure our national defense and individual security is to establish a national culture of caution and peacefulness - rather than hastiness and a fear-then-attack conditioned response.
Research and development
One of the most fundamental ways that we advance as a society is through public research and public development projects. I do believe that all citizens should be taxed for the purpose of continuing the essential programs for developing alternative energy sources, understanding our universe, and providing widespread access to other regions - both in the physical and virtual worlds.
We should not be funding private institutions by allowing them to sell publicly-funded research or use public media for unrestricted commercial purposes.
I hope that this provides better insight into my personal view of limited government. The emphasis is not on the scope of government, but on the underlying philosophies of why and how government operates.
As always, I'll be adding further details at the end of my article in response to the trend of the comments.
The big issue that's popped up this time seems to be my claim that marriage is "broadly a religious issue". The reasons that I stated so are these:
+ Legal marriage was generated as a legal issue based on the transfer of property (ancient Europe), as well as religious sentiments (old Europe). + More recently, marriage has had both a religious and civil component, and civil marriage (non-religious marriage) has become an institution. + Most people are married by religious ceremony. + One must have a licence to marry, for which one must either be a state official (former mayor, judge, etc.), or a religious leader (members of ethical societies are regarded as religious leaders).
As such, my ultimate position is that the law has removed the word "marriage" from the level of the individual and placed it firmly at the level of the state. I would rather have the state not have anything to do with the word "marriage"; that is, I would rather have the state only deal with the legal rights of citizens who choose to form a legal union.
Since that isn't likely at this point, I support marriage equality for all, and believe that civil unions, domestic partnerships, and unions by any other name should be incorporated into marriage law so that full protections are afforded to all consenting people.