Gary Johnson has promised to not raise taxes for ANYONE, and yet to balance the budget. I, too, feel that the government has grown too much, and has taken on too many unconstitutional responsibilities that could be more efficiently, and less expensively be provided by non-governmental groups, such as non-profits (or even for profits).
Americans have proved to be the most generous people in the world, but as government takes on additional services and responsibilities, the response has changed from "What can I do to help?" to "Why should I help. That's the government's responsibility." That, in my mind, is as equally bad as a person feeling that the government should take care of him or her, instead of that person taking care of himself or herself.
The ever expanding government affects our feelings of responsibilities for one another. In many ways, this is more destructive to our society and our ability to function as a nation. We OUGHT to feel and take responsibility for one another. However, the government should NOT FORCE us to take care of one another by forcibly taking our resources and wasting a large portion of it doing what we could do more efficiently and less expensively for one another. We're no longer a society that knows and cares for our neighbors, and I would argue that government trying to take that responsibility away from us has played a key part in that.
When we voluntarily, of our own free will and choice, take care of one another, our nation will be far stronger than it could ever be if government is taxing us, wasting money, and providing pale imitations of the same acts of goodness and service.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Some thoughts on immigration
Following is an email response to a woman who expressed her belief that Gary Johnson's open immigration policy runs counter to the libertarian policy:
Following is an excerpt from an email response sent to a friend who was encouraging me to vote for a candidate best known for developing one of the harshest (perhaps the harshest) policy against illegal immigrants in the nation. The "Church" mentioned is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
I also offer for your consideration the explanation of the Libertarian Party of their immigration position calling for open borders with the exception of security risks. The enumerated policy in the platform of the Libertarian Party is number 3.4.
The two reasons that people do not welcome immigrants is that they feel that immigrants steal jobs and "steal" government services (like education, and healthcare). It is my understanding that Libertarians believe that the actual roots of the immigration problems are the existence of the minimum wage and the existence of unconstitutional government services. Libertarians would remove the minimum wage which would mean that immigrants would be taking jobs that Americans don't want to take, and would result in the American economy actually being more competitive as the result of cheap labor. Libertarians would also get rid of those unconstitutional government services so that there would be no government services to "steal". That way immigrants would only be a boon to the economy, and wouldn't be taking anything from existing Americans.
Following is an excerpt from an email response sent to a friend who was encouraging me to vote for a candidate best known for developing one of the harshest (perhaps the harshest) policy against illegal immigrants in the nation. The "Church" mentioned is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
I was wondering if you're aware of the Church's recent statements on
immigration. The Church has taken a lot of flak over the past year for
making a lot of statements pleading for a compassionate solution: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here's the Utah Compact. I signed it!
Last week I actually came up to Utah to volunteer for the Gary Johnson presidential campaign at least until April. Politically, I'm Libertarian-leaning (I don't agree with everything that Libertarians believe). I believe very strongly in free markets, and limited government. I also believe that the Libertarian platform is the best embodiment of Elder Oaks' CES Fireside on truth and tolerance (skip to 15:43 to hear him, although if you're LDS and single then you don't want to miss Sister Oaks' talk which precedes his!) from this past Sunday. Government is a very different body from a church. Churches enforce morals and standards. Government CANNOT impose morals and standards on people (or they just resent and rebel against it and the affront to their dignity), and MUST exercise tolerance for people's choices and give them free will to make those choices except when those choices injure others. I think that Mosiah 29:26-34 explains this concept extremely well. Mosiah was concerned because having a king relieved the people somewhat from the responsibility of making their own choices and governing themselves. The more freedom that people have, the more agency, growth, and self-responsibility is available to them. People today are unfortunately clamoring for a "king". A government to make decisions for them, and to relieve them of their individual responsibilities to provide for themselves. The Libertarian party restores people's responsibilities for themselves.
People dislike immigrants because they believe that immigrants steal jobs and steal services (in other words, that we have to pay for the educations and medical services that they receive). Libertarians believe that the solution to immigration is to eliminate government services (no public education, no public healthcare, no welfare, no unemployment checks, no social security), and to eliminate the minimum wage. Immigrants will therefore only be a boon to our economy and produce no drag — there won't be any services for them to "steal", and they'll only be taking jobs that Americans wouldn't take because the pay was too low, which will make things cheaper for us and help our economy to be more competitive. Immigrants will only stay if they find jobs. Otherwise, they'll naturally leave of their own accord to find better opportunities elsewhere. (See the Libertarian platform here.)
As a Spanish-speaking missionary serving in New Mexico and Texas, it was heart-breaking for me to watch families separated by immigration issues, or to live in squalor because they were illegal and lived in fear, unable to live openly and publicly. Many of the members of our wards worked for the border patrol. They simply asked us as missionaries to never tell them who was illegal, because it was their duty to extradite illegals. They harbored no ill will towards illegals. It was just their job to enforce the border. Many of the border patrol agents openly stated that if it were them and their own families on the other side of the border, that they would likewise do anything that they had to in order to try to bring their families to the United States and the better opportunities here — including crossing the border illegally. I believe that the Church is asking us to see things the same way. To know that it could just as easily be us and our loved ones trapped in Mexico, surrounded by corruption, violence, and murder caused by drug cartels. Those illegal immigrants are our brothers and sisters.
Last week I actually came up to Utah to volunteer for the Gary Johnson presidential campaign at least until April. Politically, I'm Libertarian-leaning (I don't agree with everything that Libertarians believe). I believe very strongly in free markets, and limited government. I also believe that the Libertarian platform is the best embodiment of Elder Oaks' CES Fireside on truth and tolerance (skip to 15:43 to hear him, although if you're LDS and single then you don't want to miss Sister Oaks' talk which precedes his!) from this past Sunday. Government is a very different body from a church. Churches enforce morals and standards. Government CANNOT impose morals and standards on people (or they just resent and rebel against it and the affront to their dignity), and MUST exercise tolerance for people's choices and give them free will to make those choices except when those choices injure others. I think that Mosiah 29:26-34 explains this concept extremely well. Mosiah was concerned because having a king relieved the people somewhat from the responsibility of making their own choices and governing themselves. The more freedom that people have, the more agency, growth, and self-responsibility is available to them. People today are unfortunately clamoring for a "king". A government to make decisions for them, and to relieve them of their individual responsibilities to provide for themselves. The Libertarian party restores people's responsibilities for themselves.
People dislike immigrants because they believe that immigrants steal jobs and steal services (in other words, that we have to pay for the educations and medical services that they receive). Libertarians believe that the solution to immigration is to eliminate government services (no public education, no public healthcare, no welfare, no unemployment checks, no social security), and to eliminate the minimum wage. Immigrants will therefore only be a boon to our economy and produce no drag — there won't be any services for them to "steal", and they'll only be taking jobs that Americans wouldn't take because the pay was too low, which will make things cheaper for us and help our economy to be more competitive. Immigrants will only stay if they find jobs. Otherwise, they'll naturally leave of their own accord to find better opportunities elsewhere. (See the Libertarian platform here.)
As a Spanish-speaking missionary serving in New Mexico and Texas, it was heart-breaking for me to watch families separated by immigration issues, or to live in squalor because they were illegal and lived in fear, unable to live openly and publicly. Many of the members of our wards worked for the border patrol. They simply asked us as missionaries to never tell them who was illegal, because it was their duty to extradite illegals. They harbored no ill will towards illegals. It was just their job to enforce the border. Many of the border patrol agents openly stated that if it were them and their own families on the other side of the border, that they would likewise do anything that they had to in order to try to bring their families to the United States and the better opportunities here — including crossing the border illegally. I believe that the Church is asking us to see things the same way. To know that it could just as easily be us and our loved ones trapped in Mexico, surrounded by corruption, violence, and murder caused by drug cartels. Those illegal immigrants are our brothers and sisters.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Where I stand
I'm starting this blog so that I can express, explore, and discuss my political views and philosophies.
I describe myself as Libertarian-leaning. I most closely identify with the Libertarian Party, but with some key differences. The following explains how my views differ from those of the Libertarian Party.
I don't agree with the position that abortion is acceptable. The rights of a woman shouldn't override the right of her unborn child to live. She still maintains plenty of rights and choice in the absence of abortion. She has the choice to not become pregnant. And when she doesn't (as in the case of rape or incest), then abortion should be allowed. She doesn't lose the right to live (but with abortion, the child does). In the rare case of danger to the life of the mother, then abortion ought to be an option. And, the mother still retains the same choices any parent has once they have a child: to keep the child, or to give the child up for adoption. An unborn child's right to life does not severely impact the rights and choices of a mother any more than any other child's has an effect on a parent. However, abortion severely impacts (as in, does away with) the rights of the unborn child. Abortion, if it's not murder, is so like it that as a civilized society we ought to prohibit it (other than the aforementioned exceptions of rape, incest, and danger to the mother).
I also believe that foreign intervention is not only appropriate in some cases, but an obligation. For instance, when a nation is invaded, then we ought to be willing to assist that nation in restoring its sovereignty. And, I also believe that it was appropriate for the French to assist the American colonists in their revolt against the British. I think that it's a question of whether or not an action has been requested publicly in an internationally recognized forum (such as the U.N.) by the people of that nation, and whether or not it enhances or protects the sovereignty of the people of that nation. If we were invaded, we would expect international military aid. When we rebelled against the British, we expected assistance. However, we initiated the conflict, and the people as a majority were active in it. Obviously, all international actions would need to be passed publicly by Congress (not by the president since that's unconstitutional; and certainly no covert interference — for example choosing a nation's government or leaders infringes on the rights of its people, it cannot enhance nor protect them). The French did not remove our leaders, nor drive them out. We drove out our own king. The French merely aided us in expressing our own sovereignty by helping us to protect our right to do so. However, I don't believe that we should have any permanent foreign bases or forces.
Just as people have the right to abstain from religious activities and to protect their children from being exposed to those expressions (for example, school prayer and religious symbols in government buildings), I believe that people have the right to abstain from being exposed to expressions and depictions of violence, blatant sexuality, profanity, etc., and to protect their children from being exposed. In other words, religion is an idea and an expression. To the same degree that people have the right to be protected from religious expressions, people ought to have the right to not be exposed to ideas and expressions we find offensive and to protect our children from being exposed to those ideas and expressions. Government should not prohibit those ideas nor expressions, but also cannot support them (whether in the arts, or in the media). Individuals must recognize when their ideas and expressions are offensive and then not express them publicly. I have no idea how this would be facilitated, but it seems fair to me and more possible in an age of technology then it was prior. This view is very nascent, so it needs some serious refining, but basically, expressions should be prohibited and protected equally, whether they be religious, or otherwise.
As a practical matter, the federal government probably must recognize same sex civil unions if they provide any rights to any couples. So, either the federal government must cease to provide rights to couples, or it must provide them to all consenting adults. However, marriage ought to be given to the states, with no federal interference whatsoever.
Other than what's mentioned above, I believe that my political philosophies match those of the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/platform ).
The evolving version of this document can be found here.
I describe myself as Libertarian-leaning. I most closely identify with the Libertarian Party, but with some key differences. The following explains how my views differ from those of the Libertarian Party.
I don't agree with the position that abortion is acceptable. The rights of a woman shouldn't override the right of her unborn child to live. She still maintains plenty of rights and choice in the absence of abortion. She has the choice to not become pregnant. And when she doesn't (as in the case of rape or incest), then abortion should be allowed. She doesn't lose the right to live (but with abortion, the child does). In the rare case of danger to the life of the mother, then abortion ought to be an option. And, the mother still retains the same choices any parent has once they have a child: to keep the child, or to give the child up for adoption. An unborn child's right to life does not severely impact the rights and choices of a mother any more than any other child's has an effect on a parent. However, abortion severely impacts (as in, does away with) the rights of the unborn child. Abortion, if it's not murder, is so like it that as a civilized society we ought to prohibit it (other than the aforementioned exceptions of rape, incest, and danger to the mother).
I also believe that foreign intervention is not only appropriate in some cases, but an obligation. For instance, when a nation is invaded, then we ought to be willing to assist that nation in restoring its sovereignty. And, I also believe that it was appropriate for the French to assist the American colonists in their revolt against the British. I think that it's a question of whether or not an action has been requested publicly in an internationally recognized forum (such as the U.N.) by the people of that nation, and whether or not it enhances or protects the sovereignty of the people of that nation. If we were invaded, we would expect international military aid. When we rebelled against the British, we expected assistance. However, we initiated the conflict, and the people as a majority were active in it. Obviously, all international actions would need to be passed publicly by Congress (not by the president since that's unconstitutional; and certainly no covert interference — for example choosing a nation's government or leaders infringes on the rights of its people, it cannot enhance nor protect them). The French did not remove our leaders, nor drive them out. We drove out our own king. The French merely aided us in expressing our own sovereignty by helping us to protect our right to do so. However, I don't believe that we should have any permanent foreign bases or forces.
Just as people have the right to abstain from religious activities and to protect their children from being exposed to those expressions (for example, school prayer and religious symbols in government buildings), I believe that people have the right to abstain from being exposed to expressions and depictions of violence, blatant sexuality, profanity, etc., and to protect their children from being exposed. In other words, religion is an idea and an expression. To the same degree that people have the right to be protected from religious expressions, people ought to have the right to not be exposed to ideas and expressions we find offensive and to protect our children from being exposed to those ideas and expressions. Government should not prohibit those ideas nor expressions, but also cannot support them (whether in the arts, or in the media). Individuals must recognize when their ideas and expressions are offensive and then not express them publicly. I have no idea how this would be facilitated, but it seems fair to me and more possible in an age of technology then it was prior. This view is very nascent, so it needs some serious refining, but basically, expressions should be prohibited and protected equally, whether they be religious, or otherwise.
As a practical matter, the federal government probably must recognize same sex civil unions if they provide any rights to any couples. So, either the federal government must cease to provide rights to couples, or it must provide them to all consenting adults. However, marriage ought to be given to the states, with no federal interference whatsoever.
Other than what's mentioned above, I believe that my political philosophies match those of the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/platform ).
The evolving version of this document can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)