The last step

Voting is the last step. The candidates have been decided, primaries done, and campaign mailers and radio ads have been going for awhile. Then you vote. It's over. Someone wins and they fill the office for the allotted time.

Actions between elections amount to writing to, calling and leaving messages, and possibly even talking personally with the person in office. You have an opinion? Let it be known. Beg, plead, educate.

Exercising your right to vote is important. I really believe that. But most of the real decisions are decided before that in campaigns, caucuses (kind of like voting, I admit), and party conventions.

Why should the Constitution reign supreme?

I believe the Constitution to be the guideline in deciding what should be the law of the land.

Some people question the wisdom of using the Constitution as a guideline. They argue it is outdated and inappropriate for current situations.

So, why should the Constitution reign supreme?

1. It is the current contract between the people and the government.

2. It was developed by inspired people.

3. It is the document that gives us the most freedom and liberty.

4. It does not infringe on God-given rights. 


What other reasons are there for citing the Constitution as the ultimate authority?
-M. 

God-given rights

The Declaration of Independence describes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights that are endowed by Our Creator. They are God-given rights.

This means that no other entity has given us these rights. God gave us those rights when he sent us to earth. Government, organizations, or other entities did not allow us these rights out of the kindness of their collective hearts. 

This is important to remember because if you start to believe that you are generously allowed these rights by another, you give them the power to take those rights away from you. A complaint might sound like, "Come on, be nice." Weak.

I retain my God-given rights because I am a person. Strong.

Our Founding Fathers understood this principle. It is what propelled them to act strongly in defense of those rights.
-M.

The Hunger Games

"Have you seen it?" "Have you read the book?" "Did you like the shaky camera?"

"Yeah, twice." "Yeah, I finished it in 2 days!" "No, it was too distracting."

The Hunger Games movie, based on the book by Suzanne Collins, was big this summer. I read this book about 2 years ago. While it is YA fic that has its share of teen romance, I found the book series intriguing with the portrayal of a government in a post-apocalyptic America.

Moving past the "it was good" and "it stuck close to the book" analysis of the movie, here's a list of similarities between the situation in our nation now and the situation of the nation in the book.

1. Strong central government.
2. Manipulation through media.
3. Watching and glorification of violence.
4. Seemingly all-powerful president.
5. Pop culture as a distraction from real issues. 


What similarities did you notice?
-M.

Is consent the same as agreement?

As I drove to work this morning, I was pondering a previous post by Salt Prime regarding consent of the governed. I pondered a series of questions which I post below hoping to generate discussion over them, as I do not have clear answers.

Is consenting to a form of government also consenting to the laws generated by the government in so far as they are constitutional?

Is not consenting the same as not agreeing? For example, while you may not agree with a decision to declare war, if the decision is made through constitutional means, are you consenting because you consented to the constitutional provisions for how war would be declared even though you disagree with the decision?

What are your options if you disagree with a government action taken through constitutional means?

What are your options to actualize your dissent to unconstitutional law?

When should we comply with laws to which we dissent and when should we actively rebel? Is it worth feeling right and morally justified while languishing in prison?

Is choosing to comply with laws to which you do not consent the very definition of slavery?

As it is unlikely man will ever create and abide by a perfect government to which all consent 100%, is slavery simply a matter of degree?

Does creation of government neccessitate giving up a certain level of individual freedom to a collective body?

In the Church we sustain authorities and the decisions of authorities even though we do not always agree. Should we treat government authorities the same way in so far as they do not usurp their constitutional powers?

While I don't have clear answers to these questions, the following principles seem clearly designed to help preserve freedom amongst differing opinions about government.
1. Written constitutions limiting government powers
2. Power as close to the governed as possible
3. Elected officials
4. Power of impeachment
5. Right of secession

-T.

Conversion

[In reflecting on some recent family experiences, here are some perspectives and insights.]

First of all Al Qaeda and Muslims are not the same thing. Members of Al Qaeda claim to be Muslims but not all and actually not many Muslims are members of Al Qaeda. Those who truly follow the Muslim religion are some of the best people around. They live a very caring and dedicated life. They are truly good people and can make wonderful neighbors and friends. 

Second, from the book of Romans, being a Jew and being circumcised does not make you a better than anyone else. If you don't live the law you proclaim to follow you truly aren't worthy of the “blessings” that go with the title. Romans 2 states you will be judged by the law you live not the law you proclaim to belong to. 

Last, from the time of Alma until the time of the coming of Christ to the Americas the Prophets went about teaching and reclaiming the members of their church to Christianity. They did this over and over again. The people would humble themselves for a time then would fall back into pride and contentious activities. Many of the people of the church at that time would begin to persecute those who did not belong to the church or those who had less possessions than they did. Only a few remained faithful in their beliefs and actions. 

Today we find much the same in behaviors. Many people claiming a belief, yet not willing to live accordingly. Outwardly they want others to see them as a devout follower of something good, they don't want to put effort in following what they profess. Being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't make you a Christian nor does it make you a saint. Only living the principles that are taught therein will make you either a Christian or a saint. Being a Jew doesn't make you one of the chosen people. Only living the righteous principles can make you part of the chosen group. Being a member of any Christian church does not make you a Christian. Only walking in the way of Christ truly makes you a Christian. You may lay a claim to the title, but to actually be one you must follow the principles that the organization stands on and for. This also comes to being an American. You may be a citizen of the Untied States which then you can claim to be an American but unless you understand and live by the constitution following the laws that were set up therein are you really an American. 

It is something to think about. Where do you stand on any of these positions? Are you what you profess to be?

-V. Salt

Righteousness brings peace and security

Peace and security in the last days will be come about among a people who serve the Lord. 3 Nephi 21 is the Savior quoting Isaiah (one of two parts of Isaiah quoted by the Savior recorded in 3 Ne; the other is in 3 Ne 16:18-20). This chapter is a description of the "heritage of the servants of the Lord” (v.17), including the following blessings:

• "My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed"
• "Great shall be the peace of thy children"
• "Thou shalt be far from oppression for thou shalt not fear, and from terror, for it shall not come near thee"
• "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper"
• "Every tongue that shall revile against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn"

These blessings will be received by the "servants of the Lord", of whom the Lord states, "their righteousness is of me" (v.17). These blessings are not exclusive to any particular group or people but are open to any who will serve the Lord. The previous chapter mentions four groups from among whom will be servants of the Lord. First, the Gentiles that repent and hearken to His words (v.22). Next, the Remnant of Jacob that will live among the Gentiles (Nephites and Lamanite decendents or others?) (v.22). Third, the decendents of the Nephites and Lamanites (v.26). Finally, the lost tribes of Israel (v.26). Those four groups effectively cover everyone on the earth. This says to me that the Lord is no respecter of persons and His blessings including eventual peace and security are reserved for anyone who will be His servant, any who will accept Him as their leader and sovereign. 

-T. 

Law is force

When I started learning more about politics, I read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. That book is easy to read and understand. It helped me to understand that

Law is force.

This principle alone is important to understand. Why? Because it explains why law should not compel (or force) people to contribute to any number of social causes and issues. The law should only force the ability for everyone to enjoy life, liberty, and property. 

Currently, the law compels us to participate in a myriad of unconstitutional programs that manipulate the free market, demotivate people to work hard, and tax us to do such.

What does the law force you to do?
-M.

A different justice for terrorists

I saw an article today about a prisoner who had died recently in Guantanamo prison, name undisclosed. It caused me to pause and reflect on the abomination that is this prison. At this prison people are held without charge for indeterminate amounts of time and can face torture while they are there. By providing them a convenient label such as "enemy combatant" and using euphemisms such as "waterboarding" and "interrogating" while torturing them, an attempt is made to justify these actions. Trials, when they do occur, are allowed outside of the regular court system as a result of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This new justice system for so-called terrorists is not justice but rather an abomination. But one of the most revolting parts of it all is the attitude of "kill them all" and "let them rot" displayed by some of our citizenry toward terrorists (presumed terrorists, that is, because they have not even been charged with terrorism). Justice is getting thrown out with the bathwater.  -T.

How to get started in politics

I was recently asked how someone could get started in politics. The implication was that I am "experienced at it". The truth is that like anyone else my wife and I are feeling our way out in how to get involved. Hopefully we are doing some things right, but primarily we are just trying to do something for good government. I would say the best thing to do is to just do something. Write a letter to a congressman, support a candidate, read a book about economics, etc. Or even consider running for office! My commitment to being involved politically sometimes comes in spurts. I often say a good day is a day when I didn't read the news. Ignorance truly is bliss. Yet if I did not strive to do my duty, I think the words of Moroni would convict me. "Can you think to sit upon your thrones in thoughtless stupor, while your enemies are spreading the work of death around you? ....And now my beloved brethren--for ye ought to be beloved; yea, and ye ought to have stirred yourselves more diligently for the welfare and the freedom of this people..." (Alma 60:7,10)

The first thing to do in my mind is to study principles of good and righteous government so we can develop skills to discern truth and develop a foundation to frame our thoughts. Unfortunately debate on national issues often resides in the shallow soil of policies and procedures and rarely seems to get into the bedrock of questions regarding what principles should guide us. I have found the John Birch Society to be a good resource in studying principles of government. JBS.org has a lot of resources and there are probably some JBS chapters in Oklahoma City as well as all over the nation. I got my political start and love of libertarianism through connections to the JBS as a youth. On the level of studying and learning principles by which to guide our political actions, I firmly believe we need to liberate ourselves of the mental box created by major media. One of the most insidious impacts of major media in my mind is to create the box that constrains national dialogue. As the saying goes, we need to think outside of the box. The same goes for political parties, which tend to constrain debate to false options. We need to look beyond political parties for guidance and knowledge.

The second thing to do is to cry, because we have departed so far as a nation from the great gift of liberty God and our forebearers gave us. But when you're done crying, then all we can do is get to work and do the best you know how, and let God take care of the rest. Like President Monson says, "Do your duty, that is best, leave unto the Lord the rest".

We have found a lot of meaning in campaigning for Ron Paul, because we feel he truly stands for liberty and our Constitution. This year we have also spent a great deal of time campaigning for a local candidate for state representative, because he is an honest, upright, and God-fearing man. D&C 98:10 says, "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." We have recognized that by the time a general election is upon us, the choices of candidates are essentially already fixed. To have more influence, we have decided we have to get involved in the political process a long time before the ballot box. We have also joined the central committee for a political party in our county so we can try to have more influence on the political process in our area. While we do not like political parties and wish they did not exist, we have finally decided that the reality of the moment is that two political parties have a stranglehold on the political process in our nation, and if we are going to have much beyond superficial influence politically, we are going to to have to do so via a political party. We believe the two major political parties in this nation are highly corrupt on the national level and both are sending our nation careening into an abyss. We actually see little difference in the FRUITS of either political party on the national level in spite of the incessant rhetoric regarding differences in philosophies.

Ultimately we believe and know that God controls the destiny of nations. Ben Franklin said that a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without God's notice, and surely an empire cannot rise without His aid. So, perhaps the best "political" tool we have is prayer. We can implore the Lord to raise up righteous men and women to govern us. And of course we can learn righteous principles so we can govern ourselves well, as Joseph Smith taught. The better men govern themselves, the less cry there is to have someone else govern them. Taking responsibilities for the natural consequences in our own lives is part of this, rather than trying to cast the burden on society, i.e. the government.

My  personal conviction is that the Lord will cause a separation among the people of this nation and of the world. An example (there are more) of a scripture prophesying of this event is 2 Nephi 30:10, which states, "For the time speedily cometh that the Lord God shall cause a great division among the people, and the wicked will he destroy; and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must destroy the wicked by fire". I don't believe that this refers to a division along partisan lines or anything like that, but rather between those who have God as their king and those who don't. The Lord repeatedly told the Nephites and Lamanites that if they were righteous and had Christ for their King, they would prosper in the land, but if not, they would be destroyed. I personally believe our nation is ripening in iniquity and ripening for destruction for many reasons. However, I do not believe it will be a wholesale destruction but rather a division as prophesied in Nephi, because there are so many who serve and honor God. Among the people I associate with both in and out of the Church, I feel I have seen a growing dedication to God. At the same time wickedness casts a lowering shadow over the land, the brightness of truth and righteousness is also growing in intensity. However, these cannot long coexist, and in a coming day the darkness will be eradicated. I say all of this in relation to politics for two reasons. First, I believe God stands for our constitutional government and the liberty of mankind, and I believe when we reject the Constitution and principles of liberty in favor of alternate ideas, we are rejecting God's principles. Second, I believe that no matter how hard we work for liberty or other principles of godliness, it is ultimately God who will bring the victory. Similar to Gideon in the Old Testament, it is not the strength, wisdom, or efforts of man that will allow liberty to prevail, but rather The grace and goodness and power of God magnifying the efforts of the those who fight for liberty.

I believe in optimism. There have always been trying times on the earth. We cannot get discouraged about what we cannot control. We can only do our best to be our best and to influence others to be their best, and then be happy! The Lord has a plan for His children and for this earth, and man cannot destroy His plan. Men who do not follow God's plan can only destroy themselves. Cecil Demille, producer of the movie, "The Ten Commandments", stated in a commencement address at BYU in 1957:

"Some, who do not know either the Bible or human nature, may see in the orgy of the Golden Calf only a riot of Hollywood's imaginations--but those who have eyes to see will see in it the awful lesson of how quickly a nation or a man can fall, without God's law. If man will not be ruled by God, he will certainly be ruled by tyrants- and there is no tyranny more imperious or more devastating than man's own selfishness, without law. We cannot break the Ten Commandments. We can only break ourselves against them- or else, by keeping them, rise through them to the fulness of freedom under God. God means us to be free. With divine daring, He gave us the power of choice."

-T

Liberty <- Freedom <- Agency

Liberty, freedom, and agency.  We hear these terms brandied about frequently, and for the most part use them interchangeably.  What do they actually mean, and how are they related?

AGENCY

Agency is a fundamental principle of godliness.  It is a right given to each of us by God.  It is the inherent capacity to be able to choose.  Agency cannot be abrogated by others, it cannot be limited or constrained by any external entity.  We willingly requested agency and as such are bound by the consequences of such a great privilege.  Natural Law dictates that agency is required to approach the divine, that any entity not endowed with agency cannot be morally judged as all their actions are based upon and determined by the set of laws given for the sphere in which they dwell.  Agency is the greatest gift we can be given.

FREEDOM

Freedom is the ability to act.  It is the realm of constraints upon our ability to exercise our agency.  Freedom is measured by the level of impositions upon our opportunity for choice.  Our freedom can be compromised by ourselves or others.  Consequences of our actions may limit our freedom, as can external forces.  We can have a direct affect on promoting or limiting our freedom, but some restrictions are completely out of our control.  Our freedom dictates the extent to which our agency can be implemented.

LIBERTY

Liberty consists in the social and political environments which create the level of freedom which we enjoy.  Liberty is purely a function of inter-human relations and conventions.  Liberty differs from freedom in that it exists only within a social context;  where there is law and the enforcement of rights.

Liberty, Freedom, and Agency are three of the grand keys upon which the Lord's plan of salvation is predicated.  To the extent that any of them are reduced, we become limited in our ability to act and become like our Father in Heaven.

EXAMPLES

In Life is Beautiful, a father and his son are confined in a Nazi concentration camp.  They have no liberty, and their freedom is severely constrained.  Yet we see the father , Guido, acting through the use of his agency.  He makes deliberate choices as to how he will behave and view the deplorable situation he finds himself in.  Guido finds joys to share with his son.  His actions increase his freedom that others are trying to deny them.  The father is able to shield his son from many of the harsh "realities" of their situation and to an extent remake their world.  While liberty is lacking, agency is expressed, and therein freedom is found.

The almost exact opposite story is told in the Count of Monte Cristo.  Edmund is imprisoned unjustly, stripping him of all his liberty.  He falls into despair, sacrificing his what little freedom remains to him to the bonds of despondency, anger, and fear.  Contact with the priest brings a measure of hope, prompting action, which leads to his escape and eventual acquirement of great wealth.  Edmund has been restored to his prior level of liberty, enhanced greatly in status and property.  It would appear as though his freedom to act has also been fully restored, perhaps even increased.  However, upon discovering the circumstances of his betrayal, Edmund shackles himself to revenge.  He cannot forgive, he cannot progress.  He becomes a creature of wrath, bereft of any sort of freedom which is shattered on the alters of his bitterness.  He becomes so embroiled with hate that he is no longer able to direct his agency.  Restored to liberty, he sells his freedom.

While freedom may be rejected in the presence of liberty, and some portion of freedom can exist when stripped of liberty, the impact and extent of use of either is dependent on agency.  The imperative then becomes to maximize the potential, use, and power of agency.  We must understand how to use agency, and what we are to accomplish with it.  Only in an environment of maximum liberty are we fully able to comprehend and utilize the full extent of our agency.  If we truly desire to become as our Father, we should earnestly strive to come to a knowledge of true principles of liberty, and then implement them, thus instituting freedom so we can act.  The pursuit of liberty is the noblest quest of  human society.

The Things He Do

Yes, that is a Zim reference.

Looking at the world around us it is easy to get very pessimistic.  The current "political debates" as to who should be our next president is one of the biggest farces ever perpetrated upon the human populace, yet many of us take it so seriously.  The general citizenry are worse than sleeping zombies when it comes to a capability to recognize a principle of human action, let alone formulate a basis for their personal beliefs.

This week the Mises Institute is holding their summer Mises University, which I highly recommend that everyone participate in.  Here is a group of individuals that understand true principles, cause and effect.  They are rooted in true liberty and freedom.  Many lectures that will teach correct principles.  Yet when it comes to changing the current debacle that we call our society to promote the theory and ideas that are understood, it seems that many are stumped.  There is no sweeping plan to right the wrongs, end the injustices, stamp out the villains, and institute freedom and donuts forever for all!  We talk, and we discuss, and we talk some more, and then read books and write papers, and then... No political platform!?  Nothing more exciting than "Let's get educated."!?

How else are you going to do it?  You cannot force people to want liberty.  What an oxymoronic concept.  People cannot live it without understanding the principles behind liberty.  Freedom takes an awful lot of mental exertion.  So how do you get freedom in an increasingly despotic world?  Bear testimony and education.  There is no other way.  Most people don't want this.  They don't want real discussions; they want demagogues to inflate their egos.  They don't want to take the effort to wake up; groggy acceptance of slavery is pretty easy.  They like to whine and complain about how bad things are and tell you how they think it will get worse, but if asked what "better" is, most have no idea, or only a vague, ephemeral, fuzzy, guess at some half cognizant dream of "back when".   We could start blogs and request discussion to help each other, but any cursory glance at the participation statistics here show that to be a miserable failure.  

Any ideas?

-------------------

Quote from Hugh Nibley: Temple and Cosmos pg 323-4

You'll never prove the gospel.  You'll never prove the Book of Mormon or the Bible or anything else.  Remember, people have been working on the Bible now for hundreds of years, and do people believe it?  When is a thing proven in science or anywhere else?  When you have had enough experience, enough personal impressions to convince you that it's so.  That might not convince another scientist at all.  Equally eminent men may have the same evidence in front of them, and when is it proven to one?  When he believes it's so.  When is the gospel proven to you or anyone else?  At the point at which you personally are convinced.  That isn't necessarily the point at which somebody else is convinced.  You can't force your testimony onto somebody else - it's nontransferable.  You can't get a testimony from anybody else.  That is the marvelous thing about it.  Remember the first rule the Lord gave the Nephites when he came to them?  "There shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been" (3 Nephi 11:28).  There shall be no more disputations among you about any points of doctrine or anything else.  There shall be no more of this among you.  I will not stand for it, he says.  It is not of my gospel where there is any contention or any disputation at all.  It is of the devil and not of me (3 Nephi 11:29-30).  How can you discuss things if you don't dispute?  He goes on to tell them: You know by your own individual testimony.  The Holy Ghost speaks to you, and you know, and that's it.  Now there's nothing to fight about, is there?  If he doesn't speak to you, I might feel that's too bad for you, but I can't bang you over the head and say,  "You're so stupid, you can't see it!"  That isn't where I got my conviction at all.  My conviction is the result of building up of personal impressions, of storing up experiences and ideas through the years on a particular point, to a point where I am convinced.  You haven't had that experience at all.  You don't have that background;  you have a different one.  If I had yours,  I wouldn't believe it, or I'd believe something else.  That's why we have to have the Holy Ghost and have to listen to the promptings of the Spirit.  Otherwise we're not going to agree on anything.

Consent

The recent "debates" on the health"care" laws has spurned a lot of vitriol and anger among those who believe it to be wonderful and those who feel it to be disastrous.  Now that the Supreme Court has given it the official stamp of approval as constitutional, we are hearing that the debate is over, just let it drop, guess we are stuck with it now.  Or perhaps if only we elect the right people they will repeal the law and replace it with...something else?  

What about those who feel, regardless of what the Priests of the State in their Temple of Law may declare to be doctrine of the One True Power, don't agree with their divine oracles?  We are forced to live in the system that has been erected for us.  I do not agree with their interpretation; I believe the law to be wrong and absolutely unconstitutional.  The Constitution that I respect and the one that the Federal Government has created are vastly different creatures.  I have never given my consent to the system that the badges and the guns are coercing me into adhering to.

This is one of the fundamental issues in political theory.  If the populace don't consent to the laws and government under which they find themselves, are they then bound to follow them?  It is mere happenstance of birth that I was located within the territorial bounds of the United States.  Yet that one fact seems to dictate that I am now a citizen of the nation, that I should owe my allegiance to the government that I happen to find myself under, and that I should bow to their dictates.  Outside of the signers of the Constitution, and perhaps those who voted at the state conventions to adopt it, who amongst us have given our explicit consent to have that form of government and be bound by it?  Theory has many statements as to the concept of "implicit consent", but can I opt out if at some point I find that my beliefs no longer coincide with the system I find my self under?  This was hotly debated under the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, and Jefferson's arguments for nullification, with a number of the states at some point threatening secession until blood and guns settled that issue less than an century into our nation's history.  Once you are in, you aren't ever leaving.  At least on the state level; how about on the individual level?

Many people headed west to find their freedom, to set their own implementations of government that they were willing to give their consent to.  The Mormons took up a mass migration to the Rockies, well outside of federal jurisdiction.  The government still sent an army after them, invading foreign territory in the pursuit.  The acquisitions of the United States marched inexorably westward, until it has dominated from coast to coast.  As Ezra Taft Benson has stated, there are no more deserts to run to, no wildernesses in which to find escape anymore.

There are many who find even the discussion of secession, of withdrawal of consent, or even the questioning of whether it has ever been given, to be distasteful, "unpatriotic", or even traitorous.  (The first positions have to be answered before the last can even be discussed; you cannot betray or dishonor a trust that you have never held.)  Some of the most rabid acrimony comes from those within the Church.  How dare one even consider such a concept; surely it is an affront to God!

Have we as a people become so blinded by fervor to a particular idea that we cannot even exam history?  Do we actually refuse to "liken the scriptures unto ourselves" because there might be concepts that conflict with our cherished feelings?  The entire story of history is a ceaseless tide of secession and the debate over the consent of the governed.

Israel willingly moved into Egypt to partake of the blessings of that civilization.  Within a few generations they found themselves marginalized, and then enslaved.  Given the first opportunity they withdrew from that society and struck off to form their own under which they were willing to live.  

Lehi took his family and fled into the wilderness rather than submit himself to the dictates of a foreign government.  Once in the new world, Nephi and his followers decided to separate themselves from his older brothers instead allowing them to rule.  The people of Limhi, Alma, the Ammonites, the kingmen, and many other examples of dissent and secession are chronicled in the Book of Mormon.  

At the dawn of mortal time we find the fundamental issues of consent and dissent cropping up.  Cain did not believe that he should follow the system of government that was in place and was allowed to freely leave and establish himself and his posterity elsewhere.

Even before the creation of the world we see Lucifer proclaim that he could not, he would not, consent to having Father rule over him.  The interpretation of the heavenly constitution was not to his liking and he withdrew.  God proclaimed the principle of agency, and allowed all to freely act.  Due to subsequent actions, Satan and his angels were expelled.  Yet the precedent was set from the very beginning; no individual would be compelled to submit to a form of government that consent was not given.

In the histories we see the great yearly rites, the celebrations of the renewal of the social covenants.  The ruler comes before the people and they proclaim his rule and their acquiescence to the order.  All were to appear and have their names entered in the books of life.  Those who failed to do so were stricken from the records and were out-laws; they were outside of the law, they could not be governed under it, they could not benefit from it.  

Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem to be taxed and account for under the law;  Benjamin and Mosiah have the people gather to enter into and renew the covenant; the people throw their garments at the feet of Moroni in proclamation of themselves adherents to his great Title.  

Each week we meet in our sacrament meetings to renew our covenants, to proclaim that we continue to consent to having God as our ruler, Christ as our Lord.  We enter in to the temple covenants on our "own free will and choice."  We are employed, join organizations, clubs, friendships and relationships when we choose, and as readily we leave and disband our fellowships.  We don't find that right controversial, indeed, we would protest mightily if hindered or dictated as to our participation in those associations.  The difference under discussion seems to be a matter of degree, not of kind.

Is it so atrocious that one would refuse to be confined to an externally imposed implicit consent to a form of government that utterly violates ones principles and beliefs?  Must we force conformity upon the conscience of individuals?  If so we have become despotic and diabolic indeed.

The Constitution to which I pledge my allegiance is not one that can be amended at will by five unelected black robed despots unaccountable to the people.  It is not one that any individual or organization can declare a mandate under.  It is one that requires the explicit consent of all those who will live under it.  It allows the free association, or disassociation, of individuals however they may.  It is a proscription of liberty, a declaration of natural law.  It is one of strict justice, not the enactment of capricious whim.  I must utterly reject and oppose those philosophies of men being imposed upon us.

The Constitution which I love was inspired by God, designed for His express purposes, the one which unlocks the divine, and radiates forth the glorious light of true agency to pierce the mists of darkness clouding this hazy and fallen world.  

Now we have a blank piece of paper, aged and crumbling, being franticly scribbled upon by a gang of thieves writ large.

I do not consent.

Economic Freedom

This is an excellent lecture on freedom, economics, and God's law.

The Lou Church Memorial Lecture in Religion and Economics. Recorded 12 March 2009 at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama for the Austrian Scholar's Conference.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin: What is Morally Right about Economic Freedom

Foundations

One of the fundamental principles is a knowledge of what God is.  In a prior post it was posited that omnipotence is an attribute typically given to deity.  The dictionary defines omnipotence as “the quality of having unlimited power.”   Do we take that to mean the ability to do anything at all?  We can easily propose a paradox demonstrating that the concept is worthless; Can an omnipotent being create an immovable object?  If so, we have demonstrated that they are not omnipotent, the entity should be able to move any object that exist.  If not, they are unable to create an object of particular characteristics, hence limits on the power. Omnipotence is what then?  Maybe we must then define what is meant by “unlimited” power; something along the lines of: an omnipotent being has unlimited power to enact its will.  In this definition we are constraining the power, but not the individual. 

Two basic questions arise from this: (1) what are the constraints on the power, and (2) what is the will of the entity?  Are these rules self-existent, external to God?  Most of Christianity thoroughly condemns this idea, proposing that God encompasses all that exists, everything flows from God, and God is an infinite, eternal being who has existed, static and unchanging, from all of the past to the utmost future.  The LDS view rejects that concept of godliness.  Our concept of a god is defined as an individual who is in absolute compliance with the natural laws.  A god comes into being from a lesser state, one in which all the laws are not fully known and hence not fully followed; that divinity is a progressed state, one that has been obtained by our Father in Heaven, and accessible to us, his children, under the same conditions whereby He obtained it.   

We must then accept that there are laws that are existent external of God; that he has learned those laws, and obeys them; that he has brought his will in complete compliance with their dictates and hence his will flows unencumbered and complete in its desires.  God is absolutely free.

At this point you might be tempted to think, “I thought this was a political blog.  Why are we digressing into kookinanny-hie-to-Kolob theology?”

This life is a small, and utterly vital, step in our progression either towards becoming as God, or away from that end.  We have spent an untold amount of our existence in the presence of our Father, learning laws, developing our individuality, seeing the fruits of those labors.  We are given an opportunity to step out on our own and see what our will truly is.  Are we able to live by the laws that exist?  How well did we learn those premortal lessons?  Now we are finally able to demonstrate who we have really become.

God has given us the magnificent gift of agency.  He has declared that we are free to act.  Indeed, he has commanded us to act and not be acted upon.  He has spent thousands of years transmitting, preserving, disseminating, and teaching principles of action.  It then falls upon us to actually implement them.  

The majority of human history has been a story of repression, conquest, and enslavement of others in an effort to destroy this liberty.  One scheme after another is put into place where a few try to rise to the “freedom” of despotism and force all others to become nothing but an extension of their will.  What a perversion of the glory of God’s offering!  God offers to everyone complete independence; mammon professes to offer power at the complete reliance upon subjugation of others.

The grandeur of the gospel message is a full revelation of freedom.  The commandments inform us of natural law and set an example of godly living.  They tell us of the conditions that provide opportunity for liberating action and warn us of those that would bind us.

Thus, if we have any desire for liberty and freedom, it becomes imperative that we gain the utmost familiarity of the characteristics of God, that we learn what the natural laws are, and we do everything we can to bring into existence a social structure that allows, and even promotes, the ability to act in accordance with this knowledge.  This is the foundation of political action.

Spelunking

"Oku no hitobito to onazi youni, watashitachi wa kami-sama ga ikiteorareru koto wo shite imasu."  For any missionary who served in Japan back when the six lesson manuals were being used before the introduction of Preach My Gospel, those words are indelibly imprinted in your memory.  "Like many other people, we believe that God lives/exists."  The following paragraphs went on to describe the characteristics of God in order to begin to give a foundation for what we believed.  These foundation principles set the stage upon which everything else was predicated.

As we propose that there is a God, it is absolutely essential that we define what that statement even means.  What is a god?  What are the defining characteristics of such an entity?  If this is to be the basis for your world view, shouldn't you know the answers to these questions?  There is an overwhelming lack of interest or discussion among many people of the world today.  Is it truly worship to give obeisance to an ephemeral quasi-concept that one hasn't even tried to grasp or comprehend?

One defining trait often given to deity is immense power, even omnipotence.  Can something actually be omnipotent?  What does that even mean?  No wonder ontology is such a shunned field.  Apparently simple questions quickly end up widening the tiny rabbit hole into a gaping, sucking maw.  One question leads to another, and another, and another....each of which seems to need an answer before the prior can be fully complete.  Do we give up in despair and proclaim the whole issue to be too complex, too vague, too unknowable?  How far down the hole do we even need to go? Should we let the priests and academics fight it out; just tell me a pretty message and make me feel good and I'll trust you that there is something behind the curtain?

I think it is absolutely vital to take a dip in the pool of being; swim around for a bit, test the waters.  Even if one does not wish to take a theological view of existence, at some point one must define the foundation of their principles.  Failing to do so inevitably dooms one to be a marionette tangled in the strings of the world stage, pulled hither and thither by the movements of actors.  There are few things more pitiful than an individual who has lost their agency because their blindness has uprooted them and they have been swept from any moorings that could hold them steady.

Jigging it

This is in response to Jacque's reply to my 'Partisans' post.  As it got longer, I decided to make it its own separate post.
--
We don't need a strong political leader, or leaders, as much as we need a righteously principled public who recognizes that there are some things that cannot and should not be compromised on.  As soon as politics becomes appeasement of the masses, the masses have declared that they wish to be slaves, and are quickly treated as such.

 Remember that king Noah in Mosiah was a very popular king who ruled by the adoration of his people.  They were stripped of their liberties, stripped of their property, stripped of their morals under his leadership and they reveled in their glory.  When Enoch was shown the world in the time of Noah (and the ark) and beheld their marvelous civilization - they attended the operas, flocked to the  art galleries, sipped tea and nibbled crumpets while discoursing elegantly - he beheld the Lord weeping and couldn't understand it.  Then the Lord said, "Let me show you their private lives," and pulled away the mask of the facade of their civilization. It was then Enoch wept bitterly and declared that they deserved to be wiped utterly from the face of the earth.

Again, and again, it is the cleansing of the inner vessels that is required, not the championing of a great leader.  Society is merely the shadow of the people, and if it is crooked and malformed, nothing can straighten it but by fixing that from which it is cast.  Right now in society we are merely shifting the light source and playing architectural games with the surface the shadow is being cast on to make it appear correct.  A whole other segment is gaining traction by proclaiming that the distorted pattern is so much better than the old plain one because it has so much more 'character' or 'individuality'.  Stability, peace, and prosperity have never been, and never can be built on the back of a hunchbacked drunken jester staggering to the broken tune of a malicious pied piper.

U Owe Me

Dear Taxpayer ___________________,

Because of [ ]lazy / [ ]broke / [ ]greed,  I need money for my [ ]excessive house payment / [ ]HDTV / [ ] smart phone / [ ]candy.  You must now give me $_______________.___ monies or the [ ]thug / [ ] gang / [ ] mean person will hurt you plenty and take it.

Thank you for your donation!  ;)

-Menacingly Yours,
_________________, tax consumer.

INSTRUCTIONS: check all that apply.  Make sure you go to enough people to get all you want.  Do not underestimate how much you need. 

Partisans

Perhaps the incident that finally pushed us into posting comments came from a statement made by an individual on Facebook and the replies to it.  An individual had read an article on a news site alleging certain positions and actions by a political party.  Said individual gobbled up the partisan rhetoric and the line of conversation immediately proceeded to, "Yeah!  Our guy is so good and those guys are so bad!   This article proves my position!"; the gist of it being that their guy was trying to solve all the problems and the other guys, by opposing him, were not solving problems.

One of the basic fallacies encountered here, other than that of partisan politics, which I am adamantiumly opposed to, is that opposition to problem solving means that you are in favor of the problems.  If an entire group of individuals opposes a proposed solution, a very diligent look needs to be taken at why they are hindering its implementation.  Even if based on partisan bickering, if a solid majority are not willing to back an action, an alternative needs to be found.

Much more distressing in this situation was that the proposed "solutions" to the "problems" are diametrically opposed to the theological beliefs those clamoring for them proclaim to support.  Only the very ignorant or the hypocritical can spout hosannas of praise for their church while at the same time slavering for implementation of political processes attempting to destroy some of the precepts that it holds most dear.

Reactionary Elements

We've been talking about making public our private ranting and ravings about the state of delusion that so many people seem to live in.  Baseless, factless, purely emotionally based critique of the world around them.  It is enough to drive one batty.  We will destroy them with logic, some reasoning skills, and the pure fires of wrath burning within our bellies, or something like that...  For what it is worth, we may not be all-knowing, but we are all-opinionated, and do have some education and information to back our rantings.  We do not encourage this to be taken with a "grain of salt" (har, har), but if you do not agree, and actually have basis for your disagreement, we encourage educated discussion. Tally ho!