My political ideology:

[raderag]

My political ideology:

I consider myself a moderate libertarian; that is that I believe in generally libertarian values, but believe all ideologies must be tempered by reality and human nature. While I prefer fewer laws and smaller government, it is a necessary evil in order that it restrains a sometimes greater evil. It is an evil nevertheless.

I tend to like moderates far more than I do ideologues as the former tend to have a more full understanding of human nature. A moderate learns lessons from the past, and an ideologue ignores them. An ideologue has a hammer, and thus sees every problem as a nail. A moderate applies ideas towards problems with historical data and human nature in the mix. A moderate never worships at the feet of his ideology.
I think the pure libertarian ideology of someone like Ron Paul is pure foolishness at best at reactionary at worst. For example, his idea that we should decriminalize all drugs does not take into account some of the finer points of the drug war. On economic issues, he tends to over simply to the point that his ideology is economically unworkable.
His ideas on foreign policy pre WWII republicanism. I mention RP as I know he is well respected in these parts.

Anyway, here are my views on various issues

Government – The job of the government is simple – to provide for the basic welfare, rights, and safety of its citizens. Therefore, the government’s job is to protect our borders from invaders (this can have further reaching consequences though), regulate commerce (moderately of course), and enforce contracts.

Social issues – I believe that the government has an absolute duty to protect human life, and thus abortion should be considered homicide. I am not a social libertarian, and have no problem with the law of God being a major input to our laws. However, I do not wish to enact laws that are unenforceable (i.e. Sodomy).

Immigration – I see the modern day anti-immigration as a major flaw in the conservative movement for several reasons. Firstly, it is self defeating. Secondly, it is not a Christian ideal to heavily restrict foreigners from work and travel, but rather it seems to be the antitheses of such. Lastly, immigration can be a win-win for the immigrants as well as the citizens. I believe in open and well regulated borders. We should allow no criminals or diseased individuals in, but we should allow those that want to work and contribute to our economy, easy entry. The government should carefully keep track of who comes in and out of our country. If we had this policy, the only people that would try to sneak in would be the criminals. As it is now, hordes of people sneak in, and are basically trapped here. People come here because our economy desperately needs them here. If we regulate and legalize it, we lower costs, and regain control. For example, we could charge the companies that hire them a tax to pay for the extra social services they use. OTOH, it only takes one generation for Mexican immigrants to surpass the national average in per capita income. Citizenship would not be given by fiat to the masses (1980’s), but rather be a difficult and important commitment.

Free Trade – I believe that capitalism is superior to mercantilism or socialism, and think that has been proven over and over again. One of the key tenets to capitalism is free trade. I don’t think there is any serious argument about this, but the protectist unions and uber conservatives continue to insist on trade restrictions despite all of the evidence that this is a bad thing. Sometimes we should restrict trade based on moral grounds. Sometimes…

Economics – I believe that less regulation is better, but the government must regulate when human nature does not and cannot regulate itself. I strongly believe in the laffer curve, and believe that our current tax system is way too progressive (41% pay no taxes). We need to simplify and flatten it out.

MISC Rant - I believe that the 10th amendment needs to be reinforced. We should devolve most power to the states. Get rid of Education dept, limit hiways dept, etc.
I believe that the 1rst amendment is being trampled by such things as “Campaign Finance Reform”.

Can't think of anything else right now. Questions?

[JBaker45]

My political ideology:

I consider myself a moderate libertarian; that is that I believe in generally libertarian values, but believe all ideologies must be tempered by reality and human nature. While I prefer fewer laws and smaller government, it is a necessary evil in order that it restrains a sometimes greater evil. It is an evil nevertheless.

I tend to like moderates far more than I do ideologues as the former tend to have a more full understanding of human nature. A moderate learns lessons from the past, and an ideologue ignores them. An ideologue has a hammer, and thus sees every problem as a nail. A moderate applies ideas towards problems with historical data and human nature in the mix. A moderate never worships at the feet of his ideology.
I think the pure libertarian ideology of someone like Ron Paul is pure foolishness at best at reactionary at worst. For example, his idea that we should decriminalize all drugs does not take into account some of the finer points of the drug war. On economic issues, he tends to over simply to the point that his ideology is economically unworkable.
His ideas on foreign policy pre WWII republicanism. I mention RP as I know he is well respected in these parts.

Anyway, here are my views on various issues

Government – The job of the government is simple – to provide for the basic welfare, rights, and safety of its citizens. Therefore, the government’s job is to protect our borders from invaders (this can have further reaching consequences though), regulate commerce (moderately of course), and enforce contracts.

Social issues – I believe that the government has an absolute duty to protect human life, and thus abortion should be considered homicide. I am not a social libertarian, and have no problem with the law of God being a major input to our laws. However, I do not wish to enact laws that are unenforceable (i.e. Sodomy).

Immigration – I see the modern day anti-immigration as a major flaw in the conservative movement for several reasons. Firstly, it is self defeating. Secondly, it is not a Christian ideal to heavily restrict foreigners from work and travel, but rather it seems to be the antitheses of such. Lastly, immigration can be a win-win for the immigrants as well as the citizens. I believe in open and well regulated borders. We should allow no criminals or diseased individuals in, but we should allow those that want to work and contribute to our economy, easy entry. The government should carefully keep track of who comes in and out of our country. If we had this policy, the only people that would try to sneak in would be the criminals. As it is now, hordes of people sneak in, and are basically trapped here. People come here because our economy desperately needs them here. If we regulate and legalize it, we lower costs, and regain control. For example, we could charge the companies that hire them a tax to pay for the extra social services they use. OTOH, it only takes one generation for Mexican immigrants to surpass the national average in per capita income. Citizenship would not be given by fiat to the masses (1980’s), but rather be a difficult and important commitment.

Free Trade – I believe that capitalism is superior to mercantilism or socialism, and think that has been proven over and over again. One of the key tenets to capitalism is free trade. I don’t think there is any serious argument about this, but the protectist unions and uber conservatives continue to insist on trade restrictions despite all of the evidence that this is a bad thing. Sometimes we should restrict trade based on moral grounds. Sometimes…

Economics – I believe that less regulation is better, but the government must regulate when human nature does not and cannot regulate itself. I strongly believe in the laffer curve, and believe that our current tax system is way too progressive (41% pay no taxes). We need to simplify and flatten it out.

MISC Rant - I believe that the 10th amendment needs to be reinforced. We should devolve most power to the states. Get rid of Education dept, limit hiways dept, etc.
I believe that the 1rst amendment is being trampled by such things as “Campaign Finance Reform”.

Can't think of anything else right now. Questions?
For the most part, I agree with your points regarding government(1), social issues, immigration(2), free trade, and economics(3).


(1) Government - I am not automatically against a preemptive strike (war). I know that Ted disagrees with the preemptive position, but I can not rule it out in all conceivable circumstances.
.
(2) Immigration - I support legal immigration.
.
(3) Economics - I agree with you 100%. We need a consumption based flat taxation system. Now! ;-)


God bless,
John

[raderag]

.
(3) Economics - I agree with you 100%. We need a consumption based flat taxation system. Now! ;-)


I don't agree with a consumption based tax as being the main source for US Govt revenue. The arguments for it are weak in my view. (there would still need to be some sort of IRS)

I personally like the Steve Forbes type flat tax.

[JBaker45]

I don't agree with a consumption based tax as being the main source for US Govt revenue. The arguments for it are weak in my view. (there would still need to be some sort of IRS)

I personally like the Steve Forbes type flat tax.
Yes, the Steve Forbes plan is the one that I am most familiar with.

In the book "The Flat Tax" (called the flat-tax bible by Forbes magazine), co-authors Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka explain that consumption taxes take many forms : cash-flow expenditure tax (income minus saving), value-added tax (like they have in Europe), and the sales tax (like the states have), and the Forbes plan as well.

The Forbes plan is considered consumption based because because it removes all investment spending from the tax base.

"The justification for consumption taxes rests on their built-in incentives to save and invest. By exempting investment from taxation, consumption taxes encourage investment and discourage spending. (Over time, each act of investment traces back to an act of saving; thus exempting investment from the tax base amounts to exempting saving.)"

[Tallen]

Government – The job of the government is simple – to provide for the basic welfare, rights, and safety of its citizens. Therefore, the government’s job is to protect our borders from invaders (this can have further reaching consequences though), regulate commerce (moderately of course), and enforce contracts.

OK, I agree with this. I would add this though, it is not the governments role to initiate wars outside of our borders, on foreign soil, that is not considered defending against invaders.


Social issues – I believe that the government has an absolute duty to protect human life, and thus abortion should be considered homicide. I am not a social libertarian, and have no problem with the law of God being a major input to our laws. However, I do not wish to enact laws that are unenforceable (i.e. Sodomy).

There are already laws about sodomy, and they aren't inforced even when it is clear that the act has occured. We agree about human life.


Immigration – I see the modern day anti-immigration as a major flaw in the conservative movement for several reasons. Firstly, it is self defeating. Secondly, it is not a Christian ideal to heavily restrict foreigners from work and travel, but rather it seems to be the antitheses of such. Lastly, immigration can be a win-win for the immigrants as well as the citizens. I believe in open and well regulated borders. We should allow no criminals or diseased individuals in, but we should allow those that want to work and contribute to our economy, easy entry. The government should carefully keep track of who comes in and out of our country. If we had this policy, the only people that would try to sneak in would be the criminals. As it is now, hordes of people sneak in, and are basically trapped here. People come here because our economy desperately needs them here. If we regulate and legalize it, we lower costs, and regain control. For example, we could charge the companies that hire them a tax to pay for the extra social services they use. OTOH, it only takes one generation for Mexican immigrants to surpass the national average in per capita income. Citizenship would not be given by fiat to the masses (1980’s), but rather be a difficult and important commitment.

I don't see how a conservative view of immigration is "self defeating", but I don't have any qualms about immagration to this country. It is the illegal immagrant that is here already that I think should be treated as a criminal, they are, and deported. There also should be harsh laws for those that hire illegals and promote their criminally being here. It isn't the people that we know about that are the threat, it is the people we don't know about that are the threat.


Free Trade – I believe that capitalism is superior to mercantilism or socialism, and think that has been proven over and over again. One of the key tenets to capitalism is free trade. I don’t think there is any serious argument about this, but the protectist unions and uber conservatives continue to insist on trade restrictions despite all of the evidence that this is a bad thing. Sometimes we should restrict trade based on moral grounds. Sometimes…

I think trade should be governed when it threatens the markets and stability of the country. For instance, importing substidized farming or manufacturing goods from other countries. China substidizes the tool and die industry and will export product at a fraction of the cost of the US manufacturers. In these types of cases I think tariffs should be imposed and the money used toward those industries to make them more competitive and to lower the cost of domestic goods and products. Also, the government should be working to open foreign markets to our goods that will competitively and fairly compete with foreign goods and services.


Economics – I believe that less regulation is better, but the government must regulate when human nature does not and cannot regulate itself. I strongly believe in the laffer curve, and believe that our current tax system is way too progressive (41% pay no taxes). We need to simplify and flatten it out.

I see very little need for the federal government to tax, period. If it is doing it's job, foreign money could be used to sustain it along with tolls and fees for using federal services. Also, money should be based upon a tangible, like gold, rather than on a credit.


MISC Rant - I believe that the 10th amendment needs to be reinforced. We should devolve most power to the states. Get rid of Education dept, limit hiways dept, etc.

Agreed.


I believe that the 1rst amendment is being trampled by such things as “Campaign Finance Reform”.

Agreed.

[raderag]

OK, I agree with this. I would add this though, it is not the governments role to initiate wars outside of our borders, on foreign soil, that is not considered defending against invaders.


Hypothetical - What if another country was developing a WMD, and they said they planned to use it to destroy us? Would we have the right to invade then?

Invasion is not the only act of war.

[Tallen]

Hypothetical - What if another country was developing a WMD, and they said they planned to use it to destroy us? Would we have the right to invade then?

Invasion is not the only act of war.

No! We have WMD and threaten others with them. Usually something like, "I wouldn't rule that out".

As a matter of fact, we have used them.

[raderag]

No! We have WMD and threaten others with them. Usually something like, "I wouldn't rule that out".

As a matter of fact, we have used them.

Well, I think this is where we disagree. If there is a credible threat made, I think a country has a right to respond.

We only threaten to use them as a response to an act of war.

I mean, what if a country said we are developing X weapon, and plan to use it on you unless the US does X (perhaps it would be forfeiting US territory.)

[Tallen]

Well, I think this is where we disagree. If there is a credible threat made, I think a country has a right to respond.

We only threaten to use them as a response to an act of war.

I mean, what if a country said we are developing X weapon, and plan to use it on you unless the US does X (perhaps it would be forfeiting US territory.)

What if I say I am going to run the stop sign at the end of the road. What crime has been committed?

On the other hand, if I tell you that I am going to run your dog over unless you give me such and such, a crime has been committed and appropriate action should be taken. This does not need to be an act of war against someone on foreign soil though.

BTW, having weapons of mass destruction should be illegal on the planet. If a nation has them, then international sanctions and legal action should be brought against them. That includes the US. We are just as threatening to other countries as they could be to us.

[raderag]

What if I say I am going to run the stop sign at the end of the road. What crime has been committed?

On the other hand, if I tell you that I am going to run your dog over unless you give me such and such, a crime has been committed and appropriate action should be taken. This does not need to be an act of war against someone on foreign soil though.

BTW, having weapons of mass destruction should be illegal on the planet. If a nation has them, then international sanctions and legal action should be brought against them. That includes the US. We are just as threatening to other countries as they could be to us.

Ted,

I would like to discuss this some more. I think we should hash out this issue a little more systematically. Thinking...

[Tallen]

Ted,

I would like to discuss this some more. I think we should hash out this issue a little more systematically. Thinking...

By the way, I would put WMD's at a higher priority for the Christian church than abortion. :medium-smiley-140:

[raderag]

By the way, I would put WMD's at a higher priority for the Christian church than abortion. :medium-smiley-140:

Not sure...

Can you herd cats or put worms back into a can?

[Tallen]

Not sure...

Can you herd cats or put worms back into a can?

I think we should try. I do think that Nuclear energy is something needed as a peaceful power source, but we (Christians) should make every effort to speak out against it as a weapon. Nerve gas and such things that have no use other than for being a weapon, should be illegal. That goes for us as well as for everyone else.

Also, I would advocate shutting down all military bases on foreign soil. That type of thinking, a sustained foreign military presence, is a remnant from Cold War thinking and is no longer a necessary part of a defense of our boarders.

But this isn't a systematic discussion like you want so I won't say anything else unless you want to talk about it. :medium-smiley-010:

[JBaker45]

BTW, having weapons of mass destruction should be illegal on the planet. If a nation has them, then international sanctions and legal action should be brought against them. That includes the US. We are just as threatening to other countries as they could be to us.
This makes about as much sense as gun control laws.

"If guns are made illegal then only criminals will have guns."

[Tallen]

This makes about as much sense as gun control laws.

"If guns are made illegal then only criminals will have guns."

Nice red herring. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_5_40.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYYYUS)http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb098&pp=ZSYYYYYYYYUS (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb098_ZSYYYYYYYYUS&utm_id=7926)

[raderag]

I think we should try. I do think that Nuclear energy is something needed as a peaceful power source, but we (Christians) should make every effort to speak out against it as a weapon. Nerve gas and such things that have no use other than for being a weapon, should be illegal. That goes for us as well as for everyone else.

Also, I would advocate shutting down all military bases on foreign soil. That type of thinking, a sustained foreign military presence, is a remnant from Cold War thinking and is no longer a necessary part of a defense of our boarders.

But this isn't a systematic discussion like you want so I won't say anything else unless you want to talk about it. :medium-smiley-010:

No, I don't mind, but really want to discuss this carefully as it is a very important issue.

I'm still thinking about the issues myself.

[Tallen]

No, I don't mind, but really want to discuss this carefully as it is a very important issue.

I'm still thinking about the issues myself.

I agree, they are important issues. I think they should be approached from scripture.

[JBaker45]

I agree, they are important issues. I think they should be approached from scripture.
I don't think that it is a red colored herring :smile: to ask if the scriptures say that we must wait until one actually attempts to harm us before we take action.

[Tallen]

I don't think that it is a red colored herring :smile: to ask if the scriptures say that we must wait until one actually attempts to harm us before we take action.

But on the other hand John, to associate one issue with another in order to trivalize a point is.

The biblical mandate is to love your nieghbor, your enemy and includes keeping our own nation in covenant and having faith in God. That is the Christian duty. One of the provisions of the covenant is that God will protect a nation from it's enemies if it remians faithful.

And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God... The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways. (Deuteronomy 28:1-2; 7 KJV)

A faithless nation will run to it's own strength and might instead of falling upon the Rock, who promises to cause our enemies to flee before us. What do we as a nation have faith in, the weapons we can create in order to defend us or the Lord who has covenanted with his people to keep their nation if they are faithful to Him? Besides this, war comes from the act of covetousness and the desire of one people to have what the other has. A threatening neighbor is always around, but a faithful people is hard to find.

If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: (Proverbs 25:21 KJV)

[JBaker45]

But on the other hand John, to associate one issue with another in order to trivalize a point is.
I am sorry brother, but I should object to the accusation of trivializing.

By waiting for the aggressor to harm our community of loved ones, we will have not protected them as we should.

Search the scriptures for where the Bible speaks to the protection of the "little ones".

To neglect this responsibly is surely a sin.

[Tallen]

I am sorry brother, but I should object to the accusation of trivializing.

By waiting for the aggressor to harm our community of loved ones, we will have not protected them as we should.

Search the scriptures for where the Bible speaks to the protection of the "little ones".

To neglect this responsibly is surely a sin.

I apologize for the accusation.

I can find in the scriptures where we are to allow and help the little ones come into the kingdom of God, and I can find that a key principal in that kingdom is feed our enemies, forgive them, and turn the other cheek. But I see no mandate to strike first. BTW, scripture clearly teaches us to train our children and to seek His kingdom and preserve His covenant..., and He will be our sheild and buckler. He will be our protection. I would rather let YHWH protect me than Uncle Sam. :pray: