The Revolution: Think of all those people

Here is information of increases of percentages of votes from Ron Paul's presidential bid 2008 compared to 2012 (this comes from http://www.dailypaul.com/210821/looking-at-the-numbers-2008-vs-2012&sss=1)

Iowa: 10% to 21.4%, an increase of x2.1
NH: 7.7% to 22.9%, an increase of almost x3
SC: 3.7% to 13%, an increase of x3.5
FL: 3.2% to 7%, an increase of x2.18

Those are all the actual stats they posted.

With such increases in those states, it seems like more people are getting fed up with more of the same (candidates, rhetoric, policies, debt, war, over-regulation). More people are getting educated. More people are caring about ideas.

The reason why I am a Ron Paul supporter, is because he's true to his oath concerning the Constitution. Here's the current oath (from http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/oaths_of_office_4.htm):

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

The original one went like this:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

Ron Paul keeps both oaths. Also, as part of his philosophy of government, he plans to end our unnecessary and costly wars, lessen our deficit, balance the budget, and give more liberty to the people.

To achieve more liberty, more people need to educated on the amazing (not perfect, but nonetheless amazing) system our Founding Fathers gave us.

CYOA

The great thing about life is that one can choose one's own adventure. As a person makes choices, he/she cannot choose the consequences of those choices, but the adventure is theirs. One reason why I like liberty and freedom so much, is because more good can come of it. Moral people can make more moral choices with more liberty in their lives. I guess the argument/downside is that immoral people can do more evil with more liberty. That is a risk. Right now, much of our lives are ultra-regulated. Because of this, moral people don't have as much money or latitude to do good but have to do what others think is moral. So, as a for-instance, a moral person may want to give more money to charities. With the taxes as they are, the government takes and gives to those who it thinks should have it. The moral person doesn't have enough money to give more. Thus is the problem of high taxes and high regulations. Right now we have a choice.

If you want to Mexico, go to page 37.
If you want to have others telling you what to do all the time, vote for a statist.
If you want to have more liberty to make your own moral choices, vote for liberty.
Choose Your Own Adventure.

I hope my posts make sense. I usually write them around 7 in the morning and don't proofread much.

It's official

It's confirmed, whether by foreign hackers and bots or not, my blog is now international! If I had some rysgrynsgröt right now, I'd celebrate. Here are the countries of this blog's pageviews:

United States   157

Russia   18

Germany   3

I hope that those international pageviews are real people and not bots just crawling the web. I guess we'll see. Liberty is a wonderful idea and a beautiful implementation. So much good comes from liberty, and I wish all peoples of the earth would decide to live in liberty. The policy I don't agree with is forcing our way of living on other people. We should persuade, but not force. That may be what we've been trying to do in the Middle East. Forcing other governments to democratic or "more free." I don't think that is a thing that can be forced. The people must be educated and ready for liberty.

Anyway, if any of you international viewers are real, shoot me a line in the comments (I'd appreciate you chiming in on this discussion).

Cool quote

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional power.”
― Thomas Jefferson 

 

From http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/constitution

Go educate your friends!

Constitutional interpretation

I've read the Constitution. I don't know how many of you have read it. I was thinking recently about the constitutional interpretation that the supreme court often does. I have read Article III and do not find any warrant for constitutional interpretation (and legislation/law creation) in there. Did they interpret the Constitution to allow the supreme court to interpret the document? Does anyone know about how this exists (besides Marshall's decision to be an interpreter)?

Presidents' Day

So, I planned to write this blog yesterday, but I played chess and passed out Ron Paul flyers instead. My father-in-law said that I was honoring the presidents by passing out information about liberty and the constitution. I'd say that was an accurate rendering of our activities. And don't forget the pizza that was provided afterward...

So, I was wondering about presidents and the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the office of the president. I've always been taught that I was supposed to honor the president and not speak evil words concerning him. The only quote or scripture that I remember reading concerning this is Article of Faith 12: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

So, If I disagree with a policy of President Obama, is it okay to voice this disagreement? I think so. Is it okay to incite anarchy? Not so much. What about one of my friends that is convinced that LBJ did in (i.e. planned the assassination of) JFK? Would my friend be wrong in the eyes of the Church or the Lord?

I'd love for y'all to weigh in on this one....

Hope

I just watched an episode of 19 Kids and Counting. The Duggars are a faith-ful family that give me hope for America's future. If we could all recapture greater morality and big-family mentality, America could have a new generation of reeducated, wise, and good people to take back our government (peacefully, of course).

Funny stuff about Maine

So I went to this website about the Maine caucus:

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/02/romney-wins-maine-caucus-and-cpac-straw-poll/

There were some great/funny comments on that page. Surfisher was classic. Here are some of them:



Surfisher
February 12, 2012 at 3:32 pm · Reply
Will —

Spot on! We used to send US observers in Nicaragua to monitor fairness of elections there.

Maybe it's time to ask some Nicaraguans to come here and do the same for us….




Surfisher
February 12, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Steve L —

The only way to prevent real voter fraud is to get a receipt.

When I invest into a product — buying a steak at the supermarket per say — they give me a receipt for my investment (shows the item code# and the date and time of my investment (purchasing in good faith, upon accountability by vendor, that I received the right product))!

Elections MUST be held to at least the same standard as buying groceries — when people invest into their Right To Vote, give them a VALID receipt for their investment!

If States can issue millions of Lottery Tickets weekly, that cannot be forged — why not be FORCED to do the same during the rare elections?!

Only way to prevent the "foul play, voter fraud" cry.




notMitt
February 11, 2012 at 10:51 pm · Reply
"A conservative, a liberal and a moderate went into a bar and the bartender says, 'Hey Mitt, how you doin?"



Surfisher
February 12, 2012 at 1:08 pm · Reply
LOIS — correct. But the media awarded a victory to Mitt. That is the perception they want (since even if Ron Paul is declared eventual winner in a few weeks, it will be "old news").

Since it is all perception (and not truth) that elitist believe win elections, it is the main media's job to create illusion (what they do best).

voting fairly

It's true, I would like my candidate of choice to become next president. Even if he doesn't become the next president, I'd be at peace as long as the "winner" won honestly. There have been allegations of fraud in many of the caucuses and primaries. Behind-the-scenes deals, dead voters, and miscounts have plagued the Republican party this go around. 

So what do we do? Vote in your precinct for honest, good, and wise people. After a time, the leadership will be slowly replaced by honest people. At that point, I can see the vote being more honest.

And I didn't even mention problems with voter machines. My brother and I were considering doing online voting for an international academic organization for which we worked. My brother joked that if the US can't get their voting right (e.g. fraudless/hackerless), then how can we expect to get it right either.

Here's a serious film about voter fraud:

"Hacking Democracy" (it's a documentary about 1 hour 20 minutes)

Interesting scripture

For those of you of other faiths, you may have heard of the Book of Mormon. Well, I read from that book of scripture every morning. I read from it because I know through the Spirit of God that it is true and the words of that book and the Spirit of God renew me daily.


There are many interesting scriptures in that book. Here is one relating to liberty:


Alma 8:16-17

 16 And behold, I am sent to command thee that thou return to the city of Ammonihah, and preach again unto the people of the city; yea, preach unto them. Yea, say unto them, except they repent the Lord God will destroy them.
 17 For behold, they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people, (for thus saith the Lord) which is contrary to the statutes, and judgments, and commandments which he has given unto his people.


The people were studying to "destroy the liberty of [the] people." That was their sin. Wow.


Something to think about.


I know it's late, but I've been delinquent for a day or two and I couldn't go to bed with this scripture twirling around my head.

Morality & education

This post does not come from "objective" history, but from my own understanding and view of our history.

You know what our Founding Fathers had that we don't have? A majority of people that were more moral and more educated. I'm not claiming that all modern Americans are immoral; there are many people that are moral. I'm just saying that their level of morality was a bit higher. For example, they honored the Sabbath of the Lord (and I'm not just referring to the sporting event that occurred a few days ago). They also took sacred oaths more seriously. They also were more willing to take care of themselves (They didn't expect the Feds to send out agents to help them if their Montana homestead was struggling).

In terms of education, they read a lot more than we do (and read more sophisticated books). We watch a lot of things and think we've been educated--one of my friends said that in the communications world, much of what we see on TV is "infotainment" (we think we know something; it's entertaining to think one has learned something). The people back then actually read the Federalist Papers and Anti-federalist Papers and actually had debates about ideas.

Instead of just voting and hoping that our candidate become president, we should educate ourselves and others about liberty and be involved in our precincts. Liberty does not take a bunch of people voting every 2 to 4 years for it to be maintained. It takes constant vigilance.

I sure hope I haven't alienated all my friends with this "fiery" blog.

Penny candy

Do any of you remember when you could go to the store and buy penny candy? How about nickel candy? Dime candy? How about when the candy in the vending machine was 40 cents? Yes, for all you youngins' (I guess you could say, look who's talkin'), there was a time of which I speak.

What has happened to the prices? If any of you have learned from the Austrian School of Economics (or have talked a person schooled in that school of thought), you will know that devaluation of the currency happened. Inflation also happened.

Here's how it goes. The government wants to buy or pay for something (a subsidy for pineapple growers in California, for instance). Because the government doesn't have any savings or surplus, it borrows the money. The government creates bonds (promises to pay) and lenders buy the bonds (i.e. lend the government money with the understanding that the lender will get paid back; this lent money has interest attached to it). The lender gives money to the government (either money the lender saved, or in the case of the Federal Reserve, the money it prints/creates out of thin air). The government spends the money into the economy. The groups that get the easy money experience a "bubble."  As time passes, the market (anthropomorphized of course) realizes there are more dollars (increased supply) now than products, and so the value of the dollar (i.e. Federal Reserve note) is less and it takes more dollars to buy the same products. Thus, inflation, better understood as devaluation of the currency, occurs.

The problem is that the whole system (not just the government) is a debt w/ interest based system and so all the loans must be paid back with interest. There is no interest created by the lenders and so there is never enough money for everyone (the principal paid back to the bank no longer exists once it is paid back).

So, I think competing currencies (including commodity currencies, LETS, and interest-free money created by the government itself) would help to alleviate our economic and social problems. Most of us use money (I can't think of anyone that doesn't) and so our current system affects everyone.

Here are some great sources of information about money and monetary policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU
http://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Penny-Richard-Maybury/dp/0942617312 (great book)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_currency
if you have 4 hours, this is an interesting one - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

Writing for the Lord

God likes to use willing people to move forward His work. It's only been a few days since I've started this blog. Before I started, I thought in my heart that I wouldn't have enough ideas in my head or words in my fingers to write every day. I've learned that ideas come as I have writing time every day.  There's a great book that talks about this (How to Write a Lot, by Paul J. Silva).

I also think that God has inspired me a bit. I don't know which words were inspired and which are just my political viewpoint. I guess the Holy Spirit can tell you and I which words we write or read are inspired.

I encourage any of you that have 15 minutes to dedicate, to pick up the keyboard and write. It's not only therapeutic (or "therapetic" as Barney Fife calls it), but perhaps the Lord will inspire others (or even you) by the words which flow from your fingers.

I've even heard that writing pen on paper is supposedly really good for the mind.

Thanks for reading,
Avendack

Republic or democracy or dictatorship or something else?

What are we these days? A lot of people say we are a democracy. I don't know if I like a democracy, based on my Poli Sci 201 class (have you heard the idea of the two wolves and one lamb voting on what they should eat for dinner?). Are we a republic? The rule of law? Everyone's rights must be respected, regardless of what the majority says? Are we a dictatorship? I don't think so.


Maybe we are what Edward Griffin said, a democratic dictatorship. We vote for who dictates what we should do.

What do y'all think?

Politicians vs. Statesmen

The distinction below between politicians and statesmen is not my original idea, but the words here are my take on the distinction (my words are based on stuff I've heard and read):

There are many politicians today.
   There are very few statesmen/women.
Politicians see their oath of office as a formal ceremony but fail to keep their oath.
   Statesmen keep their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
Politicians try to get government spoils for their constituents
   Statesmen are not into the spoils-giving game.
Politicians focus on short great-sounding sound bites.
   Statesmen are about ideas.
Politicians vote for what seems good or necessary (no matter the cost).
   Statesmen vote to let everyone keep their rights and money.
Politicians don't mind wars, even preemptive ones.
   Statesmen avoid war (it should be a later resort) and declare them lawfully.
Politicians think we, the little people, aren't smart enough to take care of ourselves.
   Statesmen want to maximize liberty for the people.

Parties are now basically irrelevant.
It's the person and their ideas that matter.
So be careful who you vote for.

Obsessed

I've been thinking about something for a long time. I don't care what party or faction they belong to, many people are obsessed, that's right, obsessed about being seen by the rest of the world as legitimate. Some democrats work their hardest to make sure members of their own party get in positions of power (whether presidency, congress or bureaucracy). This obsession goes beyond whether the person will honestly keep their oath of office or will do what is right according to the Constitution or other law. For example, some Arizonans probably got really excited for John McCain when he got the Republican nomination in 2008. Or many Utahns get excited that Mitt Romney might get the current nomination. Or some Alaskans would love if Sarah Palin became a running-mate of one of the nominees. The obsession does not reflect necessarily that the ideas of the candidate are seen as good by the obsessed people, but that the obsessed are legitimized and bask in some shared glory.

Perhaps the people should care more about ideas, stateswomen and statesmen, and goodness than about winning or being validated or legitimized.

Seasteading

I read (and for some, re-read) some articles this morning that really struck me as brilliant. Seasteading is an idea to build autonomous, independent, sovereign states on the sea (in international waters) and use these seasteads as incubators of ideas. Many libertarians have latched onto the idea of seasteading and have made financial contributions to the project. I think the idea is a good one, even though there are many challenges to a fully-functioning and independent seastead. Some of the challenges involve the  comfort of the residents (sea storms can make residents sick because of the back-and-forth rocking of the seastead). Other challenges involve possible invasion from other nations (to stop some of the possible activities happening there), unfriendly maritime law, and the upkeep of the place.

The reason why I say that seasteading is a brilliant idea is the following: someone needs to demonstrate (or re-demonstrate if we count some of the early Americans) that everyone is better off when left to choose for themselves. The poor are taken care of better when free people can use their money to freely give (instead of being forced by a government to give to welfare). Sure, there will be people that make "wrong" or "bad" decisions (I put these words in quotes, not to argue for moral relativism but to argue that some things are only wrong or bad because the government doesn't think we should do it), but a freer people would also be able to do more good and would be more accountable to God for their actions.

I hope that one day (2015?), seasteading becomes a reality.


Here are the internet sources to which I went for information:
http://www.benzinga.com/general/politics/11/08/1862462/want-out-seasteading-libertarian-hamlets-may-be-the-answer
http://www.economist.com/node/21540395
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/peter-thiel-seasteading_n_930595.html

The paranoid king and his paranoid subjects

Once upon a time, there was a land with a group of free people. They loved their land and their lack of wars. They were prosperous. They weren't without problems, but their situation was a lot better than the far off lands they knew.

These far off lands were lands of perpetual war. They had poverty and disease, more than the free land with free people.

The free people had made two big mistakes. These mistakes had changed their lives and their children's lives. They had got involved in two wars in the far off lands, lost many of their boys and girls to those wars, and made the world less stable. The only good thing about these mistakes is that the people had declared the wars and had not had a king do the declaring for them.

Soon the free people wanted a king. They wanted a king, because all the far off lands had a king or someone like a king and they wanted to fit in. So, they got themselves a king (at least, he acted like a king and ruled like a king and got into wars whenever he wanted to, like a king).

There was much evil in the far off lands. Some of the kings and peoples in the far off lands were going to destroy the whole world, or at least enslave it. The newly-kinged people thought that if they didn't do something, that they were going to be destroyed or enslaved. Their king sent their boys and girls off to battles and wars in the far off lands. Wars kept springing up here and there and each war killed many of their soldier boys and girls and spent the people's money.

Other lands rose up and threatened the people, because the other lands were sick of the newly-kinged people being over there, like a nagging babysitter trying to stop daily sandbox fights. The other people of the other lands attacked the once-free people. The once-free people got into war again. And again. And were talking about starting another war.

Some of the people began to worry. "We can't pay for these wars. We're out of money! Our sons and daughters are dying over there! But if we don't get those evil people in those other lands, they'll get us!" The king and his subjects were scared and couldn't sleep.

So that was the dilemma, go fight more and spend borrowed money and have their sons and daughters killed in ever sprouting conflicts, or leave them alone and perhaps the evil people would destroy all the peoples of the earth.

Some people thought that maybe this war would not waste money and kill the people's soldier children.

An old man came forward and told the people a piece of wisdom that he had heard from another wise person. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." The old man also said that the people should follow the golden rule, but the people didn't understand what gold had to do with anything.

But the people were worried about their enemies throughout the world, and so they ignored the old man and his "wisdom."

So the people fought until they had a currency crisis and couldn't buy a piece of bread. Their enemies didn't blow up the world after all, but it other damage had been done. The once-free land had fallen into economic crises and had let themselves become enslaved.

The End (but it doesn't have to be)

Playing by the rules

I was talking to an acquaintance the other day about politics.  He was talking about the strict constitutionalists and how he didn't agree with them. I let him know that I was a strict constitutionalist. Our conversation basically ended there.

I've been thinking about the constitution and how it is treated. Some say that the Constitution is old-fashioned and does not reflect the complexity of our modern world. Thus, they say, we need a living Constitution or a loose interpretation of the document. The problem, I believe, with this argument and suggestion, is that there is nothing anchoring a "living Constitution" or the "loose" interpretation applied to what Ezra Taft Benson called "A Heavenly Banner."  Instead, I think there is a simple solution.

All we need to do is play by the rules. We need to amend the Constitution whenever we think it is outdated or does not handle our current situation correctly. If we don't want to live by any of the Constitution, we should amend it out of existence, as the Constitutional Convention did with the Articles of Confederation.

One of the advantages of amending the Constitution is that it puts down the possibility of some faction rising up and having a violent coup, when they don't like where our country is going. Instead, there would be discussion, deliberation, and input from the people. The people would feel that their voices were heard, and would more than likely accept the change (or tolerate it peacefully).

An analogy may help. Pick a sport, any sport. That sport has rules by which the competitors play. Imagine if two teams were in the midst of the game and a referee tells everyone that he doesn't like a rule and so going to ignore that rule. If each player decided to play by his/her rules, then there would be chaos. Many of the fans perhaps would become disenchanted with the sport.

The Constitution has laid out the process by which it can be changed. Constitutional amendment. Those are the rules. So, instead of ignoring the Constitution, we should amend it when needed. Play by the rules!