Monday, August 22, 2016

Political Thoughts 2

Environmental Issues
        I believe climate change is a natural occurrence and has been happening for at least six millennia.  As a result of this, I do not think the government should be concerned with keeping the earth from warming or cooling since both are natural processes.  Furthermore, there is little valid scientific evidence for there to be any concern over any sort of warming or cooling of the earth. Over about the last 15 years, the average global temperature has risen approximately 0 degrees. Also, I think it is a very self-centered thought to think that humans can have a significant impact on the earth's temperature.  Can humans have a sizable impact?  Definitely.  But significant?  Certain things, such as humans causing volcanoes to explode and a nuclear war would certainly be significant, but currently, neither of those things is happening and the impact of humans on the earth's climate is somewhat limited.
        With all of these things said, however, I do think that humans have a duty to keep the earth close to as clean as possible.  I think excessive pollution of water, land, and the air should be illegal and that there should be some oversight and regulation for this problem.  The issue should probably be left to individual states to determine what they believe is the limit of pollution which should be tolerated.  Also, businesses and individuals should not be taxed for their carbon emissions and should be able to use dirty energy, such as coal in their operations if they so desire.  My issue with businesses or individuals is simply when there is an excessive abuse of the environment which should not occur.

        I support an end to all tax credits and subsidies to the energy industry.  I think that Oil Drilling/Fracking should be legal and that the free market should determine the best course of action in regards to what energy should be pursued - even whether it be a traditional or alternative form of energy.

Domestic & Unknown Issues
        I support the legalization of sports gambling.  I fail to see how the stock market is allowed to operate in the United States and individuals can buy stocks from any state in the United States, yet sports gambling is legalized only to certain areas, such as Las Vegas and a few states.  If a person is allowed to bet on the livelihoods of businesses, commodities, individuals, and technologies, etc. Why should individuals not be allowed to bet on the outcome of sporting events?
        Furthermore, the legalization of sports gambling would result in millions upon millions of new taxpayer dollars for the government to spend (presuming that the government would want a cut of the action... which obviously they would).  I fail to see how there is not precedence for sports gambling, I fail to see how sports gambling hurts anyone (outside of individuals becoming addicted to it, but becoming addicted can happen for pretty much anything), and I fail to see how the benefits of legalized sports gambling are not enticing to its legalization. 

        I am undecided on the use of electronic brain implants.  I think that brain implants are an issue that will likely be a political issue in another decade, and they have the potential to greatly benefit people and to cause a lot of pain.

      I am somewhat opposed to the development of artificial intelligence.  I think artificial intelligence could benefit humanity greatly and could also, outside of Divine intervention, destroy humanity.

        I support a return to a Constitutional hierarchy for the judicial system. Judicial activism has been one of the main causes of the social decay in the United States.  Abortion, eminent domain, etc., the blows to life, morals, and economic durability have been hugely and negatively impacted by judicial activism.  A return to a Constitutional hierarchy of law would mean that the judiciary would no longer be able to legislate decisions from the bench and the rule of law would return to the legislator where it belongs. (where the legislator could then legislate evil decrees at a slower rate than the judiciary's rate...  Sorry for being so cynical...)
        The Supreme Court does not offer the final say on any law, they simply offer an opinion, an educated and important opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.  I think judicial activism is one of the most important issues of the last half-century and that the judiciary has led the charge towards Gomorrah.  While I would like for there to be more Constitutional judges appointed, I think a more important point to be made is that the entire system should be reorganized to what it was originally intended to be.

        I think a candidate's religious beliefs and lifestyle should play a role in the voting decision process for voters.  If a candidate is an atheist, then that tells me she (or he) does not believe that she will ultimately be accountable for anything she does.  As a result, there is no higher standard than herself for what ultimately determines whether something is reasonable or unreasonable.  Consequently, my opinion of that candidate will diminish greatly.  Being an atheist, a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc., does not disqualify you from my vote, but your religious views can certainly reduce the chance that I will vote for you.

      I support the ability of individuals and businesses to own land and not sell it to the government.  I think a case can be made that the government is able to use land in a way which benefits a larger number of citizens than an individual would be able to do.  However, I also think that the government would often abuse this power to the harm of individuals and businesses.  Concurrently, I oppose eminent domain.  Possibly there could be a handful of cases where I could be persuaded to support it, in a particular individual case, but even that situation is fairly unlikely.  If an individual or business is unwilling to sell their land to the government, then there should be virtually no case where the government has the ability to simply give them the so-called fair market value for the land and forcibly take the land from them.

        I support an increase to the legal driving speed limit on roads, effectively across the nation.  Up until near the end of 1995, a federal law prohibited driving over 65 MPH.  While some states have addressed the issue by raising the speed limit in their respective states since then, overall, in my opinion, the matter has not been addressed significantly enough.  While I think there should still be an upper-speed limit, probably 80 MPH, I think speed limits should be raised locally, statewide, and nationally by 10 MPH.  
        Additionally (And what I am about to layout is a big brother type of initiative, so it would only be instituted with a morally correct government - so in other words I would probably never support such an initiative.  And I mean, this would also be unconstitutional, but things can be made to be Constitutional with Constitutional Amendments, obviously.), I think cars should be affixed with GPS's which allow the police to fine individuals who drive over the newly raised speed limit, likely starting at around 5 MPH over the speed limit.

        I am undecided on the positives and negatives of legalizing or decriminalizing various drugs.  I would need to learn more before I land firmly on the side of legalizing drugs or being in opposition to them being legalized.  I can understand there may be benefits to legalizing various drugs, such as marijuana, and I lean towards supporting such a measure, or at least decriminalizing marijuana anyways, but I am uncertain of all of the negative ramifications of such an action.

        I am uncertain of where I stand on the issue of Super PAC funding. I have heard semi-convincing arguments from each side, but, as of yet, I have not heard anything that has put me firmly against the current funding situation for Super PACs or in support of it.

        I am lightly in support of flag burning remaining a legal course of action.  Although, I am not entirely certain of each side's reasoning and could certainly change my mind on the issue.

        I think life should be valued and suicide should be declared illegal.

        I would like to reestablish the proper roles of the three branches of government as was intended in the Constitution.  One such result of this undertaking is that executive orders should largely become a thing of the past.  While I need to research the issue more, it is my understanding that a vast portion of executive orders are unconstitutional.

        I support marriages where each individual honors their promise to their spouse to the end of their respective lives.  I think no-fault divorce has been one of the underlying faults which has caused the large cracks in the average American family.  As a result of this, I support a return to fault divorce being the only legitimate way for a husband and wife to become divorced.

        I support the continued illegality of prostitution in the United States.

        I am uncertain as to what should be done in certain gender cases.  For instance, if a business desires to be inclusive (in their mind) and has bathrooms that are gender neutral, then I would guess it would not cause major problems for anyone.  I would not support the business's decision per se, but I also do not think I would support government intervention into the situation.  As another for instance, though, if a school only had gender neutral bathrooms and locker rooms for its students, then I would have a problem with the situation.  Additionally, in that instance, the government should intervene in the situation and say the children should go into bathrooms and locker rooms which correspond to their respective gender.
        I think the gender issue gets to be extra complicated when someone becomes transgender.  I think if a girl "becomes" a guy, then that girl is still a girl.  But, it certainly complicates the issue. Should the girl now go into the girls' locker room or the guys' locker room?  I would lean towards the girls' locker room, but yet that wouldn't be right, so currently I am not certain what should be done in such a situation.

        I lightly support the actions of Edward Snowdown and his whistleblowing of the NSA's surveillance program.  I think Snowden may properly be viewed as a traitor to the United States and also as a relative hero for his attempted protection of "traditional" American principles.  In other words, while what he did is somewhat traitorous to the current United States, it does promote a more transparent government which is more along the lines of what the Founding Fathers would have desired.

        I support the destruction of the two-party system.  I am uncertain of all the measures which should be taken to support this view.  One of the things which could be done is there could be lower requirements for ballot access for states and lower requirements for appearing on television debates. Promoting a two-party system pretty much inherently supports each party moving towards the middle of the political spectrum. Although Democrats mess with this paradigm slightly by typically being more convicted for their supported issues than are Republicans.  This consequently leads to most Republicans having political spectrums that are even further left than the center of a given issue.

        I support the labeling of foods so consumers are able to know what is in the food they are consuming.  As such, I support the labeling of products which have ingredients that have been genetically modified.  I would also consider banning the production of genetically modified foods, but currently, I would not go so far as to say I support that action.

        I believe the culture should promote healthy societal and moral constructs and healthy body types.  As a result, I think pornography should be outlawed.  I think it promotes an unhealthy society which promotes promiscuity and the destruction of the family.  Moreover, I am not certain pornography can be viewed without being sinful, so from a religious standpoint I am also morally opposed to it.  Also, the individuals which are often portrayed in pornography are not always of a typical body type, as a result, couples can have unhealthy views of each other based on what they have seen in pornography.  Furthermore, the pornography industry largely provides a destructive lifestyle for the individuals who participate in it and promotes further destructive lifestyles for other individuals who view it.

        I think churches and businesses should have religious freedom, so long as that religious freedom does not infringe upon another person or business's rights.

        I support term limits for politicians at all levels of the government.  I would say an individual should be allowed a maximum of perhaps 30 years of elected office at any level of government.  For instance, you could be the mayor of a city for 10 years, state representative for 10 years, and a U.S. Senator for 10 years.  Additionally, there should be state and national limits as well - possibly local limits as well, but I would lean towards no limits for local government.  For state limits, I would lean towards 16 years and for national limits, I would likely say 12 years - other than the presidency that is, for the presidency I would support an absolute monarchical system... Kidding, just seeing if you were paying attention.  Additionally, the same limits should apply to elected and unelected judges at the state and national level.

        I am uncertain what should be done with the NSA.  I do not know if there is a convincing Constitutional argument which may be made that proclaims the NSA to be unconstitutional, and I am pretty certain there is no Biblical precedent for it being illegal. The NSA's surveillance may be abused to the harm of many individuals and nations, but it is not inherently wrong to have it in place.  I think the NSA and the surveillance measures used therein have led to the prevention of a number of terrorist attacks.  As a result of these things, I would need to learn more to determine what should be done with the NSA.
        Also, connected to this topic, I am uncertain what level of a knowledge the average citizen should have of the government and its security measures.  Obviously, accountability is typically a good thing, but the price of accountability is that some information is confidential and could endanger citizens... So it is an odd conundrum, as a result, I am conflicted as to whether Americans should have complete freedom of information from the government or not.

        I support a voting process which allows only eligible voters to vote.  In other words, I support additional pre-voting procedures, namely showing your ID in order to vote.  Showing your ID is used for a variety of more trivial times in a person's life, I fail to see why it should not be shown and scanned when a person is voting.  I do not believe voter fraud is often significantly impacting the results of elections, but I do think it is significantly impacting elections by effectively canceling the voices of eligible voters.  For instance, if in a governor's race where 200,000 people vote, 300 ineligible voters vote for Candidate Smith and 300 eligible voters vote for Candidate Johnson, then, in essence, those 300 eligible voters for Candidate Johnson did not have a voice during that election process - while each of the ineligible voters had a voice when they should not have had one.  Would those 300 votes have made a difference in the elections outcome, possibly yes, likely no, but whether or not the 300 votes would make a difference is irrelevant in my opinion. Each eligible voter should be allowed a consequential vote regarding what government presides over them.

        I support an individual's right to own guns and protect themselves.  With that said, I do support some restrictions on guns, such as a person needing to pass a background check before the purchase of a weapon. Currently, I think semi-automatic weapons should be legal to the general public, but automatic weapons should be illegal to the general public - which is effectively the case now.  I believe gun free zones and most anti-gun measures do not help to keep individuals safe, but instead, endanger them.  

Healthcare & Education Issues
      I support a free market approach for health care providers.  I support an appeal of Obamacare and an opening up of competition within the health care market in various aspects, such as for insurers competing across state lines.  Opening up the health care system to the free market will help to reduce costs, cut down on inefficiencies, and improve health care for the average individual.

        I think families, churches, and charities should be a primary option to help with the costs of health care for low-income individuals.  I think Medicaid should be phased out and abolished.  I am not inherently opposed to a government program similar to Medicaid, but, among other things, the program would need to be done on a much, much smaller scale.

      I support parents having the ability to decide whether or not their children are vaccinated.  I think there is an interesting case to be made for government intervention and for forced vaccinations of children, but overall it is too intrusive for my tastes and consequently I oppose forced vaccinations - voluntary vaccinations are fine.

      I think prayer should be encouraged in school.  Students should be allowed to pray to whatever God they believe in.  Students should also be able to read their religious material in school, on their own time.  Also in education, Evolutionism and Creationism should at least  be put on equal footing of one another and both should be taught as possible reasons for the creation of the earth - though I would prefer that Creationism would be the primary focus by far.  Additionally, schools should be allowed to focus on Creationism or on Evolutionism as they desire, but the split should never be greater than 80-20.
        I also support alternatives to public schooling, such as homeschooling and private schooling.  I think a voucher system improves education and children and parents should be able to determine where they desire to go/send their children to school.

      I would say education should be handled at the local level first.  I am not absolutely opposed to having common standards of excellence for education, but I think it can be fairly hard to form a national education board which properly sets the standards for every school.  As a result of this, Common Core and similar standards should likely not be handled at the national level.

No comments:

Post a Comment