Political Thoughts

      In this blog post and the next two posts I will be running through my thoughts and beliefs on different political issues.  As recently as last month I believed in pro-life with the exception of the life of the mother but have since come to believe that even this promotion of murder of children is actually a red herring.  I will explain in further detail in a moment.  I brought this point up though, to illustrate that even my convictions may change a little bit and my positions can definitely change given time and more information.

Life

       I support life.  I believe the life of a child should be saved in all circumstances whensoever and wheresoever it is possible to do so.  The lone partial "exception" (aka killing of the child) I would make to this, is when the life of the mother is at stake.  Since this is a core issue to me, the candidate in whatever election I am voting in should either be pro-life entirely or pro-life with the exception of the life of the mother.  

      How, you may ask, if I am pro-life without exceptions, can I support candidates who are pro-life with exceptions?  Well, for me, it all comes down to motivations.  If a candidate's motivations are to save all the lives which he (or she depending on the candidate, obviously) can and he buys into the notion that in some instances it is necessary to take the life of a child in order to save a mother's life, then I can understand a candidate's motivations and support him for taking a reasonable stance to defend life.  I believe every person in the world first became a person at their conception.  I believe both the life of a mother and the life of a child are very, very important and that both individuals should be kept alive if at all possible.  As a result of this, I think the intentional murdering of a child or a mother should be illegal.  

      I do believe there are instances where both the life of the mother and the life of the baby may be at stake.  In such an instance, based on my experiences, I think the life of the mother should be saved. However, this does not mean the intentional murdering of the child.  In other words, if a life can be saved, the life should be saved.  The website American Right to Life lays out in their article Life of the Mother Exception how the typical "pro-life with exceptions" proposition is a red herring and uses fallacious reasoning.

      While, I am able to support candidates who are pro-life with an exception for the life of the mother (Also, random thought, if your disclaimer is longer than your title, it's probably reasonable  to assume you are doing something wrong - though not necessarily morally wrong.), I think a pro-life with exceptions argument leaves open a very deadly opportunity for Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics and doctors to take advantage of.  According to various surveys of women, the most common percentage of women who give the reason that the murder of their unborn child was done due to dangers to the woman's life (my framing, not theirs, clearly) is less than 1% of the primary reason for all abortions.  I would estimate that the number of doctors who would perform murders for women based on "dangers to their life" would rise astronomically if abortions were made illegal in all cases except for that one deadly exception.  

      If you believe the abortion industry, which profits from the murder of innocent children, would not be willing to cut corners, lie, and commit fraud, etc., in order to have doctors sign off on and commit just as many murders each year based on "dangers to the life of a mother", then you probably believe that certain historical events, such as the extermination of many Christian, gypsy, homosexual, Jewish, and disabled individuals in Auschwitz and other concentration camps ever happened either.  Auschwitz, what's that?  Exactly.

      I believe that personal responsibility should be promoted.  I am opposed to parental consent and late-term abortion laws.  To me, such "pro-life" legislation is actually pro-death.  It simply supports killing the child by informing more people first or by going around the moral law earlier.  It saves effectively no one and simply perpetuates the pro-death's side logic.  I am also opposed to contraception being the main alternative to abortions because contraception focuses on lust, while chastity focuses on love.  Instead of simply addressing the symptoms of the problem, the underlying problem itself should be addressed.

Religious & Social Issues

     I believe the "separation of church and state" is a completely fabricated argument which contains no basis in Constitutional or Biblical history.  As a result of this, and the belief that religion has large implications on moral reasoning, on a nation's health, and upon society's very framework, I believe it is important to reestablish that there is no true separation of church and state, as it is commonly perceived anyways.  With this said, however, I believe there should actually be a separation of church and state, just in a different framing.  I believe the separation of church and state should be in regards to how the church should not be controlled by the state, and the state should not be controlled by the church. (Although, the church should be allowed to attempt to influence the state through its influence upon its congregation members.) 

       I believe that so-called "homosexual marriage" is not truly marriage and that a mother and father provide the best family structure for the rearing of children. Additionally, the Bible clearly states homosexual acts are sinful, as a result, something such as "homosexual marriage" would clearly not be Biblical.  With these things said, however, I am not certain as to whether or not homosexuality should be made illegal or if it should simply be decriminalized.  I do, however, believe homosexual marriages should, at the very least, not be legal.

       I think the death penalty should be legal, but should only be used for horrific crimes with truly undeniable evidence.  I am still open to changing what I think of what should be defined as being a horrific crime.  Right now I would say horrific crimes consist of murder and rape.  Also, I think the death penalty gives the government a lot of power, and with that power comes a very distinct possibility of misuse.

     I believe euthanasia should be illegal.  Also, I think it makes sense to allow individuals the ability to deny artificial life support for themselves (this opinion could change though). 

     I think women should be allowed in the military, as long as a woman can pass the same physical tests as a man - in other words, the standards should be the same regardless of gender.  There are a number of individuals whom I respect who come from a Christian background who do not support allowing women in the military.  As a result of this knowledge, I wonder if could be misguided regarding my thought that it is fine for women to be in the military.  As of yet, I have not been convinced otherwise, though, so I will continue to think so until proven otherwise.  

       I think that by-in-large discrimination policies promote discrimination rather than diminish it. I think every workplace should be concerned with the productivity and competency of an individual, rather than their ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender (etc.).  It is possible there are one or two good discrimination laws/affirmative action laws because there is legitimate discrimination which occurs, but, with that said, most laws simply create a further discrimination divide rather than lessen it. Creating laws which promote a "discrimination free process" by enforcing discrimination processes are actually  promoting further discrimination.

Economic & Welfare Issues

       I support an end to the minimum wage and an end to all federal wage standards.  I also support the ending of all or virtually all federal agencies that are unconstitutional.  So, virtually every federal agency? 

      I think the corporate income tax should be abolished and replaced with a flat tax.  The tax will probably be in the realm of a 20% tax to start with, then after various government agencies, subsidies, and departments are reorganized and decommissioned, the tax could be moved to even lower levels.  If all of the other taxes would be in place that I support, instead of the current taxes, then an internet tax would likely be a logical occurrence.  However, I think there is a case to be made for deregulation of the internet, though not the most logical one.  Furthermore, though, I do not support an internet tax until the current tax system is overhauled.

       I think the blessings of work should be focused upon.  I think there should be virtually no unemployment benefits for anyone.  I could possibly support unemployment benefits in certain situations for individuals who are truly not able to work, but even that should not be a continual government handout. 

       I think businesses should have the freedom to offer whatever incentives they desire to employees.  If a business wants to offer maternity leave or paternity leave, then they should be able to do so, if they do not wish to, then they should not be forced to.  If a business wishes to pay an individual eight dollars an hour to do a job, then so long as the person is willing to do the work for the pay, then there should be no intervention from the government.

       I think there are too many hidden agendas to support TPP.  I support what I think is the underlying essence of the TPP, namely an expansion of free trade. However, this underlying essence is covered up with 5,000+ pages of bureaucracy, and many different regulations and hidden provisions.

       I support a return to common sense retirement policies.  When Social Security was first implemented in 1935 the average lifespan of a person was over a decade less than the average lifespan of the average person today.  Despite this increase in lifespan over the last 81 years, the government still seems to think that people live the same length of time and consequently offer benefits for roughly the same age now as in 1935.  Where has "common" sense gone?  Beyond this, though, who took care of retired individuals before 1935?  No one, right?  I mean they all probably just died of starvation, I presume.
       Individuals in the years before 1935 did not think ahead, they did not have supportive families, and they did not have charities and churches to help them in case of financial difficulties.  They were simply helpless individuals in need of a government to set up some giant bureaucracy that would tax them more money than they would ever get in return for a program they did not ask for.  Right? Right.  I would not necessarily say I am entirely opposed to Social Security since there are elements of it that can be thought of as good, but, I certainly do not support it.  I would favor, at a minimum, the option of citizens being able to completely opt out of Social Security payments and to privately invest their money instead.
       While I could be mistaken about this, I believe I have already paid thousands of dollars into Social Security.  This is done despite the fact that I am tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Effectively any person with any economic sense would tell you it is better to pay off debt than to invest in any investment below the rate of return for whatever rate your debt payment is.  Considering that the rate of return for the forced investment into Social Security is going to be negative for me, this offers a very poor choice of investment.  It is frankly ridiculous (though Social Security is nowhere close to as morally repugnant and disgusting as many other government policies, such as pro-death policies) that I and millions of other individuals are forced to pay into a system which is mere decades from becoming insolvent - barring drastic changes that is. Also, I support a complete abolition or drastic reduction for many other policies that support government's propping up of a welfare society through taxpayer funding.

       I support simplifying the entire tax system.  Such a simplification process would include steps such as abolishing the IRS, the income tax, drastically reducing the corporate income tax, removing many taxes, such as the death tax, the marriage license tax, the payroll tax, etc.  I would keep the sales tax and implement either a fair or flat tax type system.  I think the government should have a balanced budget, effectively no matter the outlying circumstances.

       I support American citizens having self-awareness in paying their money to the government. I think citizens should be forced to pay their taxes to the government every month and that these taxes should not be paid automatically, or taken out of their paycheck, but that citizens should be forced to write the check, or hand the money over, or whatever the case may be, directly to the government, every single month.  Admittedly, if most of my other propositions would actually become a reality, then this would become a semi-unimportant side point, but as reality currently stands, I think this is a fairly important point to make. 

       I support companies failing and succeeding based on their own failures and successes.  I do not support bailouts and think companies should work out of their financial difficulties themselves, and if they are unable to do so, then they should be forced to do what any average American citizen who owns a business would carry out.

       I support the development of further transportation options, although I do not have major problems with the current transportation system. One of the options which probably deserves to be looked at is high-speed rail transportation. Additionally, by-in-large, I do not think the government should be involved in transportation systems, so I would simply encourage the free market to look into this option. Furthermore, I support the development of the Keystone Pipeline, and the use of coal, wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources as each individual and the free market see fit.

       I support the selling off of at least 35% of Federal land.  I think there are some benefits to the national parks maintained by the government and other reservations, but I do not think those benefits are worth the cost, the majority of the time.  Currently, the federal government owns 27% of the land in the United States and I would support a better use of a decent portion of that land.  

     I would like to deregulate, lessen, and in some cases eliminate many federal administrations. I certainly appreciate the FDA's desire to keep American's safe, but sometimes I think they may also be influenced just a little bit by financial concerns (just a "little" bit).  On average it takes the FDA 12 years and 350 million dollars to fully approve a new drug.  While safety and other concerns are certainly legitimate, other concerns, such as those from Big Pharma lobbying groups often seem to be more pressing.  It almost seems as if the FDA and other federal administration groups give more attention and preference to special interest groups than the average American citizen.  

       I support furthering economic opportunities for American citizens.  Consequently, I support the lifting of the Cuba trade and travel embargo (unlike a number of Republicans).  A trend which I have noticed over the last few years (possibly it has been happening for much longer) is the confluence of globalization and free trade, despite the end goals of globalization and free trade agreements being based on different propositions. If the entire world would have free trade agreements with one another, in other words, no trade barriers with one another, then I believe the global economy would boom at around a 25%-30% growth improvement and then after a decade or so settle down to growth levels "only" around 10% better than the current growth rate.
   Free trade benefits everyone involved, pretty much without exception (outside of dumping occurrences and other such things).  Globalization, on the other hand, does not benefit everyone - I find it somewhat difficult to tell whom globalization benefits the most.  Globalization, for the most part, would certainly not benefit America. Globalization would likely strip America's citizens of various freedoms and cause many social problems.  As a result, while I do support the expansion of free trade agreements, probably without reservation, I oppose globalization also effectively without reservation.
       One of the reservations against free trade is that workers in other countries have poor working conditions and in some cases, children may be producing the materials that would be purchased in the United States.  While I would certainly agree it is unfortunate (to say the least) that some workers have poor conditions and in some cases, children may be working in factories, I fail to see the connection to any free trade agreement. Furthermore, the United States pays vast sums of money to foreign countries in order to obtain black gold, oil, despite those countries often supporting terrorists, both directly and indirectly.  Yet, where is the public outrage when terrorists use funding, that they sometimes acquire from a Middle East government, to kill other individuals?  (And this analogy is not meant to downplay the potentially horrid working conditions of the workers)  It seems as if there is a double-standard in play for when it is correct to complain about where American dollars head toward.
       As a quick aside, however, I do not think it always the duty of the government to know every single thing which goes on in a country, such as finding out about terrorist funding or the current working conditions within a country.  Additionally finding out such information is not always very easily attained.  However, I do think it is typically possible to find out what the government supports with their funding and what working conditions for workers are like.  Anyways, though, while I do support the improvement of working conditions for all workers, I do not think that free trade agreements offer a proper medium for such a discussion.
       If a given country did not trade with the United States (free or tariffed trade), then that country would likely find another country to trade with.  If the country would be unable to find another country to trade with, then there would be other domestic focuses made within the country.  In other words, no matter what the United States would do in regards to its trade agreements, that country's workers would still be working in factories, regardless of trade agreements (and I do support political pressure and the like to be used on a country to improve the worker's working conditions). Finally, in my opinion, free trade is a policy which lifts all nations, regardless of workers' conditions.   As a result of this, free trade would be one of the quickest routes to improving the lives of those workers (although corruption and tyranny would obviously distort the process somewhat, which is kind of the problem to begin with).

I think space travel should be entirely privately funded, outside of possible militaristic research. I support the expansion of the use of nuclear energy so long as there are various precautionary measures in place.

I support an abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank and a return to the gold standard or some similar standard.  I am uncertain if having a fiat currency is inherently a poor economic decision or not, but I know it effectively always (if not always) leads to poor economic decisions.  Having a currency which is backed by nothing except the power of the government seems as if it is a poor choice to me. Even beyond that, though, allowing the government to have a fiat currency enables the government to simply print (or mint or whatever the case may be) as much of that fiat currency as the government desires.

Thanks for reading.