a-train

Mr. Paul does not agree with the governor, did you read his comments? If you are referring to Ron Paul, you'd better get up to speed with him and his views, he is quite far from "all the other right wing nuts". As a Christian, I take very seriously the role of blessing others. The work of which is not to be simply delegated to a state run bureau. Jesus did not tell a story wherein the Good Samaritan campaigned for a program whereby the Emperor would tax the income of all those living under his rule to create a bureau that would save the man fallen among thieves. Rather, the Good Samaritan used his own means to assist his neighbor.It is a baseless assumption and a narrow-minded sweeping generalization to say that those who do not like the welfare state hold their position because of greed. Many, like myself, do not like the welfare state because I believe that it is ineffective and wastes valuable resources that indeed could be used to help those that stand in need. Who has said "Well, I earned mine. Why should I help those little peons?"? This is not the position of Ron Paul, it is not the classical liberal position. The commandment to help our neighbor is precisely the reason economic freedom is necessary. Without that freedom, we are restricted in those efforts. Indeed, it is the desire to stop giving to greedy theives and to help the poor that motivates my position of less taxes and smaller government. I am having trouble seeing how the Obama administration is not culpable here. Has it not continued to bail out millionaires and conduct war? Has it not given billions in unaccounted tax dollars to corporations? Who are these greedy nut cases?-a-train

I guess no one is listening, because "this guy" isn't advocating secession. -a-train

John Stossel from 20/20 started his career looking to protect consumers from big bad corporations. He enjoyed putting execs pushing shoddy product in the hot-seat. After looking into solutions he discovered that the unhampered market was the strongest and best protector of the consumer. He switched from a strong advocate of government controls to a free-marketer. Look at some of his stuff on youtube. -a-train

I listen to that guy. -a-train

The foremost volume which demonstrates unequivically the fact that God was born in physical form as an infant, grew to adulthood, died, and was resurrected is the New Testament. Jesus is God. The first page of the Book of Mormon plainly says that its purpose is to convince both Jew and Gentile that "Jesus is the Christ, THE ETERNAL GOD".Jesus is an eternal being, no being existed before Him because He has always existed. He is also the species of 'God' and bears the name of 'God'. Where confusion begins is with the notion that God and man are two different species. This is not so. The New Testament makes plain that man is the offspring of God. Jesus did not take on a new species when He was born of Mary. The species of God and man are the same. God is a man, man is a god. Once this is understood, the trouble is gone. The definition(s) of God which have come from the Great Apostasy are no better than the traditions of idol worship from antiquity. Such definitions make of Him a nebulous omnipresent nothing. He is stripped of corporeal existance, the Saviour's life is nothing but a presentation to us by a Being completely unknowable by us. He is without body, parts, or passions. Such foolishness also includes the notion of modalism wherein the Three Personages of the Godhead are equated to mere roles in which a singular Being acts. Brining our heads above the surface of the flood of these fallacies, we come to the question of the Father and His history. If introduced to the truths thereof before understanding the true nature of the Saviour, it will be impossible to make sense of it. The Father also endured at some time a mortal life and rose to Celestial splendor as did the Son. The details of this history are completely unrevealed and assertions of any specifics are simply speculations. So what scriptures teach that God was once a man? The entire New Testament does. -a-train

Stay at the Ellis Sanders House: Welcome to the Ellis Sanders House Bed&Breakfast in Historic Nauvoo Illinois The couple running it is great, the house is smack dab in the middle of the action and you will get a real feel for the Nauvoo era. Joseph Smith stayed in that house on several occasions. You will not be disappointed. -a-train

The saying that a state is the most "liberal" and at the same time the least "free" seems paradoxical. If it really is the most liberal, then it should be the most free. God's views are liberal: - Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith page 257.)-a-train

To be specific, the term "interventionism" refers to positive action by government either in economic or in foreign affairs. Examples would include a government purchase of stocks motivated by the desire to keep the price of those stocks up, or a military invasion of a foreign country to prevent the dictator from engaging in discriminatory practices within his own borders.The legal structure (whether very open or highly restricted) for immigration would not be interventionism under this definition. If however, government sent military forces into Mexico and assisted Mexican fugitives in evading Mexican authorities and in coming to the U.S., this would be interventionism. Economic interventionism is the most common form in modern democracies. A central bank, given monopoly power over the money supply by government, uses that power to intervene in economic activites on a macro scale. The main tools it uses include open market operations, required reserve ratio adjustments, and discount rate adjustments. These activities are not simply legislation or even the executive efforts to enforce the law, they are proactive efforts to intervene in economic activity. Additionally however, since the late 19th Century, fiscal policy (taxes) has been accepted by most democracies as something more than just revenue production, but the means to further intervene in not only economic activity, but to engage in social programming efforts. This is of course a more subtle form of interventionism in that it takes place under the guise of traditionally accepted non-interventionist government practices. Such interventionism was long practiced in monarchical systems. The liberal movement to destroy monarchy included the complaint against "arbitrary government". The notion thereof was that leaders would set laws in hopes that they would persuade the people in a certain way. If the public is persuaded differently, they simply change the laws. Thus, under this paradigm, law was not an instrument of justice, but an instrument of persuasion or even coercion. Certainly the classical liberals such as Thomas Payne felt it was the latter. The example I gave earlier of the Casinos in Kansas City pushing the smoking ban but gaining an exception is a great example of interventionist legislation. Through the law, cronies are awarded a monopoly and economic competition is stifled by this intervention. Suppose a law was passed that heavily restricted immigration, but gave exception to a special group, this could be considered interventionism. But insomuch as the policies are not designed to award winners and losers via political favoritism, but to actually set appropriate rules that protect all the same, they do not constitute interventionism. -a-train

The most poverty stricken nations are precisely the most interventionist. The United States rose to the pinnacle of economic superiority through coming the closest to laissez-faire capitalism of all countries (albiet with many defects). The effect of which was the tremendous rise in the standard of living. Since United States policy has shifted toward interventionism, the U.S. has fallen backward and is on a strong trend away from that pinnacle. Hong Kong is more laissez-faire than the United States. Singapore has a heavily privatized medical services market, it also is ranked among the very highest in medical services.Much of the African states suffering from tremendous poverty are so suffering not because of laissez-faire capitalism, but directly as a result of political strife including up to and especially war. Much of the most poverty stricken African nations do NOT have land property rights. Some of these countries do NOT even allow women to own property. Foreign investment is held at bay by fears of political nullification of any profitable activity. Government activity is the numero uno reason for economic stagnation there. What is most unfortunate is that politically motivated interests in the west blame economic trouble on economic freedom. Further, they distort the definition of liberal economic policy (laissez-faire capitalism) to include government ignorance of crimes against the property rights of others. This is very frustrating for someone like myself. It would be akin to a claim that the main focus of Mormonism is Islam. RIDICULOUS! The main focus of laissez-faire capitalism is the PROTECTION of property rights for ALL. A classic example of this distortion is the claim that capitalists support legislation benefiting fat cat investors, when the opposite is true. Another false claim is that capitalists would pass laws banning unions, again not true. In fact, that would be directly opposed to the basic philosophy of freedom in economics espoused by capitalists. What has happened is that parties interested in manipulating the political process have divided the people by mutilating the basic definition of laissez-faire capitalism. People who are indeed laissez-faire capitalists in spirit are fighting it in name because they have a bad definition of it. Laissez-faire capitalism stands AGAINST the fat cat's ability to buy legislation. When we think of seperation of church and state, we think of Congress's limitation whereby it may pass no law respecting any establishment of religion. Because of this seperation, one establishment of religion cannot receive any legislative benefit above any other. The same should be true of economic entities. The supplier should get no preferential treatment from government, nor should the consumer. The maker of clothing should get no preference over the maker of cars from government. It is interventionism that is tyranny. The only way government can intervene is to make economic decisions for others against their will, that is tyranny. Government tells people: "You have to buy product X from company A at price Y." Interventionism has always been the effort of fat cats. They want government to protect them from their competitors. They devise any argument they can to gain public support. Further damaging is when interventionists (like Bush) pose as laissez-faire capitalists. This only further serves to destroy the public understanding of just what laissez-faire capitalism is. The question is not how can laissez-faire capitalism exist without tyranny, it is how can anything but laissez-faire captialism exist without tyranny. -a-train

The old discussion goes that Christians see Calvary as the climax of the Saviour's sacrifice but LDS folks see Gethsemane instead. Perhaps many LDS think so, but this is incorrect. The emphasis of the LDS leadership on Gethsemane is not to discount Calvary, nor to explain that what had long been thought to have occured there actually happened the night before. The emphasis is actually on the expansion of revealed information on what took place there. The notion is not that the Saviour suffered in private rather than in public, nor spiritually rather than physically. The notion is that He suffered BOTH in private as well as in public, and BOTH spiritually as well as physically. This first misunderstanding of the LDS expanded view of the Sacrifice of the Messiah tends to perpetuate the false reasoning behind the lack of LDS usage of the symbol of the cross. This lacking is not a function of the LDS view of Gethsemane, nor any difference of opinion regarding Calvary. It IS a product of the LDS view of what we call THE GREAT APOSTASY. That is where the difference lies. As the cross was not a part of sacred ordininances in New Testament Christianity, but rather a part of ordinances performed in the epoch of the Great Apostasy, the LDS view it simply as a product thereof. There is no superstitious view of the cross among the LDS. It is not thought to evoke evil. The lack of its use is akin to the lack of any use of the robes of Catholic Bishops. Its absence is virtually insignificant, it is not any special statement. -a-train

Eldridge Cleaver, a prominent leader of the Black Panthers, moved to Cuba. He rejected the materialistic and terrible ways of capitalism. After bouncing around in socialist circles in Cuba and Europe, he came home even in the face of criminal charges. He said that he would rather be a prisoner in capitalist America than a guest of a socialist regime. He later became Mormon. -a-train

You know, I've never heard of a 'love crime'. When someone is violently treated, could this ever be anything but a hate crime? If I rob a man, should the court consider the reasons for my needing money? Perhaps if my reason is good enough, I'll get a lighter sentence? But if my reason is a bad one, I'll get a heavier sentence? The purpose of the judicial branch is NOT social programming. Why do we have so many problems in the courts? Idiotic, self-indulgent, so-called 'liberals', 'progressives', and their friends the conservatives with no understanding of the purpose of government have decided that all branches of government are suited to the task of their omnipotent and benevolent social planning. Thanks to them, the United States which constitutes around 5% of the global population, also constitutes around 25% of the incarcerated global population. Now the courts are not only to determine guilt and issue a sentence in accordance with the law, they are to determine whether the criminal is a proponent of any particularly repugnant intellectual fallacy for which the court should award an additional penalty. Right of Conscience is of no concern to these autocrats. They believe they know the mind of a man and have right to change it by any means necessary. -a-train

The Saviour is the author and finisher of our faith. -a-train

No. The symbol of the cross is used by the Church, but not with reference to the crucifixion. It is also not used in ordinances and our priests do not make its sign with their hands when giving blessings. However, the cross has its place among sacred geometric symbols used in the temple. -a-train

The best thing the Republicans can do to destroy the Democrats is give them no opposition. When they have no one to blame for all the foibles of their policies, the public opinion will turn.-a-train

I don't think it is a sign of any rejection of rigid ideology, but of the Republican Party and its lies. -a-train

<----Sandra Day O'Connor.I am glad to see the parties falling to pieces. What troubles me though is that the situation may simply mean the total power of the Democrats. Certainly, as the oldest party on earth, it has a history of staying power. The trouble is that it lacks any coherent political philosophy. Perhaps the future of America could include proportional representation. -a-train

Oh they definitely are. The U.S. was far behind, but the last couple of decades have seen a major catch-up. What complicates the financial trouble is the fact that the effects of the current economic scare have yet to be summed up and subtracted from the already dismal picture of the future.-a-train

A man's religion is between himself and his God. Let nothing come between you and God. -a-train

What we need is a real liberal party, both parties have gone conservative. -a-train

This demonstrates the arbitrary and whimsical approach to the role of government which now pervades the political culture of America. The only coherency to American political theory is the motto: 'Government can make me better off.' Liberal theory is virtually a bygone relic, lost in the pages of unread books. Somehow, the salesmen of Europe have convinced much of America that their bankrupt system is better than the American school. America wants to become Europe with one exception: guns and torture. Much of the pro-marijuana people only want the tax revenue for new pet projects, Wall Street has managed to dupe the populace into letting them launch a new trading scheme in carbon emission rights which has made some of their buddies across the pond a good bundle, government's role in social programming through the tax code is now so embraced that people are fighting for the 'right' to be so programmed, immigration is only feared because of the notion that the presence of new Americans will detract from the benefits already enjoyed by those of us already here, guns have proved to be a good recession-proof business, and torture is viewed as a necessary evil in providing protection. The whole system is moved by the perception of the answer to the question: "What's in it for me?". It is the very definition of arbitrary. -a-train

Chipping children is inhumane. The notion is simply a manifestation of our failure to enforce the laws of the land. The technology would become more of a liberty destroying agent in the hands of government than a benefit to individuals. The U.K. debated chipping criminals See this story: The future policies we should be concerned about is government control over healthcare and mandatory chipping which will probably become an issue in our lifetime. The end-of-the world types have already decided the chip is the mark of the beast. The idea is that the chip will replace the debit card. I personally find the notion repulsive and dehumanizing. I am not to be scanned like a turkey in the check out aisle. -a-train

Think about how problematic the notion is that the devil snuck into heaven unawares. Think about this notion in light of the purpose of the endowment in facilitating passage by the sentinel angels gaurding God's home. -a-train

I personally don't buy the notion that only in recent history has mankind come to see equality between the sexes. Has there always been subversion? Of course, but I believe there has also always been the philosophy of equality. -a-train

1st. Anything that one does which imposes costs on others without their consent is against the precept of liberalism. Laissez-faire economic policy does not allow people to injure one another, the "hands off" concept of it is that government does not make economic decisions for the individual without their consent. But it also means that individuals cannot make economic decisions for other individuals without their consent. The example of a person who is somehow compelled to take on second hand smoke, the courts would protect them in a liberal society. However, in a private business (like a bar), the bar owner should be allowed to decide whether he will allow smoking therein. Each visitor is then allowed to decide whether they will endure the smoke or not. Government should not be employed to give anyone the power to force the business owner and his smoking customers to provide a smoke-free environment. The liberal government would not make the decision for the bar-owner or any of his smoking clients or any non-smokers. However, a public property (like a courthouse) because it is not privately owned and is for the purpose of facilitating public activities would need some regulation to accomodate a smoke-free environment for individuals who have business to conduct there but do not wish to take on second hand smoke. This is especially true for those required by law to be present in the courthouse (such as those on trial). Since the 60's, the distinction between private and public property has been obscured in the United States. Businesses are more and more considered as public property. A perfect example of just how bad this very issue is in my own town is the fact that the national casinos (Harrahs, Ameristar, Argosy) pushed for the smoking ban here. Meanwhile, they were the only businesses with an exemption to the rule. The ban passed, now there are just a few non-locally owned bars in the casinos wherein drinkers can also smoke at the bar while the local bar owners will suffer fines and the threat of revocation of license for allowing smoking. The casinos are betting this will give them a further edge in the market. Trace the effects of any government intervention such as this, and you will see that it is designed to benefit certain groups at the expense of others. In this case, the casinos benefit at the expense of the other bars. Parents are obligated to care for their children. They should not impose undue costs on their children or on others. Thus, they should pay reparations if their neglect results in such costs. The accusations that the Bush administration's laissez-faire approach caused the credit bubble that burst last year is laughable. Bush only posed as a laissez-faire type while intervention and cronyism went Richter scale. The political impetus to make this argument is the agenda of the left. They hope to convince folks that their normative policies which they have proposed for decades would have saved us this recent misfortune and will do so in the future if implemented. The reality is that the current administration is doing little different. The bailouts and stimulus packages didn't begin last January, Bush and his homies were experts at that stuff. Alan Greenspan put the prime rate at 1% after the dot-com bust. The current tactics are far from new or different. The truth about monopolies is that they come from government intervention, not the lack thereof. Name a single monopoly that wasn't government created. A case in point is the casino monopoly on smoking bars in Kansas City. Take also the argument laid against (insert the name of the big company that laid off your brother or put your grandma's general store out of business here). These arguments have been around for ever. Suppose big bad Walmart puts out ma's and pa's with "killer" low prices and then hikes them once ma and pa close. What will be the effect? The new higher prices will allow a competitor to open right back up. Think that is wishful thinking? I own a small business and we have competitors open and close every few months (although I admit that nobody has opened recently with the economic fears keeping people from doing so). Go to any small town in Arkansas (my wife is from Camden). Of course, there is a big Walmart. Look around. All the other thriving businesses are where? Stacked right on top of that Walmart. In fact, the Walmart draws consumers from all over the county helping the many other businesses there. Walmart in my neighborhood here is surrounded by the following: Target, Best Buy, JC Penney, Kohls, TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Dillard's, Victoria's Secret, Hot Topic, Ambercrombe, American Eagle, Petsmart, K Mart, Lowe's, Home Depot, Barnes & Noble, Border's, a Christian bookstore, Chipotle, Taco Bell, McDonald's, Long John Silvers, Wendy's Winstead's, Subway (two), Planet Sub, Chuck E. Cheese's, dealerships for Ford, Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Nissan, and Saturn, several grocery stores, several gas stations, over 30 more restaurants, video rentals, a hospital, library, and large outdoor a mall with a lot of shops (including mine) and much more. The Walmart was here FIRST. Anarchy would allow whoever is the toughest to have his/her way with whoever they would. Liberal government would not. Liberal government upholds the rule of law. However, the purpose of the law is not to make decisions for economic entities (be they individuals or groups) but to prevent entities from imposing costs on others. Liberal government would protect no one from competition in the free-market. This would be true for both small and large. Consider Sears and their size and market-share when Sam Walton was running a single store. To say that his gaining market-share was impossible would have been flat wrong. This all said, Walmart deserves no more protection than Sears. If in the next decade a smart group puts the pain to Walmart, so be it. Standard Oil was the Walmart of a century ago against which authors dramatized the great evils of the dreaded giant. The claim was that it was "cutting to kill" on its way to monopoly. It never got full market share and never raised prices. In fact, it radically reduced the cost of oil in the United States. It was simple competition that caused its decline, not Uncle Sam. Let us suppose though that a "deep-pocket" company actually posts a loss in order to drive out competition. What this means is that this company is actually disbursing its wealth to the consumers! Somehow we are supposed to think that is bad. The reality is that companies don't usually do this because it is a losing strategy. They end up putting themselves out of business. (I don't know why people find it difficult to understand that giving out products at a loss is unsustainable). I know first hand about that strategy. I had a competitor (with presumably more money than I) try to do it to me. He was selling product at wholesale prices. Long story short: he is out of business and I am doing well. In fact, many businesses have tried this strategy and I've never seen one succeed. Walmart does NOT do it. If they have a store in the red they either turn it around quick or close it. They know all too well it is a losing endeavor. What Walmart does is take advantage of economies of scale (they buy and ship in bulk). They also own their own distribution. This is a good thing. We want products and services to be the most efficiently produced and distributed in our economy. The people who made candles were thrown out of the candle business by Thomas Edison. The wagon makers were thrown out by Henry Ford. The USPS is being thrown out by Fred Smith, Jim Casey, and Bill Gates. This is a good thing. We can either fight to preserve stone-age tasks, or put people to work at modern jobs. We don't need as many candle makers, we need electrical engineers. We don't need a guy on a horse, we need FedEx pilots. The basics of economics is that we use scarce resources to the most economical benefit. Labor is among the factors of production. We NEED labor to be freed up for more economical activities. We NEED those GM workers elsewhere. The trouble is that government too often delays the reallocation of resources which the market calls for. This only prolongs the pains and deepens the costs of misallocated resources. Suppose, being on an island, I volunteer to collect firewood for us. Others volunteer to build shelter, to make beds, and to purify water. Who is catching food? Someone will have to stop doing whatever they are doing to fish or hunt. In a large economy like ours, the needed allocations of labor are often more difficult to see. Worse, the continued stacking of firewood to the sky is less obvious. Regardless, government needs to allow these reallocations, but intervention actually slows that process. More later. Hope that answers some of your questions. Read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson for a quick, easy, but thorough discussion on the subject. -a-train