The Individual’s Moral Responsibility For Government Action

A Person’s Political Philosophy Expresses His Moral Convictions In The Strongest Manner Possible

A person’s political philosophy is an expression of his moral beliefs because he cannot determine whether he favors or opposes a law without consulting his moral standards. Before he can approve of a law which forbids a certain act he must believe the forbidden act to be wrong or harmful. More importantly, he must determine that the law requires proof of an evil intent before punishment is inflicted. Who would be so lacking in justice and compassion that he would approve of taking a man’s life, liberty, or property for having done a deed with a righteous or an innocent intent? To classify an intent as good or evil demands the use of moral judgment.

Similarly, before one can approve of a law which commands an act, he must believe the act to be good and a failure to perform it a culpable omission deserving of punishment. There would be an inherent contradiction in commanding the people to perform an act regarded as evil and punishing them for failing to perform it. It is contrary to logic for anyone to espouse a political philosophy which is inconsistent with his moral beliefs. On the other hand that philosophy is a formulation of his moral code.

A person’s political philosophy not only reflects his moral convictions, but it also represents his most intense feelings regarding good and evil. Those acts which are prohibited by the laws he favors are not only regarded by him as evil, but are also so objectionable to him that he is willing to physically punish anyone who commits them. His feelings are equally intense regarding those acts he thinks he has a moral right to compel others to perform. When a person is so firmly convinced of the correctness of his political code that he is willing to impose it on all other members of society with death, imprisonment, and fine, he has expressed those convictions in the strongest possible manner.

Political Beliefs Reflect Moral Character

Suppose one were given unlimited power to use force on his fellow man without fear of retaliation, physical punishment, or condemnation by other members of society. Under such circumstances, the manner in which he treated others would be an accurate index of his moral character. The only thing left to restrain him or to determine the good or evil he would do with that force, would be his conscience. This is substantially the position a person would be in if he were given the power to secretly direct the affairs of government. He would have in his hands the supreme physical force in society and could use it to control others without incurring either physical danger or condemnation.

In a society of self-governing people, this is essentially the position the voter occupies. While one man acting alone cannot control government, it is most obvious that the laws he favors represent his most uninhibited desires regarding what force he wants used on human beings. Indeed, if enough of his countrymen vote as he does, he will actually use that supreme physical force to accomplish his purposes.

Our political desires are an extremely accurate index of what we would do if the Lord made us a king, a judge, or a ruler with power to govern others. If we would exercise “control or dominion or compulsion,” unrighteously, then our support of laws which regiment and control the business and private affairs of our neighbors and deprive them of their stewardships would clearly indicate this. If we would steal, except for the fear of being punished or exposed, then our approval of laws which forcibly take property from its rightful owner and give it to those to whom it does not belong would demonstrate this trait. If we would commit extortion except for fear of being caught, then our support of licensing laws which forcibly deny people freedom to enter legitimate business and patronize whom they please will reflect this criminal tendency. We must expect the Lord to use our political beliefs as a measure of our moral or immoral character.

A Person’s Political Philosophy Can Be Used To Determine Whether He Is Just Or Unjust

The Lord has revealed that He will judge us and divide us into groups in the next life on the basis of whether we are just or unjust. The revelation concerning the three degrees of glory emphasizes that the Celestial Kingdom is reserved for those who are just. Only those who “come forth in the resurrection of the just,” (D&C 76:50, 65) “who are just and true,” (v. 53) who are “just men made perfect through” the atonement of Jesus, (v. 69) can expect to inhabit the highest kingdom.

It is probably true that nowhere is a person’s sense of justice (or injustice as the case may be) more accurately reflected than in his political philosophy. The laws he favors and opposes constitute a statement of the acts and omissions he condemns in others and the penalty he desires to have inflicted for violation.

One of the primary tests we can expect the Lord to use to determine if we are just is whether we obey His “golden rule.” If a person is just, he will never do to others that which he would consider wrong to have done to himself. For example, every person would consider it unjust to be punished for doing an act with an innocent or righteous intent. Therefore, if we favor laws which provide for punishment without the necessity of proving an evil intent, we have acted unjustly. The following scripture states very plainly that we should never use government to punish a person unless he has violated his conscience and has a feeling of guilt:

the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. (D&C 134:4; see also Alma 30:7-11)

If a person is just, he will want the burdens of government allocated among the people in an equitable manner. Let us illustrate. Governments exist for the purpose of protecting the lives, liberties, and properties of all of their citizens. Justice demands that each person whose freedom is protected bear his fair share of the cost thereof. The divinely inspired Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, prohibited the Federal government from imposing direct taxes unless such were apportioned among the states according to their respective numbers. This provision used the cost of protecting life and liberty as a basis for apportioning the tax burden among the states apparently on the assumption that it costs as much to defend one person’s life and liberty as another’s. Of course, an additional reason for such a restriction was to discourage the Federal government from imposing direct taxes.

Most taxing schemes use property alone as a basis for apportioning the cost of government rather than life and liberty. The person with twice as much property or income as another is required to pay twice as much in taxes on the assumption that it costs twice as much to protect his property. Can anyone consider himself just in the eyes of the Lord if he favors a graduated tax scheme which forces a person with twice as much income or property as another to pay ten times or a hundred times as much tax? It is highly doubtful that a person with such views could ever expect to be classified with the just.

One should be able to determine whether any given law is “just” by mentally placing himself in the position of those against whom the law will likely by enforced. If after doing so, he discovers that he could violate the law without a feeling of moral guilt, he should oppose it on the grounds that it is unjust to punish anyone who is innocent of an intent to do evil. We are warned in the following passage from the Sermon on the Mount that we will be judged as we judge, and rewarded as we reward others:

Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again. (Matt. 7:2-3 JST)

Nowhere is a person’s judgment of his fellow men more clearly expressed than in those laws he supports and opposes, and nowhere is the measure he metes for disobedience more widely dispensed than through his agents in government.

The Savior’s command to “Judge not unrighteously” is an explicit order to use only His laws in judging our fellow man. We should condemn and punish only that which He has commanded should be condemned and punished. Only His laws are just and any deviation therefrom is unjust. In his great discourse on government, king Mosiah made this point very clear to his people:

we will newly arrange the affairs of this people, for we will appoint wise men to be judges, that will judge this people according to the commandments of God.

Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.

Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments�it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. (Mos. 29:11-13)

A just law will never interfere with the freedom of a just man, for he will never intentionally commit an act which a just law forbids, nor will he refuse to voluntarily do that which a just law commands. Those who learn to live by just laws and thereby refrain from exercising “control or dominion or compulsion upon the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness” may qualify for this promise:

Thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever. (D&C 121:46)

Therefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down.

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (Moses 4:3,4)
(The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil, by H. Verlan Andersen)

We are Judged According to Our Attitude Toward Free Agency

Every Law Has the Effect of Either Destroying Freedom or Preserving It. Everyone Can Be Judged According to Their Attitude Toward Free Agency

The Lord allows wicked governments to exist so that we can see evil and the destruction of free agency and choose to accept or reject it. We came to distinguish between good and evil.

In these latter days relatively few people know about the restored Gospel and it would seem unjust to punish them for not accepting it. Perhaps they will be given a chance to hear the message hereafter. However everyone knows that part of the Lord’s Gospel known as the Golden Rule. We will be judged according to how closely we follow it. Especially is this true with respect to the use of force. We are all acutely aware that we do not want others taking or injuring our life, our liberty or our property. We know that when we unjustly destroy these possessions in others, we are violating the Golden Rule. Thus when it comes to the use of force, if we follow the Golden Rule, we will all have the same code of behavior. With respect to the use of force and the destruction of the freedom elements, we all should have the same measuring rod as President McKay has indicated. Since all of us live under a government of some type and since force is the means used by governments to carry out their purposes, everyone is in a position to see force used and to judge between that which is just and that which is unjust. Everyone can apply the principles of the Golden Rule to judge the actions of government. By so doing, we make decisions regarding the all- important principle of free agency. Furthermore we can do so without inconvenience and without cost. We are judged by the desires of our hearts. The Lord permits wicked governments to exist on earth so that we may see them in operation and make decisions between what they do and what the Golden Rule would dictate. The amount of freedom we shall have in the next life will depend upon the political choices we make here in mortality just as the amount of freedom we have in mortality was determined by the decisions we made about free agency in the pre-earth life. Since men have joy or misery depending upon the amount of freedom they have, the political decisions we make are probably the most important ones of all.

(The Book of Mormon and the Constitution by H. Verlan Andersen)

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it's clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.

Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.

Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? ... By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America... KNOW YOUR ENEMY ...Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

America’s Foreign Policy: The Analogy of the Beehive

While shrouded in layers of propaganda and political intrigue, the foreign policy of the United States of America is really not too difficult to understand. In discussions with others, I have often employed the use of an analogy I created to demonstrate its core circumstances. It is simple to understand, and I have not yet encountered anybody who disagrees with its premise or implications (perhaps this blog post will change that streak). One might hope that this child-level analysis would be clear enough for politicians to comprehend, but it seems that their constant quest for campaign contributions clouds their cognitive capacity. But I digress.

Consider, if you will, a beehive. This beehive, like any other, is home to a community of bees focused on production, productivity, and survival. Left alone to pursue their private endeavors, the bees enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the rest of the world by obtaining nectar and assisting in the process of pollination. But one day, a new threat introduces itself into the beehive. A curious teenager named Derek was looking for honey, and, thinking of his Winnie the Pooh cartoons growing up, decided to shove his hand into the beehive.

Naturally, the bees go into defense mode and begin to retaliate. After all, it’s their home and their honey; Derek has no claim to what he is forcibly trying to take. So, he gets stung repeatedly. Shocked at this display of aggression on the part of the bees, he runs home and quickly returns with his pockets containing an arsenal of bug sprays and repellents—but not before crying to his mother in a grand display of self-pity, and rallying his family members to the cause of vengeance. Ready for the attack against what they now unanimously consider as pests, the family moves in on the wounded beehive from several angles—the mother whacks it off the tree with a broomstick, a sibling throws a rock at it, and Derek and his father attack the fallen community of bees with their weapons of mass fumigation.

Before this occurred, though, some of the more angry bees decided to strike back. They had departed the beehive in search of the family’s home, and finding the family absent, began to pursue and sting the unsuspecting and innocent toddler left behind in his bouncy chair. When the victorious family members returned, they discovered that poor Tommy was horribly swollen; the suicide bees were found only inches away.

The father took pictures to document this attack, and created a stirring video set to emotion-inducing music. He emailed it to his neighbors in an effort to tug at their heartstrings and elicit support for an all-out neighborhood offensive—a war on stinging. In Tommy’s name, the humans and bees were from that point in a never-ending conflict.

And to think, it could have all been avoided had Derek kept his hands out of the beehive…

While this simple analogy might be viewed as simplistic by some, its premise is sound and its implications are even sounder. An honest historical assessment of America’s foreign policy—especially in regards to the middle east—betrays a power-hungry, testosterone-driven (like a teenager, of course) collection of decisions that have killed, injured, displaced, angered, and offended countless millions throughout the world stage. Upholding dictators, dethroning democratically-elected leaders, supplying weapons and drugs, distributing foreign aid to corrupt leaders, giving consent to offensive military engagements, withholding support as a result of others’ decisions, passing resolutions regarding external affairs, training and supplying rebels, and a litany of other interventionist actions have all contributed to and resulted in a seemingly never-ending conflict between the American military machine and countries who lose our favor and blessing.

True, our hand has already been shoved into others’ beehives. But even the youngest of children can understand the logical action to take when being stung by a warm of bees inside their own beehive. Remove your hand! Only then will the stinging decline in frequency and intensity. As a consequence of our initial, aggressive action, there will no doubt be subsequent stings from vengeful bees looking to teach us a lesson. But in this situation, we are not justified in using their retaliatory attacks as just cause for again fighting back. Remember—we started it.

How to Fix the Health Care Industry

The health care industry has a large target painted on its back, drawing ire from frustrated individuals and scheming politicians alike. Public anger towards this market is certainly justifiable, given how expensive things have become. Basic care now requires both your arm and your leg as payment, causing penniless people to clamor for somebody who will fix the system, once and for all. The cries for “change” amid an imploding economy will, no doubt, lead to further government intervention and regulation—effectuated with the noble intent of solving our problems, but only resulting in further complications and rising prices.

There are a number of things that can be done to improve the cost and quality of health care in this country, and they all revolve around one basic concept: allow the free market to work. This maxim, if implemented, will dramatically improve things in rapid fashion. Doing so, however, is politically unacceptable by most, as it requires government to step out of the way to large degree, and allow the consequences of freedom to be carried out unabated.

I believe that there are two important steps that can be taken to immediately and substantially improve the health care industry. First, individuals should only use insurance for large, costly, and unforeseen medical needs. Second, prices for all medical services should be advertised up front to the potential patient.

When to use insurance

To illustrate the concept behind this recommendation, we can look at another form of insurance. Chances are you have automobile insurance, which in many locations is required by law to have. Now, imagine yourself using your car insurance when filling up your gas tank, changing your oil, rotating your tires, or going through a car wash. These laughable scenarios clearly show that insurance is properly intended only for large, costly, and unforeseen problems. If you are involved in a car accident or your vehicle is stolen, that would be a good time to use your insurance. Anything short of something drastic and rare like that would only serve to inflate everybody’s premiums, since the menial tasks listed previously occur quite frequently. Other forms of insurance, such as home or life insurance, are equally understood to be only used in extreme situations.

This principle is well accepted when applied to inanimate objects that are easily replaced, but when you involve a person’s body and health status, the situation changes. Routine medical exams and procedures—basic and frequent services—are now part of any comprehensive insurance package. This, of course, nullifies the true intent of insurance, and instead turns it into a pseudo-insurance system of prepaid consumption. The end result of this (government-enabled) practice is the overuse of services which drives up costs for everybody; any subsidized service in demand will lower costs in the short term, increase consumption and demand, and in the long run ultimately increase costs and decrease quality across the board. Thus we see the net result of socialized medicine and government intervention into the (health) marketplace.

Removing government regulation and subsidization of insurance packages and premiums would be an important first step towards inducing people to seek out personal policies that would cover only large, costly, and unforeseen medical needs. A reduced general insurance coverage would lead people to more judiciously use the health care system, and this decrease in demand would inevitably lower prices for everybody’s medical care.

Where’s the price tag?

When was the last time you were told how much a medical procedure would cost? While some proactive individuals do the necessary research and inquiry to determine what their medical care will cost for each service rendered, the vast majority of people have no idea until the bill comes. Nobody in their right mind would fix a broken furnace, for example, without having a clue about the costs involved. Since the marketplace is largely intact in most other spheres of economic activity, you can shop around, view prices, look for discounts, and haggle with somebody on price. When does this happen with health care?

The day you see a price menu at your local doctor’s office is the day the health care industry self-corrects through free market forces. Today, health care is burdened with all sorts of hidden costs, astronomical hourly fees, and a veil of economic ignorance that suppresses any ability for market principles to improve cost and quality. The competition for business created by mutually understood prices and corresponding services rendered would cause health care prices to plummet overnight. Each doctor would be forced to lower prices and improve care and customer service if they wanted to retain business, whereas right now patient retention is largely shielded from the doctor’s hourly rate.

Government’s role

In the first suggestion, government should get out of the medical insurance regulation and subsidy business, and allow insurance companies and individuals to find the same equilibrium other forms of insurance have for so long. In the second, government should enforce contract law by requiring health care providers to publicly disclaim the terms of their services, which includes prices of all services offered.

These two actions, if implemented, would far exceed anything else the government has done or is currently trying to do to allegedly improve the state of our health care industry. Further regulation is not the answer, and less government—not more—will allow market forces to both improve quality and decrease prices, as occurs in so many other types of markets. How do we fix the health care industry? We start by an annulment of the marriage between the industry and “do-good” government.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone — doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies — to keep costs down. As long as "somebody else" is paying the bill, the bill will be too high. (Dr. Ron Paul, Lowering the Cost of Health Care)

The Arrogance of Ammonihah

The experience of the city Ammonihah in the Book of Mormon provides an interesting case study regarding the arrogance that pride produces. Having apostatized from the Nephite faith and embraced the teachings of Nehor, the people violently rejected a prophet of God sent to call them to repentance. In their wickedness, the citizens had apparently grown so proud of their metropolis that they scoffed in disbelief at the suggestion that it might be removed from its position of prestige and power, and ultimately destroyed.

The deviation and apostasy of this people from true principles had further augmented their self-adulation and love of their homeland. They no doubt considered themselves patriotic—an ironic label that can be (mis)applied to almost anybody, anywhere. And so this love of government fostered a feeling of perennial power; those in Ammonihah apparently assumed that their city would continue to exist and succeed forever.

They were, of course, dead wrong.

In terms of application, we might take the approach of the early apostles and ask “Lord, is it I”? Do we Americans also harbor such feelings of arrogance and assured permanence? Do we erroneously assume that our country will forever have the mightiest military and the most coveted currency?

While the future has yet to be written, there is one historical fact that will no doubt repeat itself: empires are ephemeral. Or, as author Chalmers Johnson has put it: “It is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must go on forever.” To assume otherwise would be folly, and an invitation for the fate of Ammonihah to be our own.

Sadly, it seems that the “status quo” mentality sometimes leads people to assume that our current position in the world’s sociopolitlcal strata is guaranteed. In this fantasy, life as it now exists will either continue or improve—but never change for the worse. This arrogance differs little from that of Ammonihah, since both groups rely on the assumption of invincibility.

America, while powerful, is not invincible.

The Obama Deception

The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people.

The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery.

We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order's plans. It's not about Left or Right: it's about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation.