Saturday, April 30, 2016

No fan of political despair, question? Often.

To me one of the more obvious things I see often with politics in America is an attempt at driving people to political despair, and convincing them there is no point in trying. Like you can easily bump into those who will talk calmly about why they don't vote. Or who will quietly assert that no matter how bad the current system is with Republicans and Democrats that there is no other choice.

But in this country? We Americans ARE free, whether you believe it or not.

It's a cool thing that protects a country where if you probe into what some people say, you realize they have become trapped into some kind of despairing reality, which does not make it true! It just means someone convinced.

I like questions probing into what is real, and political reality? It's a great arena to always keep asking for answers to important questions to you. So am going to give some questions I think are important, pulled from an earlier post. Where this time will show my answer with them for one. Where ALL my answers are in the original party platform of ideas for a new political party that I presented on this blog.

1. What do you think is the role of government?

The role of government is to protect and enable its citizens.

2. How do you feel about separation of Church and State?

3. What is your stance on freedom of information? Right to privacy?

4. To what extent do you believe people should be allowed to choose their own destiny, including a woman's right to choose?

5. Do you believe in a strong national defense?

6. What is your opinion of political recalls?

7. How do you think we best hold representatives and government in general accountable?

8. What is your position on government services for children?

9. Do you support universal healthcare?

10. Do you support the mortgage deduction? Charitable deductions? What is your position in general on taxes?

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Ways our modern money is funny

One of the things am glad I did a while back is sit down and come up with my own explanations for money. So yeah figured some things out on my own and you can click the money tag at bottom of this post to chase down that path. In essence though I concluded that money is a social IOU which society guarantees, which is given at best in exchange for a favor. So money enumerates the value of a favor in my opinion.

In the past though before the modern monetary system, money I think was just one thing, like gold itself could be made into money, but was also just gold. And like, there were jewels. Ok there still are lots of things for riches, but today people focus on money. So people could have riches, where money was just a part of it, and how did the nobility gain riches in feudal societies as shift to a particular political system?

Sitting here typing this post can guess, so not saying did the research, but wars for riches were one way, as well as selling things from things owned by the nobility, but also think a lot of their money came from taxes.

So could the nobility go bankrupt? My understanding is, yes.

And the idea of simply minting money probably was abhorrent but not researching for this post! But today with modern money, of course, governments have figured out ways to simply make money, which typically involve government bonds.

Original ideas for government bonds were temporary funds, but lots of nations now have a constant supply of government bonds which allows them to run immense deficits, which to me is how modern money can get funny.

My own explanation for endless government deficits is that there were wealthy people who realized that if they bought government bonds and pushed governments to fund that way, they could avoid taxes. Though it actually simply pushes taxes down the road, though for some wealthy that could be enough to live a lifetime with a much smaller tax payment than otherwise.

In my opinion we have wealthy members of society willing to completely destabilize the social order ONLY to limit their taxes. No other motivation is necessary to explain a tremendous amount of problems of modern government.

These wealthy avoiding taxes in my opinion lack any moral guidance in this behavior.

And recently, some managed to get governments to bail them out around the concept of "too big to fail" which is something even the nobility couldn't do in the past.

We have modern rich who have pushed themselves beyond past nobility by controlling governments in such a way that they are rescued even when financially stupid.

And not against wealth at all, but do think that people should earn their money or I guess inherit it, is ok.

The nobility in the past did not have the same option of funny money.

If they were running out of riches, they could raise taxes, and possibly lead to rebellion, or they could go on a war to go grab riches.

In our time, we had demonstrated recently how some of our wealthy can just have the government make money for them, bail them out, and go on living in luxury.

I've seen no shame in their manipulate the government to save them game either. And I dare say, there are wealthy who probably have actually en toto earned nothing, who are in essence some of the greatest government welfare recipients in human history.

James Harris

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Focusing on community with weapons discussion

My position when it comes to weapons is, simply that communities have the right under the US Constitution to defend themselves, all the way up to the biggest national community, which is the country itself.

That community interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is simply powerful, as the point is, that the needs of defense are what's important, and I think those writing it would have thought that obvious and been puzzled by modern debates focusing on individuals.

The reality for politics in the US is that so much is about "the People" which is a community focus. And I can understand those who wish the US Constitution to be an individually focused document, but even when giving substantial individual rights, the health of the nation as a whole was the point.

It IS better for the nation to have a free press for example, to keep the People informed, which importantly outs wrongdoing at all levels. It's healthy for democracy for people to be able to gather peacefully. It's best for freedom to be able speak one's mind publicly, for the nation.

And the nation must defend itself.

So much focus settles on guns though. So it's worth it to talk about them specifically.

One problem I think with debates around certain issues in the US is a refusal to be honest, for instance some people I think DO want to tell every American whether or not that person can own a gun, with the answer being, no. And while to such people their ideals make sense, the US Constitution does not agree. And there is a spectrum there all the way back to another extreme. While it also would probably be ludicrous to those writing the 2nd Amendment am sure, to believe it is saying any individual can own a gun, or carry a gun wherever he chooses. That just makes no sense and is against the needs of the community.

The United States has multiple levels of protection, with individuals empowered at all levels to act in the best interest of their community. And if you wish to go against your community? It is empowered to defend itself from you. As communities in the US can defend themselves against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

James Harris