The Jail System

Introduction
Jails.  Prisons.  Correctional Facilities.  Places to keep the dangerous away from the innocent.  Fundamentally prisons and similar institutions have been around for a very, very long time.  Historically they haven't been used as a long term holding cell for punishment like modern jails, but instead they were holding cells for people awaiting punishment or their trial.  This stance will address both the modern jail, past instances and a glimpse into how jails may occur in an ideal society¹.

Stance Summary
Historically the jail was useful for it's time.  In the modern era however the jail has warped into something deviant and encourages criminal behavior.  Rather then evolving with culture and technology, it has devolved with the state.  We are at a time now - technologically and culturally - where the jail system is not necessary, especially in it's current diabolical nature.  As it exists today, the jail needs to disappear.  For crimes with victims, the perpetrator can be made accountable to compensate the victim.  For crimes without victims, see the suggested reading section.


Personal Actions Based on Stance

None at this time.  Luckily I've had little experience with the modern jail system, and I prefer to keep it that way.

Expansion
Past Jail Systems
According to Wikipedia² and my own understanding of history, the jail system has always been a temporary place to hold people.  It's intent was to hold people prior to their prescribed punishment or trial.  Punishments may have included penal colonies, indentured servitude or even galley slaves³.  All of which weren't directly costly to the tax payers.  This excludes Debtors prisons who were designed to hold people, at least until the debtor, his family, or someone coughed up the necessary funds to release him; and also excludes the wars that galleys were used in as war always costs the citizens something whether financial or moral.  The use of indentured servitude, debtors prisons, forced penal colonies or galley slaves are not morally adequate alternatives to prisons, but financially it is a a better option when compared to the modern system.

Modern Jail Systems
Unfortunately in the early 1800's the modern jail, who's intent was also to hold people as part - or all - of their punishment, started to come into being. 

Modern jail systems punish the perpetrator by removing him from society at the expense of the people in society. One of the fundamental flaws I see in this system is that the victim gets little financial compensation while the perpetrator gets his liberty removed.  How is that Just?  Should not the perpetrator compensate the victim for their loss?  Why should the victim have to be forced (via taxes) to pay for the incarceration of the perpetrator and then be forced to deal with the difficulties imposed by the actions the perpetrator did to the victim?  At least in the past Jail systems the victims weren't taxed an average of over $22,000 per year, per innmate⁴, (in California it was over $47k⁵or the equivalent of $38 Billion dollars a year.⁶  This number could be much higher due to unseen costs (forced removal of 1%-3% of the US population from the work force, bigger workforce = more wealth creation possible) as well as many of these numbers were calculated with a 1.6 Million inmate population size⁷, more than 7 million people at end of 2009 were in Jail, Prison, or on probation⁸.  Nor does it include potential savings in Judges and trials and related things that could be reduced.

So financially the modern jail systems is abhorrent.  Nor does it do much in the way of actually "correcting" the deviant behavior.  Isolating perpetrators away from "good" and productive citizens, and forcing them to be in an intimate setting with people of potentially much more deviant behavior.  Let's face it, it is not customary for people to leave jail being of purer heart & better intentions.  So not only is the modern jail system financially costly, but culturally and morally costly as well, especially to those directly affected.

Future Jail Systems?
What do people (non-inmates) desire most from Jails?  Ideally it is out of a sense of justice and desire for protection (rather than revenge or hate).  If someone does something bad the thought goes, he should be punished, it should be made sure he can't do it again, and hopefully the victim gets compensated for undue suffering.  Often the priority is in that order, but that isn't morally proper.  It should only be about trying to 'right the wrong' - which is impossible to truly do because that would be to undo the past.  The best thing known to the author that the justice system can do to attempt to right the wrong is to help the victim, primarily through victim compensation, and from that stems any "punishment" or "protection".  So if the primary method society has available to 'right the wrong' is victim compensation, why do we need jails at all?  Protection for the populace and Holding Cells are general concerns.

Future Jail Systems - Victim Compensation
If person A steals $100 from Person B, is it just victim compensation if Person A returns $100 dollars to Person B?  Using the old Law of Retaliation (an eye for an eye), No.  Maximum just compensation would be
person A should not only return the stolen $100, but to then deprive himself of the same (eye for eye) and give it to person B.  So Person A should then give an additional maximum amount of $100 dollars.  This works even in non-financial issues.  If Person A stabs Person B, just victim compensation isn't such that Person B gets to stab Person A in retaliation - though it's possible that both parties would prefer this over financial compensation.  In such a situation Person B has had to pay for medical care, maybe loss of work-pay due to the injury, and other such things which say equates to $15,000.  Just victim compensation could be treated such that Person A has to pay back to Person B the total cost of these things - $15k, and like above, then deprive himself of the same by paying an additional maximum amount of $15k. 


Future Jail Systems - Protection
Actually, negate "protection".  That should be in the realm of people and the protection services available, not directly in the Justice system.  However, people do want a jail to remove from society known threats.  Say, the situation of someone who has repeatedly murdered people (serial killer).  Should he be just be forced to pay for all those murders as described above?  Should he be thrown in jail for life?  What if he doesn't have enough money to pay victim compensation for the number of people he's killed?  That is a plausible scenario as the financial compensation for a whole life is probably quite high.  In such a scenario the perpetrator would probably end up dead or being forced to move to a different society secretly to avoid creditors and people who want to kill him; at which point the serial killer cycle starts anew or he stops.  However, in the international age it's hard to run away from your past.  One can't move to China and leave your murderous deeds behind.

The above is a very simplistic approach which doesn't take into account a market approach to how such Justice things could be dealt with; for example how Insurance Companies would contribute.  This and other alternatives are discussed in the additional reading, see Bob Murphy's work.

Future Jail Systems - Holding Cells

better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer⁹

William Blackstone, a famous British judge, jurist and politician, discussed that it is of utmost importance not to infringe upon the rights of the innocent, even if the guilty are then free.  This author tends to agree, but does not think that it is either One or The Other.  If Victim Compensation is done similar to as discussed above then there isn't any reason to hold a guilty perpetrator for his punishment, as any punishment to be received is financial which requires that a perpetrator work to afford his debts to the victim or his estate.  If Protection is done similar to as discussed above, in Bob Murphy's works below or based on a similar foundation then there isn't much of a reason to physically hold someone while awaiting a trial.  No reason to remove him from his family, friends, and workplace.  If the accused doesn't show up to his prescribed trial to defend himself then there is a greatly increased chance of being found guilty.  Judgments, when done with financial Victim Compensation as described above, in today's technological age are difficult to avoid or "run away from".  To do so would be to severely limit the perpetrators life life style; which - in sense - is just.  One either pays the financial penalty or can no longer use a credit card, buy a house, get a loan, due to his huge debts incurred by his violent actions found guilty of.  Thus holding cells could be reduced severely if not eliminated over time.

Closing
The Jail system and related systems is too big to cover completely in one stance, nor even in a whole book.  If the topic is of interest please refer to the additional reading section below.  The listed sources are good and enjoyable reads.  In the end however, the modern jail system is broken and few disagree.  This stance details how the author feels the jail system could be dramatically improved.  What is at stake here is not just the billion dollar price tag the current system has, but also the cultural and spiritual effect.  While not discussed, there is a price paid culturally when Justice is perverted into a punishment system, away from focusing on righting the wrong but instead on correct the behavior of deviants.  To treating adults as children that need to be brainwashed into good citizens, rather than letting the deviants attain some sense of personal responsibility. 

Sources

1. Ideal Society - Link
2. Wikipedia: Jail - Link
3. Wikipedia: Galley Slave - Link
4. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Expenditures/Employment - Link
5. California's Legislative Analysts Office: Jail Costs - Link
6. CNN: Money - Link
7. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Prison Inmates 2009 - Link 
8. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Total Correctional Population - Link
9. Wikipedia: Blackstone's Formulation - Link

Suggested Reading

• Victimless Crimes - Link
• Bob Murphy: Chaos Theory - Link 
• Bob Murphy: Possibility of Private Law - Link
• Murray Rothbard: For a New Liberty - Ch12, The Courts subsection - Link

Romans 13

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.  Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.  Do you want to have no fear of authority?  Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good.  But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.  There fore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.  For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.  Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.  Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Romans 13:1-8 (NAS)

Introduction
Authority is one of the bases of human relations and human action.  Whether we like it or not, we all submit to authority at given times.  When we are kids, we submit to the authority of our parents.  We learn from our teachers (sometimes voluntary, other times not so), we listen to what people have to say and submit our mind to theirs if we deem them worthy.  We all also submit generally to some form of State.  There are two very different forms of authority in this regard then, there is the voluntary authority, and coercive authority.  This stance address both aspects and how I think that Romans 13 fits into this.

Stance Summary
To be frank, either Paul is talking about submitting to all authority; as the English translation seems to imply, or he isn't.  Most Christians I know go with the latter explanation.  That Paul isn't saying to submit to ALL authority, but only where that authority doesn't go past God's commandments.  Considering the amount of time Paul spent in jail he obviously didn't think he had to submit all the time, every time.

That is not however, what Paul says in Romans 13.  It blatantly says to be in subjection to the authorities.  Something seems to be wrong then with the generic interpretation; how can we be in total subjection to the authorities and still fulfill God's commandments that go against what the authorities say?  I think it's simple, we are to be in subjection to those authorities that meet the "from God" profile given by Paul.  "For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.".  If the authority that be isn't of God, then it isn't a true and righteous authority.  "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil", "Do what is good and you will have praise from the same" & "But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing".

How are we to then judge good behavior and Godly authority?  God's commandments are a good place to start.  Also, see the Primary Foundational Principle¹ listed below as my personal starting point.


Personal Actions Based on Stance


Expansion
Interpretation
An modern example about how a strict, English interpretation of Romans 13 seems to be wrong would be the Nuremberg trials; soldiers had to be punished for their crimes against people despite just following orders.  They were submitting too much to the Nazi government, they willingly violated God's commandments (in this particular case the judges weren't worried about God's commandments, just country laws).  To think otherwise implies that if your governing authority commanded you to murder someone, you should do it; despite this going against God's commandments.  I do not know of any Christians who think that a Nazi, who murdered Jews in cold blood should not stand for his crimes just because he was submitting to authority.

Why can we so loosely interpret what Paul says?
The question remains then, why can we so loosely interpret what Paul says?  We have to because otherwise it doesn't theologically and morally match up with what we know of the rest of the scripture.  So either there is a contradiction, or Romans 13 is misunderstood, or the rest of the bible that discusses morality is misunderstood.  I believe that the Bible is the word of God and thus Romans 13 isn't a contradiction.  Nor do I think that the rest of the Bible is misunderstood in this particular sense, so Romans 13 itself seems to be misunderstood.

If it is misunderstood, how?
I think there a couple different things here.  Firstly, as it is written in the NASB, it can be interpreted as written above that only the authority that can be seen as from God is the true authority, and that only the true authority should be submitted to.  Similar to how Christ said that you will know the true prophets by the fruit they bear.  You will know the true authorities by the fruit they bear.  That authorities fruit may be viewed differently by different people.  As Paul talks about in 1st Corinthians 8², people can sin against their conscience as not all people have the same knowledge of what is good and proper.  In this chapter Paul talks about people who understand that meat sacrificed to idols is okay to eat, and others having "a weak conscience" think that they shouldn't eat it.  We are then asked to not let our liberty be a stumbling block to others, so that in our knowledge we don't encourage someone else to sin against their conscience.

Liberty, Exousia, and Authority
Interesting thing here, the greek work for Authority (Gr exousia³) that is used throughout Romans 13, is the exact same word used here in 1st Corinthians 8:9

But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. (NASB)

Can't find the term authority?  It's the term liberty.  Let me switch the words for easier reading.

But take care that this authority of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. (NASB, modified)

What does authority mean here?  It means liberty.  It means personal responsibility.  The power of choice.  Which is in fact the primary definition of exousia even though it is generally translated as authority in the Bible.  Read some of these⁴ references to exousia in Luke for further, interesting readings.

Because of this unique definition of exousia (both Aristotle and Plato used it to mean the power of choice, or free will) I will also contend that in addition to submitting to the governing authorities except where it conflicts with God's commands, that this section of scripture may also mean (either exclusively or in addition to) that the true governing authority (or Higher Power as some versions translate) is really God's Higher Liberty.  The free will that God has given each of us.  Allow me to transpose how this section of scripture might read with a liberty mindset.

We are to submit our liberty to God's Higher Liberty, for there is no true liberty apart from God.  Resist God's gift of liberty or free will to people and you resist God's ordinances, and those who do oppose will receive condemnation.  We were not given liberty so that we can be a force for evil, but to be a force for good.  For those we submit to are not to be forces of evil, but forces of good.  Do you want to have no fear of freedom of choice?  Then do what is good, and good will be done to you.  Do what is evil and beware, you will reap the consequences for your actions.... (pay taxes, love thy neighbor, and so forth)

Disclaimer, I do not mean to re-translate the scripture here, I in now way studied every original greek word, and use to write this.  I wrote it simply to help get across the liberty message that may be available in Romans 13.
 
Closing
I take all of this to basically mean, obey the government on this earth, unless you have the knowledge and understanding that states otherwise.  I do not, and can not encourage someone to go against what their conscience tells them.  I do not want my liberty to be a stumbling block, and I do not want to cause someone to sin against their conscience.  Does that mean we should be content with the limited knowledge we have and not seek to be free?  1st Corinthians 7:21 says "Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that."⁵  The term Free here literally means to be become a free man, a different word than exousia, the freedom of choice.  So we should all strive to continue our understanding of God's Law and God's Higher Authority, but nor should we worry about continuing as slaves.  Most of us, specifically people residing in a Western countries, more specifically America and Britian, we are at best serfs, at worst slaves. "If you are able also to become free, rather do that."⁵
Sources

1. Primary Foundational Principle - Link
2. 1st Corinthians Ch8 NASB - Link
3. Strong's Dictionary - exousia G1849
4. Luke's use of exousia - Link
5. 1st Corinthians Ch7 NASB - Link

Suggested Reading

1. Primary Foundational Principle - Link 
2. Religious Roots of Liberty - Link
3. A Peccancy - Link

Cleanliness

Introduction: 
Clean products are everywhere today.  Is that beneficial or detrimental?  Is there such a thing as too much cleanliness?  There are TV shows that go from home to home and clean up messes, organize houses, and attempt to clean up people's lives through it.  Today we shall address how I view cleanliness, slovenliness and sterility.  The author does recognize that these terms are somewhat relative, as they should be.  Different people see muck in different places, or even not at all. 

Stance Summary:
I am not the cleanest person in the world, nor am I what is known as messy.  I am organized, I don't like things on the floor, I like dishes put away, and things in an appropriate place.  I appreciate a clean space that can be efficiently used.  Dirty clothes in the hamper, books on a shelf (unless you need them for something besides waiting to be read, then desk or piles are acceptable).  However, when it comes to germs and food I may be a little less clean than normal.  I do not like, and maybe even detest, consistent sterility.  Clean:  good.  Sterile: bad!  A sterile environment is an unnatural state on this world.  I feel that having too clean, too sterile of an environment tricks our body in to letting down it's innate defenses.  Then, when the body encounters the real world it loses an advantage it had before. 



Personal Actions Based on Stance:
Some may find my food habits detestable.  I have been known to just rinse bowls and plates after using them.  I use the same cup for days on end before I put it in the sink.  My cast iron pots have food residue on it that could be weeks old, or it could just be from this morning, I really don't know.  I will use a knife for at least a few days before washing it, maybe a whole week or more, I don't really keep track.  it is not uncommon for a a knife I use to have food that is dried and stuck to the blade that I may decide to scrape off, or just keep using as is.  My skillet utensils (tongs & spatula) also can go days or more between cleanings.  I can easily use it on 5 different meals while grease and food particles are stuck to it.

Before the reader becomes too disgusted with me, let me clearly state that I abhor mold.  Mold is disgusting and has no place in the kitchen except the compost bin.  Rarely do I ever leave any food out long enough to mold on my utensils, cups or knives.  If I did, I would be thoroughly disgusted with myself and make sure that the item gets thoroughly cleaned, or dare I say it, sterile.

Expansion:
Despite the behavior above, and as stated, I don't like mold.  I find a moldy environment a detestable one that I wouldn't want to live in.  Nor does that position need to be readily defended as most people feel similar. 

I do also feel that there are environments that are much too sterile.  This does not mean to imply that all sterile environments should be banished.  It can be argued that some sterility is important, say if someone is sick, the body should be given a break from the outside attacks so it can focus on what is already inside the body.  That is good and proper, but once the body has healed and is no longer fighting anything and it has no need for any defense, it seems to become lax.  Similar to a vaccination I suppose, where a patient receives a dose of a low level disease so that the body can learn and adapt to fight off the stronger version of the disease.  So if the body is never given a chance against simple bugs found outside, or around the home, it will suffer horribly when it comes in contact with food poisoning, or a strong strain of influenza, and other common, but potent diseases.


Sources:

Closing:
In the end, all I want is the middle, the plain ol' healthy clean. Not too dirty, not too sterile.  

Fat

Introduction: 
God may have created all men equal (at least regarding unalienable rights), but God did not create all Fats equal.  We have Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, Monounsaturated Fat, Polyunsaturated Fat, and subcategories of some of those are Essential Fatty Acids like Omega-3 & Omega-6.  Course, and from that you don't just go out to the store and buy "Saturated Fat" or "Omega-3 Fatty Acids".  Generally we get our fats from the foods we eat, and the foods we eat contain a mixture of some, all, or none of these.  Meats are generally known for their Saturated Fat content.  Oils for their unique mixtures of Mono/Polyunsaturated.  Processed Fast food for there trans and saturated fats.  If you include heavily processed oils and junk food you can get your Trans fats and include other weird fats like Interesterified Fats. 

Stance Summary:
So with such variety available in fats, what are my views on them?  Regarding Fat as a whole, I like it.  Our body needs a large amount of fat to keep us going.  It is a vital fuel for all of our cells.  That being said, some fats help our body in the process of being fuel, and others hinder.  Fats that I consider unnatural, like processed fats (Trans) are to be avoided!  They do little to benefit the body, but do much to break it down.  Saturated Fats, especially those from healthy, free range animals, are wonderful.  Not only do they taste good and benefit your body, they reduce your overall calorie count by keeping you satiated (and not wanting that extra roll).  Mono/Polyunsaturated fats are difficult because it appears that both are necessary in the body, but they are needed in pairs.  Thus some oils are better than others.  Olive Oil and Coconut oil are comparatively healthier in their fat mix when compared to Corn or Vegetable oil. 

Personal Actions Based on Stance:
I have personally attempted to reduce my overall carbohydrate intake and increase my healthy fat intake.  Overall I have lost a couple pounds (at my weight a couple pounds is pretty big), and feel slightly better I think.  I don't work out more necessarily, but I feel more fit.  My skin feels tighter across my chest, and not in a bad, constricting way.  Hopefully a healthy diet will keep my skin youthful and tight around my arms and legs as I age so I don't have too much skin flapping around there.

Expansion:
Whenever I read about Fats, I am usually surprised by how many calories you should be getting from fat.  The source below² states that we should be consuming 20%-30% of our daily calories from Fat!  Now, even though I often go against the 'Conventional Wisdom', I am still surprised by this.  Though it does make sense when you look at how much Fat is used in our bodies.  I only state one source for the high fat caloric diet, but that is not an abnormal number from the variety of sources I've read on the matter.  It has definitely helped me improve my diet by not worrying so much about butter, lard & fat on meat.

Though with regards to fat on meat, one has to be careful with that because the fat in animals (and humans as well) is where many toxins will gather.  Fat is a storage medium.  If the body has toxins to store, it will store it in fat as well.  If the animal you are eating is unhealthily fatty due to diet, lack of exercise and general mistreatment, a portion of those toxins will be ingested by you and processed by your body.  So obviously the meat source matters, healthy animals makes for healthy meat, which makes for healthy humans.  Consider this, if you were a cannibal, would you rather eat a People of Walmart³ person, or someone who really cares about their diet and what goes in their body like Mark Sisson⁴?

Closing:
I like meat.  I like fat.  I like vegetables.  I like feeling healthy, eating healthy, enjoying a variety of foods.  Though to be truthful, my diet consists of the same 3 animals for meat, and the same ~6 vegetables for a majority of my food intake.

Sources:

1. Marks Daily Apple: Definitive Guide to Fat - Link
2. 60 in 3: Fat is Bad!  Fact or Myth? - Link
3. People of Walmart - Link
4. Marks Daily Apple: About Mark Sisson - Link

Suggested Reading:

1. Marks Daily Apple - Link
2. 60 in 3: Fat is Bad!  Fact or Myth? - Link
3. NY Times: What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? - Link

General Purpose of Life

Introduction
Obviously this is a big one, which will change as my life goes on.  I'm pretty young to be attempting to answer such a question, but in reality I don't truly mean to answer it.  All I desire to do right now is to codify my early thoughts in the matter.  I'm young, recently married, recently into my first house, 5 or so years into my career.  A good time to be considering the overall purpose and direction of life in general, and specifically my life.  My life specifics will have to wait for another day.  But to life in general, well I'd like to take a stab.

Stance Summary

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
And he said to him, "'You shall love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'  This is the great and foremost commandment.  The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'  On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."¹

Christ, when asked what the greatest commandment is (thus the one thing we should all do), gave the statement above.  I see in his response something defining our general purpose of life which is foundational to our very nature.  If the two great commandments are to love God and love people, then the general purpose of life is relational.  And not just relational, but positive, loving, affirmative relationships. Relationships with God, Spouse, Kids, Family, Friends.  That is our general purpose.


Personal Actions Based on Stance
So to make that a little more specific to me, what relationships are or should be, most important to me?  God.  Wife.  Family.  Friends.  In that order.  Basically, all I do should be in some way assisting, or benefiting the relationships here.  Especially the two biggest relationships in my life, my Wife and my Savior.  That's a good reminder to me to make sure when I'm at home that I'm not wasting time, or being separated from my wife by stupid arguments or not helping when I could help.  That means making a specific effort to love my wife in words (by saying truthful and uplifting things to her), in actions (by serving her to the best of my ability), and in my thoughts (by not focusing on the hardships, but rather the blessing she is to me).


Expansion
Reading my Stance on the Primary Foundational Principle² goes through these verses in more detail and is foundational to some of the logic that is used to derive a General Purpose of Life from these short verses. 

What is a purpose?  It can be defined as a function, or an objective.³ So what is the objective, or functions of our lives?  There can be a purpose of a specific life chosen by an individual (either that individual or his master) but as stated above that is a different stance.  Instead, what is the objective or function of all of us? Kind of a crude way to put it, but the only entity able to define the purpose of the human race in general is the one who created them.  If there is no creator, well then there can't be a purpose to the overall human race, just individual, potentially conflicting purposes.  As a Christian I believe that God created us, and thus God can and has given us purpose.
 
One of the movies that touches on this in a way that I appreciate is Into the Wild (2007)⁴ where the protagonist, independent and lonely reads this passage from Dr. Zhivago

And so it turned out that only a life similar to the life of those around us, merging with it without a ripple, is genuine life, and that an unshared happiness is not happiness,

Upon reading that, the protaganist scribbles in the margins

Happiness is only real when shared

Despite all his desires to get away from it all, to be completely and utterly independent, he came to understand that without others, without relationships, one can not be happy.  The purpose of life is gone.  Our protagonist in this move was not a Christian which removes that relational possibility as well. 

Sources

1.  Matthew 22:36-40 - link
2. Primary Foundational Principle - link
3. Purpose Definitions - link
4. Into the Wild - link 

Closing
empty

Non-Coercive Government

Introduction:
Non-Coercive Government?!  What pray-tell is that?  A non-coercive government is an authority that is over you in a wholly voluntary manner.  Meaning you can be under it's authority, or you can not be; your choice as well as theirs.  See the Expansion section for modern day examples.

Stance Summary:.
I willingly submit to a few non-coercive true government systems (Westside Church, Amnis corp & my Wife) and wish to be able to submit to more. However the amount of coercive submission that is required for our coercive governments makes that difficult, if not impossible. In fact, I would like to be able to have the coercive government apparatus abolished and only voluntary forms be erected.

Personal Actions Based on Stance:
A big personal action based on this Stance is probably through my marriage. Our method of not submitting it to a coercive government and only the voluntary government of Christ is really the only large action I've done on voluntary government that most people haven't done. Most people submit in some way to a place of employment, and many to a church; but they might not just view it as I do.

Expansion:
An easy example of this is the Christian life. Most Christians will agree that we have the choice to be under Christ's authority or not. He doesn't force us under His authority or force us what to do (excepting something like Jonah where he was still voluntarily under God's authority but was trying to get away from a command). Christians can either choose to be under Christ with the eternal benefit of joining him in the afterlife, or choose not to be which means that when you die you go to the only place that isn't under God's authority, and that is Hell.

A non-religious example would be your place of employment. By being gainfully employed, a large part of my life is under the authority of those in charge of my employment. It's voluntary, I can leave anytime I wish, but doing so forfeits the benefits of being under their authority (i.e. a steady paycheck, benefits, further experience, ...) Primarily, with employment my direct labor is under their authority. They have the right - by my voluntary submission - to direct my labor how they see fit. They do not have the right - because I haven't voluntarily submitted in such a manner, nor have they requested - do direct my life/marriage/religion/diet/... as they see fit.


Another example I wish to address is that of the Church, and your local church. The Church, I've partially addressed above, but will primarily address it in a different stance, see Sources for a link, but in contrast your local church is an example of an voluntary, authoritative government.  There isn't too much authority here for most people now-a-days, but because of my submission to God; the Church, and through my church I have given them the right to a certain portion of my income. I have also instilled them as an authoritative body over my marriage (see Sources for a link). and I would like to see them as more of a Law/Arbitrator authoritative body at some point in the future, though people do still go to the pastor with disputes according to Biblical church discipline. Though probably not too often.

Sources:
Marriage License - Link
Church Authority - Link

Closing:
I hope to see the disappearance of coercive governments within my lifetime. I know I will see it at the end of my life sometime, when Christ returns. But I would like to see it before as well, if possible.  I don't know if Biblically that can come around before Christ returns, but it doesn't mean we should strive for the ideal.  That would be like saying that since it is impossible to live a sinless life, we shouldn't try.  Not trying, would be a sin.

Church Authority

Introduction:
This topic is something I am still working out the logistics of in my head.  As such this Stance is surely to change over time, but I will list changes made in the comments section.

A large part of Church Authority is the proper usage of Church Discipline as discussed by Christ in Matthew 18:15-20.  Authority always has to have some negative consequences for going against their authority.  A coercive government has as their final consequence death.  A place of employment will have their job terminated as a final consequence.  A marriage might end in divorce or separation if you don't believe in divorce.  It is that final, negative consequence compared with the benefits of submission that will keep someone following "orders" and doing what they might not always be inclined to do. 

Stance Summary:
I firmly believe (though like I said I am still working out the logistics) that the Church should take a bigger role in arbitration and law amongst those who call themselves Christians.  We are told that excommunication should be the final negative consequence of not following God's Laws.  We are commanded not to take fellow believers to secular courts.  Now, it is really just the application of these that needs to be worked out. 

Personal Actions Based on Stance:
I have studied and continue to study the theoretical approach to, the history of, and the application of private legal services.  I am to make a contribution somehow, someway in expanding this into the Church.

Expansion:

Sources:
Church Discipline: Matthew 18:15-20 - Link
Taking Christians to secular Courts: 1st Corinthians 6:1-7 - Link


Closing:

Turn the Other Cheek

Introduction: 

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5:38-42, NIV 

Stance Summary: 

I think the text means exactly what it says, but with an understood reservation in favour of those obviously exceptional cases which every hearer would naturally assume to be exceptions without being told. 

CS Lewis (1940, The Weight of Glory - Why I am not a Pacifist)

I agree with Lewis on this one, there are times where we have to use violence in order to follow the other commandments and live out our life.  Even Christ used aggression when cleaning the temple of the people who tainted it.  Like Lewis says in the same address, if it's between you and another person, be the better man and let him be.  But as soon as another person enters it, the whole paradigm changes.  As I say on my facebook page:

Course, I'm no pacifist, the moment you use force to get something from someone else, I'll be all over you like I was all over that spider and flying bug thing earlier today. ... They got the shoe to the face technique, just so you know.

Personal Actions Based on Stance:  
Expansion:
Sources:

Closing:
 

The Governments "spend, Spend, Spend!"

GIntroduction: 
This stance is written for the Government's policy of heavily promoting debt, spending, and consumption.  They are under the impression that what doesn't work to increase wealth for individuals, will increase wealth for society, which as we all know is just a collection of individuals.

Stance Summary:
I am not for any government policies!  But there are ones I like better than most, and the policy of promoting debt on a personal and national level is horrid.  The government should cut back spending anywhere and everywhere (especially on the Department of War or rather the Dept of "Defense").  In doing so their in actions, their savings would encourage people within the nation to start saving more.  When the nation spends, most of the people will follow suit

Personal Actions Based on Stance:
I am a heavy saver.  I try to save or invest more than the average person.  Which sadly is easy enough to do right now.  But even in times of wealth proliferation, I try to "beat" the average person in terms of saving.

Expansion:
Spending creates a specific level of living standards at the amount commonly spent.  In addition, saving and investing reduces the future spending necessary to maintain that same living standard and allows you to then spend the same for a better living standard.  Spending more than one has will also boost the living "standard", but only so long as you can spend more than you have.

For example, lets say we have a scale of 0 - 100 of wealth.  0 being horrid wealth, 100 being amazing wealth.  Say it costs me personally $1000 a month to maintain my level of living of around a 15 wealth, and I am able to save $500.  If I boost my spending to $1600 a month I can raise my standard of living from a 15 to an 18.  I have more things, I go out to dinner more, buy a new computer even though the old one is still good enough.  So now I have a better standard of living, but I now dipping into my savings.  Eventually I will run out of savings and start going into debt.  If I'm smart and reduce my consumption back to the original $1000 level, I can reduce my living standard back to 15 and have no accumulated savings in case of disaster (which could wipe me out and reduce my living standard to a 10 or below).  But say I don't reduce consumption and I start pulling out the credit card for that extra $100 a month.  My debt increases, and increases and suddenly it is no longer manageable.  I have to sell off all my goods, my house (i move into a rental place), sell my car and buy a cheaper one, sell my excess clothes.  But I don't lose my job so I can reduce my spending back to the $1000 level and start saving $500 again.  Except this time my living standard has been reduced to a 10 where I was instead a 15 earlier.  And it will take awhile before I can be back to the 15.

However, let's say I continued at a standard of 15 with $500 in savings, and I invested that over time in my life and in valuable things.  At some point the savings could earn interest and earn you a small bit of extra income that you can spend, maybe raising your living standard from a 15 to a 16 (and maybe over the years from a 16 to 17, 17 to 18, ... and up and up depending on how many financial and life disasters occur eating up your savings), and you haven't changed anything!  Maybe you save up enough money that you are able to invest in yourself, a nicer computer for your business (gotta work hard to get more customers!), a dishwasher to save you time and money, house repairs/upgrades that cost a lot of savings, but make your house more valuable in the long run, and other things like that.  They spend your savings, and increase your living standard, but don't get you into debt.  Over time, and it will take time, you will hit that level 18 living standard that you could have gotten to by just spending more but now you are still saving $500 a month and living under your means at a level 18.  At this point, the only limit you have to continue inching up your living standard is your life expectancy!  ;-)

Sources:

Closing:
 

Nationalism

Introduction: 
Today is 9/11.  September 11th.  A day that is supposed to be of collective sorrow for the innocent lives that were cruelly extinguished nine years ago.  I have no problem with that.  Murder of innocents is always something worth remembering.  The problem I have with the way our nation has twisted the event is how it has become about the State and about those trying to bring home the pain.  This was never about us or them, but making it so has turned Americans into nationalistic narcissists who don't think of other people in other nations with other tongues.  What ever happened to all nations, all tongues?  But the nationalism that has been purposfuly embedded in the American traits is why I write today.

Stance Summary:
I detest nationalism.  I see it as an idol and those who worship, idolaters.  This isn't about politics, or my politics versus yours.  This is about idol worshiping narcissists, each and every one of us, taking our faith out of He who is faithful and putting it into a collective whim that is faithless.  The Government, with all its participation, its community and little cells of politics is the current ages "Tower of Babel"; all the "feel good" benefits of being part of something greater than yourself, being part of the "whole" and feeling connected is nothing but lies and deceitful thinking.  All we are doing is setting up gods and idols.

Personal Actions Based on Stance:
There have been no real actions specifically on nationalism.  I read and study and attempt to open my mind to the truths that God reveals.  I try to see through the lies that are around me every day, as well as the lies that I craft within my own mind and world.  Though those are much harder.  I try to talk about politics and government with people when given the chance, but I remain timid on the whole deal.  People don't like blunt politics.  People especially don't like someone in their face telling them that they are setting up idols.  Though I do admit, I generally don't try it so those are statements based on my thoughts rather than my reality.

Expansion:

Sources:

Closing:
 

Marriage License

Introduction: 
In today's world, the States generally own everything.  And by everything I mean that as it sounds.  They own your labor, they own you, they own your house, they own your property; or at least they think they do, and depending on your endorsement of them you may give them the right as well.  If you think I'm being a little extreme, they have the "right" to take your paycheck, remove a percentage, then give you the remaining.  Try removing that "right" from them and see what happens.  Same with property taxes, if you actually owned your house, then couldn't you just not pay property taxes?  But if you don't pay your tax/rent, then you lose the house.  As for owning you, well that's a topic for another day, but what other entity can jail, kill, hospitalize your body without any consent from you?  Generally only entities that have more of a right to your body than you.

Stance Summary:
If the government owns everything then, why give them the right to your marriage?  My stance on this matter is that a marriage license gives the government authoritative right to your marriage.  The Marriage License is a request by two parties (bride and groom) to be married under the authority of the local state.  Even looking over my in-law's marriage license says in plain English something akin to "This certificate authorizes this marriage".  Though the referenced statement may have been longer, the term authorized was used.  As such, under God I can not give authority over to the State in my marriage.

Personal Actions Based on Stance:
I do believe in unalienable rights established by God through his Natural and Eternal Law, and as such I used those rights to establish my marriage without giving over any authority to the State. I crafted my own Marital document, available in the sources section.  Generally on this site I speak for myself, but in this case I will make the distinction that my wife was fully agreeable on our mutual actions for this. 

Expansion:
I understand that the State will probably assume some authority anyways over my marriage as time goes on.  However, with a clear conscience on the matter I can continue knowing that I did not sign over authority to someone or something else besides God.

I also understand that there are certain benefits to having a licensed marriage that my wife and I will not have, and many of these may make future activities difficult.  That being said, I recognize that no entity or person is required to recognize my marriage, even the State of Washington.  They do not recognize common law, and as far as I understand it they do not recognize my marriage.  That is their prerogative.  As such, it is also their prerogative to not supply benefits generally reserved for couples under their jurisdiction.  Tax benefits being an obvious one.  Other than that, I recognize that I will have to make other arrangements to make sure my wife and I are protected.

Sources:
Personal Marriage document: Link

Closing:
Luckily my Stance was arrived at prior to the need for any actions.  So I do not regret any actions I've taken on the matter.

Coercive Government

Introduction: 

Stance Summary:
I agree with H.L. Mencken's statement:

I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.

Assuming that the term government is used meaning all non-voluntary forms of government, which is compatible with his views.


Personal Actions Based on Stance:

Expansion:

Sources:

Closing:
 

Protection Insurance

Introduction:
 

Stance Summary:
In public protection "insurance" (Police), the rich generally pay the highest "premiums" (taxes).  The poor pay less to nothing.  The police are generally focused on the poor persons problems and thus the poor get most of the benefit (however crappy the protection is).  If this situation were put onto the semi-private car insurance that most of us own, it would mean that the rich people paid the highest premiums and had the highest deductibles, and the poorest people paid the lowest (or not at all) with the lowest deductibles.  Most people would see that situation as horrid, and unlikely to go over well.  They would see no incentive from insurance costs for the poor to drive carefully or to maintain their vehicles.  The rich would have little incentive to pay such high costs for little payout or little protection and may opt out if they can.  The accidents would probably increase because the cost of the accident is externalized in a manner unlike how private insurance currently maximizes profit.  As such, my stance on public protection (Police) versus private protection is to get completely rid of public protection and allow private companies to insure and protect citizens for profit.

Personal Actions Based on Stance:
None regarding insurance though I am a staunch believer in people protecting themselves.

Expansion:

Sources:
Hans Herman Hoppe - The Private Production of Defense Link

Closing:

Marriage

Introduction:
Marriage in the present time is an interesting concept to me.  It is generally something done between two people and an intermediary who acts with the authority given to him by that which can instill marriage.  In older societies that intermediary was generally someone of local authority, be it a pastor, a ships captain, or just the animals and spirits around if two people were married privately.  In this article I would like to address a wide number of things, but primarily I want to look at where the authority for marriage comes from in modern society and where I think it should, has and can come from again.

Stance Summary
The authority for marriage stems from our God given human natures.  For those of you who do not believe in a God given human nature, well then it stems from your plain ol human nature.  It is essentially the same thing, and the differences are for another post.  Being that the authority is derived from our human nature, a marriage is not required to have an intermediary with the authority to bestow "marriage" on a couple.  If the authority is from our nature, then no other things are required assuming both parties of the marriage each use their authority to marry the other.

The rest of this Stance is also that if the authority isn't derived from anyone or anything else except our natures, then why does the State get involved in the business of actually granting marriages?  Actually, to hell with "why" that's a long story that I don't care to write about, the question should be "should the State get involved?"  My response, No.  Especially not because the State becomes the authority over the marriage rather than friends, family, society and God. 


Personal Actions based on my Stance:
Now, to be frank: I am married to Heather Lynne Jolly, her maiden name being Johnson.  I had a public wedding with a few hundred friends and family.  We exchanged vows and had a friend and pastor marry us.  We even signed a document, however the document we signed is not one that is commonly done in Western society marriages, specifically American ones.  The text of what we signed is available for viewing here: http://jollystance.blogspot.com/2010/08/text-of-marriage-document.html.  The document has been put into the public record in King County (the county where the wedding was performed) as a way of making the marriage public and transparent, and making search-able for vital statistics. 

Expansion
When I married Heather I did not do so under the pretext of having a Washington State recognized marriage.  Washington State's official policy is that they do not recognize common law marriage.  Which I'm okay with.  To do so could put us in the troublesome spot of having our marriage under the authority of the State where as right now our marriage is governed by friends, family and God.  Our vows were made in front of God.  Friends and family signed into our agreement.  Family signed in to be our mediators and arbitrators should a need ever arise.

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints?
Apostle Paul, 1st Corinthians 6:1

 If we take such important and spiritual agreements before the authority of the secular court as our very Marriages, why would we not take every other brother and sister in Christ before the courts?

Sources:

Closing:

Text of Marriage Document

Introduction
This document seeks to further define the Holy Matrimony, Husband and Wife, relationship voluntarily entered into by the Groom and Bride upon the speaking of the Vows.  In order to both meet the societal requirements for such a relationship at the time of the wedding and to offer protection to both Husband and Wife, this document states clearly the intentions of the Bride and Groom.  It is recognized that the intent of this document is to establish a clear record of a life long, indissoluble marital relationship.

The Groom and Bride recognize that Holy Matrimony is a gift bestowed upon us by God for our well being.  We recognize that Holy Matrimony is more than this document; it is a status (in the same way that Brother and Mother are statuses) and a relational foundation of human society.  Since we recognize that marriage is a foundation of society instituted by God and not a child of society we recognize our marriage not by the changing societal and legal views of what marriage consists of but by the revelations given by God through his Word.

Vows
The Vows, voluntarily exchanged and mutually agreed to are recognized as forming the Matrimonial relationship and are repeated below.

Groom
this vow I make       
to love until the end of my days       
all that I have, I freely give       
before God and before those assembled here, we form a bond for life
though we may have the crumbs of beggars
or the gold of the wealthy          
you will be my wife       
I commit to hold your life as greater than my own      
To live together in the covenant of marriage,
I commit to trust in who you are           
To stay close to, and under God as our relationship grows and prospers      
To not hinder or hurt
I will honor and bless you, I will be faithful to you and forsaking all others as long as I do live


Bride      
this vow I promise      
to cherish until death parts our lives      
all that I am, I bring to you      
a bond that cannot be broken       
though our flesh may be heavily burdened
or elated with the love of life      
you will be my husband      
To protect your wellbeing even if it requires a personal sacrifice      
To trust in your guidance and wisdom
and where you will guide our family      
To stay at each others side, helping and guiding, allowing both independence and dependence.      
To follow and chose among the paths that God has laid out for us      
I will honor and bless you, I will be faithful to you and forsaking all others as long as I do live   


Committee
The Groom and Bride agree to submit to the decision of the Committee, as defined below, should either Groom or Bride determine that outside arbitration is required to settle a dispute or controversy. 

The Committee is to be made up of three to four couples.  Those couples are to include the surviving parents of both the Groom and Bride, and the Groom and Bride’s Pastor and spouse.  Should both parents be dead for a spouse, that spouse’s closest blood related, Christian, married couple willing to take their place, shall.  Should the Groom and Bride attend different churches, both Pastors and spouses are to be included. 

A consensus shall be had when the committee is in complete agreement.

Should either Groom or Bride submit to an arbitrator other than the Committee (e.g. outside Arbitral Tribunal, local, state or federal government) the spouse that breaks the agreement defined by this document shall pay for any and all associated costs which includes but is not limited to lawyer fees and court fees.  Those costs shall come from that spouse’s personal property only and does not include communally shared funds and assets.  Any assets brought into the marriage and earned during the span of the marriage shall be considered communal property, and thus not eligible for the above associated costs.  Should outside arbitration occur, this document can and will be submitted as evidence and testimony of the marital relationship between the Husband and Wife. 

Divorce or Separation
The Bride and Groom agree to enter into this relationship understanding that the marital bond may only be dissolved if it is found that this marital bond was void from the beginning (vinculo matrimonii).

Forced, physical separation may occur in the case of one spouse’s extreme cruelty to the other (a mensa et thoro), but this does not dissolve the marital bond nor authorize a second marriage.

Should the dissolution of the marital bond or forced separation of Husband and Wife occur, the Committee shall arbitrate regarding the mutual property of the Bride and Groom.

Referenced Law
All referenced and implied law in this document is derived from the natural Law revealed by God through His Word.

Any Latin phrases reference historical American law and definitions.

--

Signature Page

 The Groom and Bride hereby declare in front of God and the

below witnesses that they will abide by the Holy Matrimonial relationship

established by their vows, as defined by the Bible and this document.

Signed by John and Heather Jolly

The below witnesses attest by their signatures that they

recognize the right of the Groom and Bride

to enter into Holy Matrimony; that is, as man and woman to be united,

and to become one under Christ. (Gen 2:24)

The below witnesses attest by their signatures to the

voluntary nature of the Matrimonial relationship established

between Groom and Bride, as overseen by Christ. 

The below witnesses attest by their signatures,

according to their knowledge, that neither the Groom nor Bride

were previously married to any others,

and that the Groom and Bride are not closer

in blood relationship than second cousins,

and that the Groom and Bride contain the

mental capacities to form such a union.

Signed by both sets of Parents

Signed by the Best Man and Maid of Honor

Signed by the Officiant