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.

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:
 

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: