brandon.robison

That’s what over 100 economists are saying. Is this a surprise to anyone? Not me. Among those listed are five Nobel Prize winners, two of which are professors at GMU: Vernon Smith and James Buchanan.

By the way, I got this story from Greg Mankiw’s blog. Mankiw is a macroeconomist at Harvard, and though his name doesn’t appear on the list of supporters for the above-mentioned statement, he did state that he doesn’t like Obama’s proposed plan either; he merely didn’t sign because it was a “tad too hyperbolic for my tastes.” Makes me wonder how many more economists would have signed if the statement were merely “Obama’s plan is bad,” rather than “Obama’s plan is absolutely terrible.”

Logic dictates my rationale. I feel strongly about most of my premises and conclusions, as I have arrived at them after much careful thought and consideration. In the realm of political philosophy, I essentially have a single, simple dictum to which I subscribe.

I believe that an individual has the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcefully interfere in any other’s right to live in whatever manner they choose.

It logically follows that a person who has the right to live in whatever manner they choose has 1) the right to life — the right to decide how to live it, what to do with it, who they wish to associate with or not associate with, what to put into it, and even when to end it; 2) the right to liberty — the right to perform any action they desire (excepting, of course, the coercion of others); and 3) the right to property — the right to acquire and use objects for whatever purpose they so desire. If you’re having a hard time with this concept, especially with the logical connection, please read The Law by Frederic Bastiat. It is a 100 page treatise covering what I just mentioned in the last two paragraphs.

And applying this guiding principle, a logical being could very likely deduce any political view or opinion I might have. For example, to some, it may inconsistent of me to be a huge gun rights activist while at the same time wanting to downsize/eliminate the army. This seeming inconsistency is merely because you don’t follow where I am coming from. Try to understand the premise. Then you will understand the conclusion.

I’ve had several people ask me who I’m going to vote for in the upcoming presidential election. Usually, I just say, “Nobody…” and prattle off something about all of the choices sucking. I don’t want to get into a long discussion on political philosophy with them, because unfortunately, most people don’t get it. Logic is a dying, lost art form. Sadly, I’m guessing most of the people reading this blog post won’t understand, either.

The real truth of why I am not voting is that I am an “uninformed voter.”

I haven’t watched any of the presidential or vice-presidential “debates,” nor have I studied the candidates’ positions on the issues. If the remote control is near me, I’ll try to change the channel if an ad comes on. I don’t listen to the radio. I don’t talk to the student groups on campus vying for their respective candidates. I just don’t really care. And why should I?

I know, from the little bit I have seen, read, or heard, that none of the candidates believe in the same political philosophy as me. They all wish to use force and coercion to some extent or another. They all wish to engineer society for some purpose other than freedom. Yes, some may wish to use force to a greater extent than others. But a vote for one would still be an endorsement, and I value my principles too highly to sanction any form of evil.

To me, political campaigns are not sacred events, to be eagerly anticipated and avidly followed. They are brutal assaults on reason.

That’s from economist Arnold Kling over at the EconLog site. Check out the rest of his (short) post here.

I remember back in 2003, I witnessed a police officer commit some traffic violations. Nothing big — stuff we all do every day (eg. speeding, changing lanes without using a turn signal, etc.)

When I pulled this particular cop over (yes, I pulled a cop over), it didn’t turn out so well for me. He ended up turning the tables and writing me a ticket for over $1,400 in trumped up charges. Because it was a totally concocted falsehood, the charges all got dropped when it went to court. But the storm trooper who issued the citations was never brought to any sort of justice.

Anyone who knows me well knows I am not a fan of the police. I truly and deeply believe they are the unholy executors of laws biased against the poorer classes (ie. anyone who isn’t incredibly rich or anyone who isn’t politically connected). Note: I eventually want to develop that into an extensive research paper, possibly even a book. But for now I’ll just leave it as is: law enforcement is a plague.

So when I see or hear stories like the following, I can’t help but rejoice, and dream that some day it could be me in Eric Bryant’s shoes.

Read: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=753233&category=22101

Within a month of returning to America nearly two years ago, I bought a car… and a radar detector. I actually call it a “storm trooper detector” because it detects storm troopers. Yes, that’s a Star Wars reference. And yes, I call police storm troopers.

In the past 23 months, I have been pulled over three times:

1. For running a red light on the Las Vegas Strip ($150 or so ticket).
2. For changing lanes on the freeway without using a signal (no ticket, just a “warning”).
3. I’m about to explain.

Last night, while driving home from Ashley’s house, I got on US-95 at Tropicana going north. For those familiar with this location, you know that between the onramp for Tropicana and the upcoming offramp for Flamingo are the same lane, and there’s only about a half mile between them. When I got on the freeway last night, there were a couple of large trucks (you know… 18-wheelers) in the far right lane, essentially blocking my entrance to the freeway. My choices were to slow down dramatically and get behind them, or speed up and get in front of them. The best option seems obvious.

Though I sped up, I didn’t have much distance before I either had to get into the right lane or be forced back off the freeway at Flamingo. In fact… I almost didn’t make it. I ended up driving in the shoulder for about 100ft before getting in front of the trucks, and at this point, I was probably going 75-80mph (in a 65mph zone).

It was about this time that my storm trooper detector went berserk. I slammed on my brakes, but it was too late: sirens and blinding lights came on behind me, and I quickly made my way back to the shoulder, coming to a stop.

I got cited for going 70 in a 65 zone, and for “failure to obey traffic signals,” ie. waiting too long to get over, and driving in the shoulder.

I’m not sure how much the ticket will be worth… I’m guessing not a whole lot (relatively speaking), but still. I didn’t let it bother me too much last night as I drove the rest of the way home, but tonight on my way home form Ashley’s I noticed I was incredibly paranoid as I cruised down the freeway. I wasn’t driving any slower or less erratically (moving around between cars, trying to get home as fast as possible). In driving school many years ago I remember them saying you should pay attention to what’s going on at least twenty seconds in front of where you’re at. Now I was paying attention to the twenty seconds in front and the twenty seconds behind me. I normally check out the rear view mirrors frequently, but this was ridiculous. I was practically looking behind me more than I was looking ahead of me.

Any reasonable person can realize that can’t be safe.

So I’m going to blame the cops with making me a less safe driver.

But additionally, and more importantly, I’d like to rant about the absurdity of getting fines for breaking traffic laws.

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, when I hear people relate their traffic-ticket-woes, they, or someone else who was with them, will say “… but I guess I/they deserved it.” I’d like to try to correct this incorrect way of thinking.

The proper purpose of law is an oft debated topic, but I would submit that it is “…in order to…establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” These are the words of the Preamble to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Many have restated it even more simply: the purpose of law is to insure an individual’s rights of life, liberty, and property.

If I am speeding down the road, am I infringing upon anyone’s rights to life, liberty, or property?

• Liberty – This is the easiest to answer. My driving fast is in no way inhibiting someone else’s freedom.
• Property – Should my fast driving cause me to ram into someone else’s car, home, or any other property, I will be trespassing their right to property.
• Life – This is usually the one people will say I am harming. By driving fast, I am putting others at risk of bodily harm. However, just as with property, I am not actually harming them UNTIL the point of impact.

Imagine I am playing a home-run derby with my friends at a park which is located in a densely populated residential area. The point of our game is to slam baseballs as hard and far as we can. Near many homes, this game is inherently risky. Any one of the balls could go crashing into a car, home, or a passerby. Yet no one would say “they deserved it” if a storm trooper came by and gave them a ticket for hitting baseballs too hard. Besides, there aren’t any storm troopers that hang around parks giving out tickets… why? Well, I don’t really know, but my guess is that it has something to do with it not being very lucrative.

The real reason why we have traffic laws isn’t to protect people, but to have yet another form of taxation on the populace. And just as taxes are evil, so are traffic laws.

Both the Book of Mormon and the Bible provided ample evidence as to what can happen to a nation that allows “statolatry” [the worship of the state] to become the national religion. And as will be seen, the roots of this tendency can be traced directly back to the War in Heaven.

In the Old World, the Israelites also apostatized politically from their divinely revealed system of representative government, based on the immutable rule of law. As they demanded to have a king, Samuel the prophet tried to convince them otherwise. He warned that the king would conscript their sons into aggressive empire-expanding military campaigns (1 Samuel 8:11-12), and because of the lack of male workers, the women would be forced into the workplace as “confectionaries, cooks and bakers” (1 Samuel 8:13). Heavy taxation of property would follow in order to fund the ever-expanding Satanocracy [government founded on principles of Satan, eg. Force] (1 Samuel 8:14-15, 17), followed by state-mandated slavery (1 Samuel 8:16-17). Once all of that happened, Samuel prophesied that the people would cry out in that day for deliverance but, because of their king which they had chosen, the Lord would not hear them (1 Samuel 8:18).

King Mosiah … warned the Nephites what would happen to them if they continued to have kings for rulers. In trying to convince them to adopt a form of representative government, based on the rule of law, Mosiah spelled out all of the inherent risks and evils associated with having kings. Speaking to the Nephites, he said,

“Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage… and behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood. For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God; and he eneacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. And now behold I say unto you, it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you…

“And [King Mosiah] also unfolded unto them all the disadvantages they labored under, by having an unrighteous king to rule over them; Yea, all his iniquities and abominations, and all the wars, and contentions, and bloodshed, and the stealing, and the plundering, and the committing of whoredoms, and all manner of iniquities which cannot be enumerated – telling them that these things out not to be, that they were expressly repugnant to the commandments of God.” (Mosiah 29:16-18, 21-24, 35-36)

It is difficult to find a more apt description of statolatry than Mosiah’s comments that an unrighteous king “enacteth laws after the manner of his own wickedness [and] whosoever doth not his laws he causeth to be destroyed” (Mosiah 29:23). Seeking to replace God himself, an unrighteous king sets himself up as the standard, and destroys all that refuse to bow the knee in worshipping him.

The above was written by Christopher S. Bentley, in his book The Hidden Things of Darkness.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says “smacking someone in the face” is not cruel or unusual! Three cheers for torture!

Last week, in light of the recent publicity the CIA has received for waterboarding three terrorist suspects, Justice Scalia told the BBC that the Eighth Amendment is actually referring to punishment for a crime. Since many terrorists have not been charged or convicted of any crimes, the amendment clearly doesn’t apply to them. Furthermore, despite the wording of “cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted” being very black-and-white sounding, it apparently is not. Again, Justice Scalia provided some insight by posing the questions, “How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?”

I am so glad Justice Scalia offered this gray-area-view of the Constitution for me. I have been thinking a lot lately about “torture” and if it is morally permissible or not. Since we are at a significant risk of terrorist attacks (Code Yellow!), I am constantly worried that my home or car will be broken into by terrorists or other thugs. As such, I have tried to prepare myself by mentally running through hundreds of scenarios. And thanks to the guidance of a Supreme Court Justice, I now know the right thing to do if the situation presents itself.

For example, let’s pretend a burglar is trying to break into my home. After tackling him, wrestling him to the ground, and tying him up, I can safely assume he has other burglar friends who may at some point want to break into my house. At this point, I could call on the wisdom and guidance of Justice Scalia and take him into a dark room, put a bag over his head, and put his head into my sink while I force water all over his covered face. Or I can smack him, since that was specifically stated as being ok.

Either way, it is a morally righteous act. I am not doing it to punish him for breaking in, but merely to thwart the future attempts of other thieves.

God bless Supreme Court Justice’s Constitutional interpretations, and God bless the USA!

Note: This article/blog will also be appearing in the 2/25 edition of the UNLV Rebel Yell.

Many members of the Church easily recognize Satan’s role as a tempter of persons and as a figure who stands opposed to the plan of salvation. When we think of the war in heaven, we often, without giving it much thought, think it was simply a grand debate over whether we should follow God’s plan or whether we should follow Satan’s plan. While this is true, it is far too simplistic. We concentrate heavily on God’s plan, and we often fail to realize exactly what Satan’s plan was.

On the one hand, God’s plan was to send us to earth where we could learn and have experiences away from God’s direct influence. This would allow us to develop in ways not possible while still in his presence. If we lived righteously, we could return to Him and gain exaltation and eternal life.

God’s plan allowed for the use of free agency or choice. Whatever you call it, is the same thing: freedom.

On the other hand, Satan’s plan would force us all to act in whatever way Satan desired, also eventually to return to heaven.

God’s and Satan’s ideas were similar: they both desired for everyone to return to heaven after their probation on earth was finished. The major difference? God’s plan was to use freedom, while Satan’s was to use coercion. Satan’s plan, albeit philanthropic-sounding in its efforts to allow everyone to return to heaven, was so evil, due to its use of force, that Satan and his followers were cast out of heaven.

We are taught by our church leaders to liken scriptures and gospel principles to our lives. Satan’s false-philanthropy, as I like to call it, can be easily seen in today’s world, especially in the realm of law and politics.

For example, several of the people currently running to be the next president of the United States have plans to roll out a national form of health care service. These plans, like Satan’s, sound very nice: every person in the country would be covered for health-related expenses; every person would be taken care of. And the cost? We would all be taxed for it, involuntarily. We would be forced to participate, even if we didn’t want to pay for it. Allowing individuals choices within this system, eg., allowing them to pick their own doctors and providers, would still be the same kind of system, only with the facade of allowing for choice. Regardless, it would still be utilizing force.

As we approach the election season, and as we progress toward more and more socialistic proposals, let us keep these ideas in mind. No kind of paternalism, no matter how nice, pleasant, or otherwise philanthropic-sounding, is truly in accordance with the gospel of Jesus Christ, unless it is implemented voluntarily and people have total freedom as to whether they participate or not.

Any other system is operating under the same principle as what Satan proposed in the pre-existence.

[updated/edited for typos on 6 Apr 2009.]