The Philosophy of Freedom-Property

Do we all know about the value of property? In the Declaration of Independence, the founders listed 3 unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But they almost listed them as life, liberty and property. Property was scratched at the last minute and pursuit of happiness put in its place. The right to own, use and dispose of property, (or the fruits of one's labor), was well known to the founders, and indeed to freedom thinkers since ancient times. The General Authorities of the Church also knew it. (D&C 134:2).

The founders thought that everyone was entitled to keep the fruits of their labor (property) and no one, not even the government, had the right to take it from someone unless they had violated law. But that brought up a conundrum.
How could they fund a government that would enforce property and contract rights, unless they took property (through forceful taxation) from the citizens, even though the citizens had violated no laws? They thought and thought about that.

Their solution was the use of excise and import taxes. What are they? They are called use taxes. That is, in order to use the facilities of government, one must pay for them, but no one is forced to do so. For instance, if one wanted to drive on the local roads, they could pay a gasoline (excise or use) tax but no one is forced to do so. They could walk or stay home. Most people see the logic of paying for the things we use, so most do not object to such taxes. The same applies to import taxes.
The founders thought that if other nations wanted to sell products in America, they could do so, but they would be taking advantage of an American justice system, roads and other facilities that would help and protect foreigners as they sold products in America. However, they didn't pay any American taxes in order to do so. So, the founders imposed import taxes to make the importers pay for the use of American logistical support when they sold their products here. But remember, this is a use tax because no foreign manufacturers were forced to sell products in America. And they always kept the import taxes uniform, in accordance with the Constitution.

Thus, the founders could fund a small but efficient government sufficiently through these use taxes without taking property through forceful taxation. What a beautiful concept! Today note how far we have drifted from that concept. Below is a quotation on the subject:

"Government is instituted to protect property...This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own...that is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has...is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."  --James Madison

The Brethren were of a similar opinion.

I remember coming home from my mission and attending Mesa Community College. I had a liberal history professor that put up the following words on the blackboard one day. They read: Human Rights vs. Property Rights. He explained that the rich have so much property they don't deserve that it behooves us to pass laws that take property from the rich and distribute it to the poor because human rights are more important that property rights. The old Robin Hood theory. But the truth, if it were displayed on that blackboard, would have said: Property Rights ARE Human Rights. The right of humans to use and dispose of property. One cannot dissociate one human right from the rest or play one off against the others without putting all human rights in jeopardy. Human rights are a complete package.

Today, we are bombarded with numerous taxes. More than half our income goes to federal, state and local taxes of one kind or another. We have become economic slaves. So why do we continue to elect politicians that violate their oath of office to defend the Constitution by supporting more taxes, or at least by not passing tax eliminating laws? Rather, they keep them in place and come up with new taxes. We as a people will pay for this violation of our God inspired Constitution.

Some say that the United Order and the Law of Consecration are just communism in disguise. That is patently false. the United Order is based on the concept of private property. Here are some quotes that prove this:

"The United Order is not a communal system; it is not one  under which all things are held in common..."  -- Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 813

"In the first place I repeat again, the United Order recognized and was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own. -- J. Reuben Clark Jr., Conference, October 1942

Some scriptures imply that early saints held everything in common, but that is refuted clearly by W. Cleon Skousen in The Naked Communist 343-346. The quotation is too long to go into here, but get the book and discover it for yourself. He said that the Untied Order is merely free enterprise capitalism with a heart.

Ron Paul the Latter Day Thomas Jefferson

Like Jefferson, Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. His stands on the issues, his votes in the House of Representatives, and his private conduct all testify to that fact. All of the below attributes of the man cannot be duplicated by any other politician. This makes Paul uniquely qualified as the sole candidate worth considering in the present presidential contest. Quite simply, his political accomplishments are stunning and haven't bee duplicated by any politician for the last 80 years. Here they are:

1. Paul has never voted for a tax increase.
2. He has never voted to increase spending or to increase taxes.
3. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
4. He never voted for TARP, stimulus packages, bailouts or quantitative easing.
5. He has never taken a political junket.
6. He has never voted for any unconstitutional bills.
8. He will not sign up for the lucrative congressional retirement program.
9. He returns a portion of his congressional budget each year so as not to be a burden to the taxpayer.
10. He is the only congressman or woman who is never visited by lobbyists.
11. As a doctor, he never participated in the medicaid or medicare programs.
12. He never makes "deals" with other congressmen or with the Republican leadership.
13. His voting philosophy is simple: If it's constitutional, he votes yea, if unconstitutional, nay.
14. For that reason, he has a unique nickname in congress. They call him "Doctor No."
15. He has never flip-flopped on any issue. His views are exactly the same as they were 30 years ago.
16. He voted no on the PATRIOT Act, the prescription drug extension of Medicare, and Obamacare.

Professional historians in the future will praise his sterling record of honoring the Constitution. Quite frankly, as already stated, no other politician living or dead can equal this unblemished record. He will go down in history as the Thomas Jefferson of the ages. Therefore, it is easy to see that no other politician should be considered by anyone for the position of President of the United States.

Finally, consider this: as a man, he has consistently shown Christ-like love for his fellow man. He has rendered medical advice and treatment to many indigent people over the years at great sacrifice to himself. Here is a video showing the great compassion of Dr. Ron Paul.

Judge Napolitano Exposes the Fed

This is a great video of Judge Andrew Napolitano, who exposes the Federal Reserve System for what it really is. In short, the Fed is a private banking cartel that inflates our currency and profits off it through the inflation tax and the interest they derive by creating money out of thin air, lending it to our government, and being paid interest out of their counterfeiting endeavor.

America's Foreign Policy a la Ron Paul

When one investigates into the matter of modern terrorism, a different story emerges than what we're told. The news media says that terrorists are motivated by envy, a natural hatred for Jews and Americans, or because we're free. I think Terrorists do not exist because because of a natural hatred for Jews or us. They were cultivated by the insiders, (conspirators), or to be more exact, terrorists exist because they were created, bought and paid for by the elite. America and Russia, working as puppets of the elite, created most of the terrorists we see today. China is also in on that picture.

So what would happen if we stopped messing around in the Middle East and brought our troops home? The terrorists might or might not continue attacking us, but if they did, it would be because they would be ordered to by the elite, not because they hate the Jews and hate us. Why did we have the attack on 9/11 and had no attacks since then? Is our internal security so great that they can't make another attack? Israel, who has the best internal security in the world, has to live with terrorist attacks on an almost daily basis, yet the U.S. hasn't had any more attacks since 9/11 despite the fact that our southern borders are wide open.

Perhaps the answer to that conundrum is that the terrorists follow orders and they were told to do one attack, then back off. There is authentication for that observation. I read the secret report of a man named Vreeland, who was employed by the CIA, who testified that the terrorists were ordered to make an attack on 9/11 then stop, so that the elite could pass laws restricting our freedoms, such as the patriot act. That's what they wanted to do at this time. 

So now let's get back to the present day. We have to know the truth so as not to be led around by the nose by the elite. What do we do about terrorists, if they are being led by our elite? Right now, there's nothing we can do about it until we return constitutional government back to the people. So if we stop mucking around in other countries, that may or may not result in  more attacks, but we have to understand where the real motivation for the attacks come from and it isn't because we're free or because of envy, or hatred for Jews or Americans, but they do what they do because they are ordered to do so.

I remember when I was a missionary for the LDS Church in Brazil, there was a lot of anti-American sentiment there also, and it was motivated by the fact that our multi-national corporations were trying to take Brazil's natural resources. In other words, they hated us because we were in their country trying to take it over. It's the same for the Middle East. They hate us because we're over there.

But the real question is: What therefore should our foreign policy be? Should we be engaged in nation building, being the policeman of the world, or should we have a humble foreign policy and follow the advice of the Brethren and our founders, and not go looking for monsters to slay in the world? Being the policeman of the world is the desire and orders from the elite to our government, therefore, the right response for us is to resist the idea that we should try to tame the terrorists by going out and destroying them in their lands, but to defend our own territory. See 3 Nephi 3:20-21, Mormon 3:9-16: 4:1-2.

In other words, Ron Paul is absolutely right. We should not be engaged in nation building, it is the worst foreign policy we can do. It is just morally wrong. Wesley Clark, a former four star general, said, "The biggest crime of the 20th Century is American foreign policy."

The truth about our military presence around the world is clearly shown in the following video.