I'm still traveling for business. Today I was going to attend an OPC church, but it looks like they got shut down. Instead, I attended a Methodist church -- I really like Methodists, and I'm led to believe that they are a saved denomination (so they must be Trinitarian, Sola Fide, etc), but I know little about their deeper theological ideas. All I know about them is that they emphasize the method: charity, outreach, etc.. And that is a good thing.

I took the "political compass" quiz today for fun. I thought that some of the questions pertained to particular aspects of a subject without acknowledging other important aspects of the same subject, betraying the author's assumptions about political stereotypes. When I read some of the questions, I thought "I don't agree with you, but I don't agree with the alternative that I'm sure you're expecting me to believe if I say 'I disagree'". However, I guess it wasn't too wrong in the end, placing me at near-center right-libertarian. Here's the results page.

I take some issue with the axes on this compass. I don't think they are an adequate means of defining political ideas....

...and actually, the more I've been thinking about these things, the more I think that the distinction between political ideas and moral convictions is artificial. I'm tempted to wonder if there is any decision at all which can be absolutely separated from moral consideration, but given that I believe that morality is a clear and absolute standard, the implications of that would mean that there is literally only one perfect way of thinking, feeling, and being..... and.... well..... ..... isn't that the case? Wasn't Jesus the standard of perfection in every way? (I'm talking about ways of thinking and making decisions. Physical distinctions are involuntary and are not a part of this consideration at all).

Now, it's important for me to note that it is possible for me to hold the view that there is only one absolutely perfect and correct way to be, think, act, believe, and prefer, without it being necessary that I know all the details about what defines that absolutely perfect and correct way. And, that said, I don't completely understand the correct way. I know a few things about it, like that it's wrong to murder and stuff, but I'm not about to tell everyone that they need to be just like me by any means (although I do intend to tell everyone that they need to be just like Jesus).

Anyway, back onto the political thing. I have very specific social, economic, national and penal ideas which are rejected by people on all parts of the left-right spectrum. I also have very specific ideas about authority structures which are rejected by both the left and the right. I want a third axis.

Uhm... some examples. Just a few quick ones.... don't try to use these to draw broader conclusions outside the meanings of the words themselves, alone and directly. Obviously these might leave some questions on your mind, so know that my ideal system isn't entirely represented by the following few paragraphs.

Social ideas: I think that the government has no business telling a small business owner "you have to serve everyone who comes to buy something from you.". That means that a business owner should be able to refuse business to young, old, white, black, gay, straight, or annoying people at his own discretion, with or without needing to provide the reason. (I think it's morally wrong for a person to refuse business to some customer because of race, etc, but I think it should be the person's prerogative).

Economics: I think that it should be illegal for Americans to give loans to other Americans with interest; that if a person cannot pay off his loans on time then it should be treated as theft; that once every 7 years all debts should be forgiven and that business should be conducted with that in mind. I also think that there should be zero government handouts, and that taxes should be 100% voluntary. If you want someone to help you pay for some kind of government project, you should convince them that it's worth their money, and if they don't pay then don't include them in it.

Nationalism: I think that we shouldn't have any kind of border control at all. I think that citizenship should be defined by participation in the community, and that said participation should be clearly defined by things like public gatherings, community projects, holidays and communal celebrations on the local level. I think that local communities should vote for their local government, and their local government should tally their votes for national affairs, but that the primary focus should be localized.

Penal sanctions: I think that jail is an unjust, non-beneficial, and utterly ridiculous penalty for any crime, especially since bail means that all sentences are reducible to fines if you are wealthy enough. I think that the major and common penalties should be basically be the following three items, with a few exceptions: fines (with indentured service if you can't pay off the fine; which service ends when the debt is paid or on the 7th year, whichever comes first); whipping (with a literal whip, not more than 40 lashes for any one sentencing ever); and the death penalty (for kidnapping or stealing a person, rape, and murder). Furthermore, I think that penal sanctions should be executed by the civilian community under the direction of the local officials, and not by an organized policing agency (how this works out is a little complex, so maybe another blog for it).

Authority structures: I think we should have a more numerically careful distribution of judicial authorities (judges and districts). Also, I think that a clean set of laws should be established and then left alone, completely removing the legislative branch, so that the written law is understandable by the common man, and so that the written law is king; I think that the Bible is capable of functioning as said law book. I think that, while precedents can be considered in a court case, they are not laws, and so they are not binding on the judge or jury (except any examples given in the law book itself to help explain the intentions of its authors). To this end, every elementary school student should be taught to read and should be expected to read the law book at least once per year -- it should be small enough that they are able to do it more often than that if they want.

So, I don't think I'm really a libertarian, but I agree with them most of the time when we're talking about the role of the federal government, especially as it pertains to things which need to immediately change in the American federal government. The place where I disagree with libertarians is when we talk about the role of the local government, and the nature of a nation state, and the way that local and national governments should interact with one another.

"I forgive you."