Policy Page

---

The Saints are charged with the responsibility to care for the planet. Messianic Real campaigns for smaller governments and policy that permits the authors of equity to retain what they create. Messianic Real promotes messianocracy, defined as the rule of the logic or Logos of God. Messianic Real supports a populist agenda that permits everyone to retain what they create in the way of equity.

All human beings have a responsibility to the place he or she inhabits. We have a right to the things we create. We have the concomitant right to reject the imposition of social costs onto ourselves, our society and future generations. Our political jurisdictions represent and enable our rights and duties.

We have a right to the value we create but no right to the value created by someone else. We have the right to refuse to take up costs created by others and the concomitant obligation to extend this right to others. 

We have no right to externalize costs. We have no right to impose costs created by us, onto others. Those who create costs ought to pay the cost created by them. 

Each person has an obligation to pay the costs he or she created and the right not to pay costs created by others.

Messianic Policy is based on the mechanisms of the market. Messianocrats reject the public sector as a mechanism by which policy can or should be implemented. 

Social costs are absolutely rejected. Check with left-leaning parties. Ask them their policy regarding social costs.

Why does mankind have rights and where do they come from? What rights are irrefutably ours and which are illusions?

Our rights rest on our position as caretakers of earth. If we have no rights to the earth, we have no rights, because all rights must rest on the possession of assets and all possession must reside in a source of rights to that possession.

We have the rights required to fulfill our role as stewards of God’s Creation. Any right that depends on another agent or authority is a legal right that is better seen as a conditional benefit. Anyone with the authority to grant rights has the power to expunge these same rights.

Our power rests on the ownership and possession of the planet. The planet belongs to the people of God not governments, agents or experts. We, the people of God are not visitors or guests but persons with inalienable rights to the planet given to us by God and contained by the very power given us by God.

The Christian church is the owner and caretaker of the lands we inhabit. This can be empirically and scripturally verified. Science is on the side of Christians. We have the rights we can enforce by our own devices.

All persons have a right to what they create. This right cannot be refuted, abrogated, abridged or rescinded. There is no logical or legal way to eliminate the right of possession through creation. All impositions and limitations on personal property are an infringement of our human rights to what we create. All claims made by the state as to its right to administrate, legislate, regulate or allocate property infringes upon the rights of all. We the people have the right and duty to organize and administrate the property that falls under our jurisdiction. We own what we create.

Our personal property rights are a human right applicable to all persons in all places. Human rights are equally valid and applicable to all persons in all times and all places.

We are not guests nor pilgrims. We are owners of these places we call home. These are our lands. We built these places, we are accountable for the condition of these places, we are stewards of this land and the lords of our domain. We resent all intrusions and uninvited persons.

This is where we live, work, play and worship, raise our families and ensure our future. We will not be moved, quelled, intimidated or relocated or silenced.

Our property is ours. We are not parasites. We work to own what is ours. We live by right of possession as creators of what we have. We care for what is ours. We claim that on which we stand. We will not be moved.

No state has the power or authority to remove from us which is ours by right of possession. No state has the authority to take from us our right to what we produce. What we create we own by the power and authority of a God no state or other agency can over rule. We the people stand firm, as the church, the supreme authority over our lands given to us by God.

We the people stand firm on our human rights based on the authority given to us by God to lands given to us by God, according to the power of the authority of God as exercised in and through the church. Our rights to our place are inalienable, they cannot be revoked, rescinded or removed. No person or group of people has the power, nor legitimacy nor justification to remove from us our human rights to what we create. All claims but that of the creator are invalid. If you did not create it, you do not own it and you have no rights regarding it.

Parasites of all stripes and types beware; you came, you fed, you sucked the blood of Christians dry but we rise with faith and vengeance and we will cut you off. We are no longer your cattle or your sheep nor a passive source of sustenance to feed your social agendas.

The State is not concerned about the cost of their social policies in the sense they have an agenda to enact and so the end justifies the means. 

 There are repercussions to this way of thinking. When stakeholders are not consulted the social costs of policy are often not fully appreciated. 

An educated youth has more value than one who is not educated. Society suffers a loss when its young people fail to live up to their full potential. Without a proper education kids cannot contribute to society to the degree civilization requires.

All youth must be educated to the limit of their abilities simply because it adds value to our human capital. There may be an issue with where this money is to come from and how it is to be administered but the reality is the next generation must be educated to fit them for their future.

Young people have a right to be treated equally in terms of the equity they represent and to the value they create for society by acquiring new skills and understanding. To expect children to acquire an education without any recompense is to impose the cost of education on them, despite the value this represents to society. Society needs them to be educated so justice demands all students are paid for responding to this social need. It behooves society to pay students for acquiring an education since what they are doing adds value to the community. Society pays a wage to students consistent with the equity they create individually and collectively. An average payment is provided that is varied according to the performance of the individual student.

We work to ensure a two-tiered educational system does not victimize the poor. Value-based education ensures children from privileged homes do not acquire a better or higher education than those who come from less advantageous backgrounds when abilities are equal. Society is best served by ensuring those with the most talent receive the best education. Graduates of higher education will not need to command a premium because of the greater expense a degree represents. They will have been paid for this achievement and time expended. Dextarian ensures the most capable students will enter the field of study that best reflects their interest and ability scaled to the Demand for more practitioners in that field.

Each student earns credits for the felicity with which he or she acquires his or her education so each student will seek the education that best reflects his or her abilities and interests.

We believe this is a policy all local educational agencies ought to adopt to ensure all students have an equal and fair access to a quality education.

The purpose of an education is to teach the children useful knowledge not to further the social engineering objectives of globalism. Social engineering policies especially as applied to the most vulnerable is divisive.

Educational hours have to be treated as a valuable resource applied according to the value added. The objective is to equip the student to be a valuable member of society and to make him or her the best example of themselves they can be.

It is parents that must define the educational priorities of the educational system. The Education Exchange in each jurisdiction sets out the basic curricular for the school. The basic courses are to be taught with a focus on reading and writing and arithmetic. These are the core studies and must meet certain levels or displace other secondary studies. 

The subjects taught, the time allocated, and their priority level is specified. Items can be added as time become available once minimum levels of proficiency in higher level core subjects are met. School Boards are elected by the parents. All significant changes to the setting of the curricula has to be approved by parents during Board meetings of the Educational Exchange, that local stakeholder’s association that governs the educational system.

Teachers’ salaries and the salaries of Board Members are set by the Exchange at Board Meetings.

Exchanges self-fund. Exchanges 'spend' credits as needed. Exchanges are not given a budget in the usual understanding of the term. Each school spends what it must to fulfill its mandate. The school board oversees this spending and the members can make policy during meetings, but the day-to-day spending is in the hands of the base. Members of the Educational Exchange are the stockholders and can vote to adjust any failures by the administration during regular and special meetings of the Board.

To better understand how the educational system is financed please study how Exchanges operate. 

If you have comments or suggestions regarding this or other policies please make your views known through our contact page.

​If you have comments or suggestions regarding this or other policies please make your views known through our contact page.

​

As we shall find with other issues political policy on immigration is a contradictory narrative. On the one hand we are told the world is undergoing global warming. We are told our nations need to reduce their carbon footprint. Carbon taxes are imposed to reduce our energy use. The government argues we need to reduce population pressure on the environment. We need to stop building homes on farmland. We need to reduce populations. We need to reduce resource use. Yet, these same governments drum into us the need for immigration. Bringing more people into our countries requires us to add more schools, roads, hospitals, homes and everything else a growing population needs. 

Experts tell us the population is aging, dying, getting sick and leaving the work force. The need for immigrants cannot be overstressed goes the globalist narrative. We need more immigration, more people added to our work force and our cities and towns.

If the stress put on the environment is due to population growth, why is a declining population not a good thing? If a declining population cannot be entertained, then are we not going to have to reconcile this with the damage population growth brings to the environment? But the real question is if we need immigrants because of an aging population what do we do as the new population ages? Do we increase the population more and more to infinity or to the point when the carrying capacity of earth is finally exceeded? Regardless of one’s position on either issue the reality is at some point there will be too many people on the planet and one way or another the numbers will be reduced, so we have to decide when and how this is going to happen.

The need for immigration is a manufactured need, an artificial need created to support a broader social agenda. The world will not stop spinning the oceans will not dry up if immigration is rejected. Immigration is needed only by Globalists. Economics does not require higher rates of immigration to exist.

Globalism needs immigration to keep resident workforces weak. To keep labor compliant there has to be competition for jobs. At one time unemployment was kept at around 3% but at this rate labor had too much power and the standard of living tended to rise, so unemployment was shifted upwards to the 6 - 7% level using immigration. To keep the unemployment high and labor weak immigration has to be high. 

Conservatives have begun to buy into this thinking as the shift to the left continues. Despite some minor shifting along the political spectrum both Right and Left have come to agree that immigration is required. Both ends of the political spectrum for their own reasons want labor to be kept weak. We all need to realize neither the right nor the left truly want to see a declining population.

A total ban on all immigration must start when unemployment is above 3%.

In conflict zones an association of nations ought to establish safe zones. Woman and children will be accepted and sheltered in these zones. No men of military age will be permitted entry. Men of military age will be formed into battalions, trained and sent to fight for their lands.

We need to learn to do two things, develop the place where people are at, adjust development to work with the people available. Large scale transfers of people are destructive to well organized organizations and must cease. In short, if a proposal does not make business sense it ought not be pursued through other means.

Full employment is considered an impossible goal. Excess personal are not spare parts to be kept in storage until needed; the unemployed are living breathing people. The unemployed have as much value as anyone else 

In primitive cultures there is no unemployment. Everyone does something, everyone from the youngest to the oldest contributes value to the tribe. One of the difficulties of transitioning to a modern culture is what to do with all the young and old workers who need to be made redundant. Employers must be forced to hire able bodied men at a wage rate that will enable them to support their dependents. Globalists do not want and cannot tolerate full employment. An economy at full employment is a social system that has shifted power to the lower level. Full employment puts too much power in the hands of labor. This poses a serious dilemma for parties that support elites and globalism.

The unemployed exist outside of the market. The free market is composed of buyers and sellers. Those who do not work and earn an income have no money and so are neither buyer or seller. 

This is a huge error. People consume or die. Non-consumers are not buyers and so do not create economic activity. If a person is subsidized by the state, then this creates injustice for labor and does not increase over-all economic activity. Subsidies only spread a given level of economic activity over a wider base.

The Exchange business model is able to acheive full employment. To understand how this is possible see the section on Exchanges.

There is no logical excuse for debt it exists for only one reason; society has become corrupted by a monetary system that is geared to the globalist agenda. The level of debt is proportional to the lack of trust that exists. The monetary system reflects and exacerbates a confrontational economic system.

The trust in a community enables debt to be eliminated. The key is to eliminating debt and other social costs is increasing the level of trust. Debt loses is reason to exist when mistrust is eliminated.

The Exchange approach to debt elimination is based on the Bible. Exchanges are applications of Scriptural economics. If you do not understand how Exchanges work, you do not understand the bible. Please familiarize yourself with the basic structure of the Exchange model and their operation so as to understand the economics of Scripture. 

As goods and services are provided by the market fiat money will no longer be needed. If we no longer use fiat currencies the debt creation model will be abandoned, and society will move towards a cash-based economic model. 

When people have money to invest earnings can be used to purchase Preferred Shares issued by an Exchange. These cash investments are used by Exchanges to pay down member debt.

Bonds may be sold to pay off conventional debt. All fiat currency collected is deposited in a Trust account, as funds accumulate these monies can be used to pay down member debt. Exchanges acquire member debt in exchange for surplus deposits of fiat currency. 

The members cash account is increased by an amount equal to the value of the loan acquired, these debits are liquidated by the member by purchasing goods and services from other members. 

No interest is payable on member accounts. It is up to members to ensure any debit balances are liquidated. 

If you wish to participate in eliminating debt, please contact us about starting or implementing an Exchange.

Sexuality has three parts, the male, female and child. Messianic Real believes in science and the importance of science-based thinking. This includes when forming policy on topics relating to our sexuality.

Messianic Realism subscribes to a sexual dimorphism position because any other policy cannot be substantiated or advanced within rational dialogue.

Messianic social policy is based on science and scripture. We believe both are needed to give us a clear picture of the right course to pursue.

The male is the head of the family not just because this is scripturally mandated but because it fits into what can be supported from an objective perspective. Regardless of what allowances are made it is the male who is most able to work, earn a living and protect the family. Nor is he able to replace the female in her role. The male role is based on biology, the principle of Occam’s Razor, Parsimony and tradition.

In the simplest of terms, the male cannot bear children, nor is he naturally inclined to engage in the level of nurturing a female is inclined to. 

In the most extreme circumstance, the male is both more expendable and the deadliest member of society; that is the most able to eliminate any threat to the family and least missed if he fails this role. Thus, the format laid out in Scripture makes logical sense.

The child is demonstratable the product of a male and female and so this naturally becomes the preferred family structure for a child to remain in.

Policy on sexuality remains as close to nature and biology and rationality as is possible. Messianic Real supports the traditional family structure and the traditional roles of its members because to do other than this creates complications that cannot be easily justified, nor their costs ascertained accurately. 

Messianics blocks attempts to marginalize or minimalize the family and the role of its members.  Messianics supports such barriers and policy as needed to ensure the smooth and continued function of the nuclear family. To do otherwise is to lose a substantial part of the value that is contained in the basic family unit and thus we would lose the value that the standard family unit brings to society.

Policy on sexuality includes policy on sex education.

This is too diverse and emotionally loaded issue to be dealt with in anything but a summary fashion however a few points need to be made. 

Male sexuality is not just being questioned; it is under a concerted and often violent attack. The concept of maleness is being displaced by gender neutrality. There was never any question of identity fluidity for females. It was always more acceptable for a female to pose as a male or to even form a lesbian relationship than it ever was for males to cross over into what was seen as female territory. From Ritalin, to Bullyism, to manspaning, manspaining, discipline, and the injustice of female pregnancy the role and importance of men and even the validity of maleness is questioned and even disputed.

The media is almost universally averse to maleness. Males are ridiculed, and woman portrayed as the ones in control. Men, it is fair to say, are losing the right to be men.

Modern males are increasingly expected to be more female. As the line between right and left blurs so does the line between male and female merge but it is the male who moves to the effeminate side of the scale. The man who opposes homosexuality, effeminacy, cross dressing, gender fluidity is viewed as barbaric and a potential brutalizer of women. The woman who hates men and the male role is viewed as progressive and a feminist, as is the man who similarly adopts an anti-male position.

Interestingly the female who becomes butch is visibly a female who opposes maleness. The butch female is an aggressive female not really a masculinized female in the way a male who is feminized is a male who loses all sense of his masculinity.
 

The man who hunts, the boy who rough-houses, the male who exerts dominance in his relationships is the enemy of the left. He will be drugged, counselled, disciplined, mocked, abused and isolated. This is part of the problem male politicians face. Either they betray their own natures or become the targets of incessant attacks by the leftist media.

In every other situation society imposes a level of expectation on its citizen. Robbery was always illegal but those who choose to leave their wealth in the open were not treated as victims in the way someone was who was held up at gunpoint. The person who leaves his vehicle running in front of a store is apt to be viewed as an accomplice in the theft of the vehicle. But we are told woman can dress as they wish, act as they wish, put themselves in any situation they wish and are not to be held responsible or even a contributor to the offence.

A male and female of the same age and degree of inebriation are deemed to be in totally different categories of responsibility if the female deems her rights violated the next morning. There are no extenuating circumstances. Females cannot contribute to any criminal act performed by the male as the female is always considered absolutely and categorically the victim.

Men cannot excuse their actions by blaming someone else. They are always culpable. At the same time the law ought not to hold two persons to different standards or hold the same person to two different standards according to the circumstances. 

The lady in dress suit coming out of church is not to be seen as worthier of legal validation or assumption of innocence so liberals tell us, than the mostly naked, alcoholic teen who passes out in a hotel room surrounded by a dozen similarly drunk young males. Both are deemed equally deserving of protection, respect and assumptions of innocence. ​

Why do we have no expectation of culpability when it comes to woman? Why is the concern for violence against woman an issue but violence against men rarely considered? Is this a totally separate issue?

If we are equal why are woman given the preference when it comes to assigning victim status to them? ​

Can a millionaire walk down the street with a wad of money in his hands and be legally protected against theft to the same level a pensioner is?

The law must be blind to sex and culpability must be evenly distributed. If we become an accessory because we left our possessions in a place where they serve as an enticement, what of scantily dressed inebriated woman walking through dark allies or agreeing to enter men’s hotel rooms in the early hours of the morning? Is there no level of expectation to be put on females when it comes to morality? Are woman minors before the law, devoid of all culpability. In what other situation is the victim guaranteed innocence regardless of the circumstances surrounding the event other than minors? 

The male who threatens and abuses his spouse all but loses his legal protections by virtue of his actions. A sexual assault victim must be believed, we are told, which deprives men of their constitutional rights and due process. In no other situation is due process waived other than when a female reports a sexual assault. On the other hand, female assailants are treated differently than their male counterparts. The male victim of female abuse has a difficult time finding justice or even a sympathetic ear.

Violence against woman is viewed as a kind of separate and more deserving category of violence than other forms. The law must cease this excursion into divisive legal formulations. We need more social intervention at the local level. Behaviors need to be moderated before then lead to more serious things. The church was to serve as an advisory and counselling office; a place where unsavory behavior can be brought to the people’s attention before it erupts into legal charges. Society needs to learn how to intervene earlier and more compassionately than the justice system is able to do.

While the justice system can and ought to be operated by those in the justice system.     There is a need to intervene more often at the grassroots level. We need to be able to deal with problems earlier on and in an informal and less legalistic way, especially when a person’s sexual behavior is coming under scrutiny. 

If it takes a community to raise a child, then it takes a community to deal with the issues relating to sexuality. We need pro-active community response to the issues of sexuality. 

Homes are vital for prosperous communities and a stable community. The issue of homes must then be a central part of any economic development plan. 

The free market is Gods way to deliver what we need. It is human beings working together for their mutual benefit. Free markets deliver the best product with the least cost because free markets are grassroots, decentralized and based on the local community as the delivery vehicle. The best government is the smallest government because the smallest government is the government that interferes with the free market the least. 

It is possible for the private sector to build homes as needed so long as they are  not exposed to any risk of loss. So long as builders know they will receive payment for their work they will continue to work and build homes.

So long as the seller knows he or she will receive payment for any home sold the seller will sell their product to any buyer who needs a home.

So long as the buyer knows he or she will have job and the means to pay for a product or service the product or service will be purchased when needed. So the private sector can create homes for everyone if the market is fully privatized.

In 1950 a new house cost $8,450.00 and by 1959 was $12,400.00 in recent time the average price of a house is closer to 500,000 in most locations. 

In 1950 the average income per year was $3,210.00 and by 1959 was $5,010.00. In Ontario, Canada the minimum wage is to be put up to $15.00 through $12 is the minimum at present though less in other locations.

In 1950 a gallon of gas was 18 cents and by 1959 was 25 cents.

In 1950 the average cost of new car was $1,510.00 and by 1959 was $2,200.00. Post 2000 12,000 is about the minimum one could pay and 30, to 50,000 a more common price.

Minimum wage U.S.

Jan 25, 1950 = $0.75

Mar 1, 1956 = $1.00

Sep 3, 1961 = $1.15

Sep 3, 1963 = $1.25

If we keep this simple the cost of a new house in 50/60s was $10,000 and a low-end wage was $1.00 meaning a house was 10,000 times the lowest hourly wage. 

If we take the wage to be $15.00 and the average home to be $500,000 then the ratio increases to 1:33333 However if one could find a house for $150,000 then the 1:10000 ratio would hold good. This will not be a house in an urban area and it would not be much more than the same 1950's house in only a modest state of repair. If the numbers are hard to follow them imagine watching a $500,000 house decay down to a $150,000 one. That is what happened over 50 years to our spending power.

However, it is still true to say that howsoever difficult it was to purchase a house for cash in the 60's it is three times harder now. And we have not factored in the rate of taxation which due to increases and inflation has pushed even the minimum wage worker into a higher income bracket.

In one example a man was paying an effective rate of 2.1% in 1963 but his granddaughter paid 23% for the same wage adjusted for inflation. She lives in one room with no car but has a mobile phone whereas her grandfather owned a house with mortgage, a new car and supported a wife and five kids but had to walk to the corner to make a phone call.

According to 'Trade Unions And The Economy 1964 - 2000' take home pay suffered severely after 1964 when tax and social security contributions began to rise precipitously. In the first part of 1960 government retained just 10% of workers income. In 1970 this rose to 20% and by end of decade to 30%. But the real damage was done by inflation pushing workers into higher tax brackets which for a time required unions to push for even higher wages. Labor did manage to increase its share of the pie for a number of years. However, the golden years were few and short lived, by the 1980s a united front of business and government managed to push the balance of power back to capital.

We have a choice between the public and private development paths. 

The public path is what is referred to as socialism or in a more limited was as social spending. This path consists of the state imposing taxes on the private sector to obtain funds for its projects, in this case, assisted housing. Tax breaks can be provided to builders, to fund low deposit mortgages, low interest rate mortgages or special mortgage terms. These programs allow those with low incomes to achieve home ownership. This was the avenue explored in the years leading up to the collapse of the Savings and Loans facilities, Fanny and Freddie Mac along with a general collapse of the developed economies of the Western world in 2008.

The mixed path is usually referred to as a private sector solution by liberals because liberalism has no private sector to speak of. The private sector of liberalism consists of a business building homes and selling them, but with the supervision and oversight of the state. All economic activity under liberalism tends to be mediated by governments through its regulatory agencies. 

It would take great powers of discernment to determine who was at fault in the 2008 housing collapse, the public sector for making housing too affordable (virtually no one was excluded from the market) or the private sector for taking advantage of the situation (with such extraordinary zeal that there was no other end possible but economic collapse). The failures of the Great Depression and the 2008 financial collapse is liberal economics at its worse. If there had been a true private sector or free market these events would not have been possible.

The problem with the public and mixed sectors is that they are not mutually exclusive. Unravelling the causes and levels of responsibility in the 2008 collapse is impossible because under liberalism the private and public sectors are intertwined. The public sector denies it is a builder of homes, yet it constantly intervenes in the housing market. Home builders claim they are private sector operators yet remains dependent on the public sector. 

Builders need the state to control interest rates and provide economic development plans as well as offer incentives to buyers and builders both to increase sales. Capitalists claim communism fails because of its dictatorial and oppressive control features but if Communism could truly control the economy it would not have failed, neither would capitalism experience periodic collapse if capitalist markets were efficient and regulating supply and demand. The reality is that the state, regardless if it is of the communist or capitalist variety creates uncertainty and inefficiency.

When two people have competing claims to the same asset the decision-making process is complicated.

We ought not permit fuzzy ownership models. Messianic Real is a private market solution that creates clear titles of ownership.  

Messianic Real uses the free market to put the people in an ownership position as regards the resources in its jurisdiction. The housing stock in a community is wholly owned by the community through the agency of a Housing Exchange. Free markets put ownership in the hands of the people, there is no intervention or claims made by the state. Messianic Real is a private enterprise model of economic development that supports true private ownership.

Any reasonable person would ask if it is cheaper to have people idle, with no jobs and no accommodation or if there are better results when everyone is housed, and all persons have a job? Working gives everyone the income they need to pay their own way. Providing jobs for everyone ought to be an absolute priority for governments.  If it makes sense to ensure a reasonable amount of needs are provided, then why not meet those needs in the most productive and cost-efficient way. 

The Construction Exchange is a private sector program that puts people into homes. The Construction Exchange build homes and receives credits from the Housing Exchange. The Housing Exchange sells the homes to members. The buyer is debited and the seller credited. Using credit accounts homes can be purchased without risk or threats of loss. There is no interest payable on credits advanced or debits outstanding. Housing assets belong to the community. Any interest paid would be akin to the right hand paying the left.

Because this program is divorced from the globalist financial markets and are 100% self-funded, debt is eliminated, and housing can be made readily available to those who need housing.

Charity begins and to some degree ends, at home. The state nor its affiliates are a proper source of charity. AID is a perverse and dishonest activity no nation ought to permit.

The Hard Right promotes charitable giving but at the grassroots level. Those who produce the wealth are the only valid provider of charitable funds.

Charity must arise out of a desire to give from what one has produced. There is no charity or kindness if robbing Peter to benefit Paul. The charity of the state or business sector is likely to be more about manipulation than about a desire to manifest generosity. It is difficult to claim empathy while using another’s money. If charity is to mean anything there must be real costs attached for the giver. When charity is pursued through state agencies the costs are not real; not for the state. Too much of state sponsored charity is political in nature done in pursuit of a social agenda; as opposed to the needs of the recipient.

By the nature of an Exchange everyone gets paid, so charity becomes a way to incorporate the marginalized into the free market economy where they can be helped in a more substantial way. A way that permits them to also help others and themselves.

This is not a way to work around the state. Its not a way to circumvent or outsmart the state. This is a way to eliminate the physical and economic and political need to pay taxes.

We pay taxes because we need to. We volunteer and give to charities because we need to. This is not a legal requirement, but we feel a moral commitment. There is a legal requirement to pay taxes but most people feel a moral need to pay them, also. If we do not pay taxes there is a sense that things we need and use, that are funded by taxes, will not be available to us or we will not be contributing our fair share to something we need and use.

At the same time there is a lot of waste and the funding of things we do not agree with. But in most peoples minds the market cannot produce goods such as roads, schools, policing and so on. These kinds of social goods, even if the private sector can produce these things, ought not to be available only when the user can afford the fee. This is why we have universal education. Society rightfully believes education is too important to have it restricted on account of the users inability to pay. Are orphans to be denied access to education, health care and other social goods because their parents died?

Bottom line is we pay taxes because at this time in this system of things it is the only way we can be sure of getting some of the things we need and what we think ought to be readily available. In other words, don’t blame governments for stepping in where free markets have failed.

Could the public sector continue to exist if the markets were able to provide all the things government provide but did it cheaper?

But as we know capitalism cannot provide social goods in its present form. When capitalists offer goods and services, they are subject to risk. Capitalist invest capital to provide goods and services, but if no one buys what they produce or will not pay what needs to be paid to cover the delivery cost the capitalist loses his or her investment.

A capitalist will not produce a good or service if he cannot control the access. A farmer does not plant fruit trees in a park and expect to be able to sell the fruit afterwards. The trees and fruit become common property and people will just help themselves.

So the problem is one where the creator needs to be able to monitor usage so as to charge users for access. If the usage cannot be controlled using the market then the public sector must step in, provide the good or service and control access in a more direct way.

But this kind of direct control or lack of control is not ideal. We do need to ensure everyone has access to education but opening the doors to everyone may not actually give everyone equal access nor produce the level of service one wanted to provide. 

State agencies may monitor public access through small fees, biological factors such as age or sex or numbers or certain other criteria such as income, and many other forms of categorizing need and worthiness. But one factor is generally constant with government programs and that is they are geographically linked. Governments are linked to geography and so their programs are likewise restricted to persons within that area of authority.

The free market in contrast sells to anyone with the money, unless this is constrained by government legislation. For example, alcohol can only be sold at certain times to those of a certain age.

As a community we do not want anyone to buy anything they have money to buy nor do we want anyone to have access to everything they want at any time in any quantity. But we ought to then appreciate we do not think the purpose of society is to make someone rich by providing everything people want, for a price. No do we think society exists to pander to peoples needs without any expectation of a return. So these markets do not represent any purpose society wants to be associated with.

Neither the capitalist free market or the public market reflects the true nature of a market. A market is a place where producers meet to exchange specialized goods and services. Buyers and sellers are the key players in discussions about the free market, because in a free market all one needs is money to buy something and a seller willing to sell it. This certainly does not discourage theft or fraud. Nor, does the public sector do much to quell greed and fraud.

We need money as a way to allocate goods and services and we need geography to pay a role also. But these things need to be combined in a single market focused on society, that is the local community.

Conventional markets have never achieved a sophisticated understanding of what a market is. Yet, we know where technological sophistication is lacking there is no market. This is because there is no incentive for me to trade with you if we both produce the same things to the same level of expertise. Until technology advances to the point where specialization makes sense trade is not incentivized.

Therefore, it is erroneous to tie markets to profit or to social agendas. Market exists to complement and advance specialization. Buyer and seller are irrelevant, what is important are two persons with complementary specialities, until this exist markets do not exist.

Ethical Markets are markets geared to the needs of producers that is, complementary producers. As with direct markets they are location specific. This is to enable control over the market. Ethical Markets are also currency specific, or monetized. A medium of exchange is used but it is a unit of account based on the real value of the market. That is each unit is equal to xn/xn=1v. The value is equal to the total number of units divided by itself to give the value of one unit of the currency.

One could also say the total number of currency units divided into the total value of the Exchange in terms of the units of currency gives the value of one unit of currency.

This is more easily understood when the way the market is capitalized is understood.

An Exchange is begun as a kind of business with a small group of people who have complementary skills. By complementary we mean they supplement each other. A furniture market and an auto mechanic may have cause to do business, but they do not have complementary specializations. A butcher and a farmer with a pool of customers is closer to the ideal model. A group of housewives’ who form an Exchange to help systematize housekeeping chores and transportation and shopping is a better representation. But anything provided by the capitalist market or public sector and be provided by an Ethical Exchange plus anything else humans feel to produce.

The higher the level of consilience between members the more effective the market. The highest degree of complementary activity is seen on a production line. In establishing an Exchange, the goal is to reduce the inputs required to produce a given level of output.

The following is an illustration of how an Exchange might be set up. It is important to note that an attempt is to create the possibility for specialization. The members skills and interest complement one another. This offers the highest potentiality for specialization.

The Clothes Exchange

A group of persons have come together with the intention to provide an outlet for used clothing. The group formalizes itself as an Exchange (The Clothes Exchange). Its mission is to reduce costs of clothing for members. The Exchange is registered as a not for profit charitable institution with a mission to buy and sell member's clothes at reasonable cost. All profits go towards the charitable purpose of the organization. 

***

The Clothes Exchange (CE) is a charitable institution owned by members. Each member is entitled to one Common Share. This is an ownership share and entitles each member to vote at board meetings and to an equal share of profits. 

***

The Exchange issues charitable receipts for donations received. Exchanges are capitalized by donations from members. 

***

Jill provides 10 dresses with a value of $500.00. Jill is given a charitable receipt for $500.00. This charitable receipt can be used to lower the tax liabilities of Jill or to purchase Preferred Shares. Preferred Shares are claims on the equity of the CE. Jill provided 10 dresses. These become assets of the CE. The dresses have a value of $500.00 so the CE has acquired $500.00 worth of equity. This equity allows The Clothes Exchange (CE) to issue a charitable receipt equal to the value of the donation received. The charitable receipt represents the equity acquired by the Exchange. The charitable receipt may be exchanged for 500 preferred shares, each preferred share being valued at $1.00. Preferred Shares represent the equity of the Exchange not taken as a tax rebate.

***

Preferred Shares are issued in multiples of each other the same way conventional currency is. Preferred Shares are fully backed by the equity of the organization. 

***

Capitalizing a CE may be done through the sale of bonds and through the accumulation of goods and services in exchange for Preferred Shares and charitable receipts.

***

We shall for the purposes of this illustration assume a Clothes Exchange has been made fully operational, meaning;

***

· A place has been found and financed. 

· The business has been organized and registered. 

· Preferred Shares have been printed and issued.

· A Board of Directors has been voted in.

· A Chair has been appointed.

· A CEO has been appointed and he or she has appointed or hired staff.

· Stock has been acquired, displayed and priced.

***

All members have donated goods, helped set up the business, provided capital goods and equipment or done some work of some kind and so all members have acquired a number of preferred shares equal to the amount of value they provided. Preferred shares are issued as a local currency called prares. Prares are dollars without debt. Members may also purchase bonds and/or preferred shares. Preferred shares are referred to as prares when used as a currency. Jill with P500.00 can purchase P500.00 worth of clothes or bonds or some combination of both. 

***

Members who are employed by the organization are paid a living wage. This could be set P15.00 or whatever the Exchange decides. 

***

Members are hired to fill spots and paid using preferred shares. As much as possible all expenses are paid for in ecus. When bonds are sold and when profits made the money goes into a trust account. The profits from sales are used to expand the business. Trust account money is used to pay down member debt. The equity of the debt becomes an asset of the Exchange. The member has her debit account increased by the amount of the debt. This is paid off as the member creates credits.

***

As members join, and assets increase they can be used to set up additional Exchanges of different types. The intent of the mission is always to transfer power back to the lowest possible level that is create responsible government. As power is transferred to the base citizens acquire control over their political jurisdictions.

***

Now we understand the basic operation of a Republican Market we have to imagine an entire political jurisdiction restructured using the Exchange model. Each economic sector represents a type of Exchange. For example manufacturing is one sector and Transportation another. To keep the explanation simple if the Transportation sector decided a road needed to be built or resurfaced the Transportation sector would simply hire road workers to make or resurface the road. If a hospital was needed the Exchanges of that political jurisdiction would simply transfer the resources needed to build a hospital to the sectors that do the work.

***

This is highly simplified of course and given only to demonstrate taxes are not required. The state or municipal government does not do any work. They only find the financing to pay the people who do the work, but the people who want the road can do this themselves.

***

A community that wants a school builds the school out of resources available to the community. These resources are not created by governments, they exist regardless of whether governments exist or not. The community merely needs a way to transfer the resources. Exchanges make these transfers naturally. The way a single Exchange is capitalized is the same way any infrastructure project is capitalized. It simply takes more Exchanges to capitalize a more complex project.

***

The benefit to going this route is that governments do not need to convince taxpayers of the benefits. It is the grassroots who initiate such projects and send the instructions up the line to the higher-level administrators. The agreement provides the capital.

***

No government can build what the community does not have the resources for. All the money in the world cannot build a bridge if the skills and other resources are missing. If the skills and resources are present a bridge is built in much the way as old-fashioned barn raising built barns. The members of various Exchanges donate resources and labor and are paid for what they give using prares.

***

Every good and service that is needed and provided through the public sector can be provided by Exchanges. There is no need for taxes because there is no need for a public sector. The administrators of the Exchanges are well able to allocate resources in an efficient way using the market mechanisms of the Exchanges.

Adopting social policy that is based on market mechanisms is not just about reducing the role of governments. Common Market delivery of social goods make sense because it is the private sector that is the key to progress. 

Messianic Real allow its members to make the best use of what is available to them. Health care offered through Exchanges allows us to shift away from arguments about the standard of care we provide to a debate about the effectiveness with which our health care tools are wielded. But there is still more, Messianic health care policy is about making the community more productive and more effective not just less sick.

A sick person is a wasted person. Sickness is a social cost that must be vigorously eliminated and selected against. The community is not a healthy body if a third of the body is sick and dysfunctional. Unsafe and unhealthy environments create costs for everyone, not just the sick. Illness is in fact a sign society has failed to exercise its collective responsibility towards its members. Sick people do not contribute as much value as they would if they were healthy. Sickness is a removable social cost. Sickness benefits no one. 

Messianic health care takes a pre-emptive approach. The community benefits when it transitions from treating sick people to maintaining people in good health. Value-based Healthcare puts power into the hands of the patient. Value-based Health Care puts the focus on assisting people in ways, so they can avoid getting sick.

Messianic Real does not count success in the number of patients healed. Our idea of successful healthcare is the number of patients that do not need to be healed because they never got sick in the first place.

Healthcare is implemented using a preventative, team-based approach in which all stakeholders participate. We must all work together to implement policy that works to maintain all persons in optimal health, since we are all impacted in a negative way by the ill-health of members.

We see health care as an expense of the community for which we all pay to some degree. If the community spends $30 million on health then from the perspective of the community this is $30 million not going to schools, transportation or economic development. There is a strong initiative to reduce healthcare costs. If healthcare costs are reduced 30% the savings go to the community. There is no benefit to anyone to create or absorb unnecessary healthcare costs, so it benefits the community to reduce costs. Would anyone create excessive healthcare costs when any savings created could be, for example, applied to building a new sports stadium? 

The Healthcare Initiative

The left narrative is centered on social justice. The ideal liberal is the social justice warrior. The socialist game plan focuses on reforming other people’s behavior and attitudes. This agenda involves identifying a victim group in need or rescue from an enemy group. More and more the enemy group is identified as old white men, those who were more generally labeled as WASP.

There is a reason why Christ told us to deal with the beam in our own eye before trying to fix issues with other people. The only person we can successful change is ourselves. However, the left wants to transform the world by transforming the mental makeup of others. Men are in liberals’ cross hairs. Men are the defenders of the church, family and nation state. The ideology of the left is sterile so long as the male retains his central position in society. If all of societies victims are going to gain favored positions those in them need to vacate them.

So, the left seeks to remove old white males to make room for all of the alleged victims. 

Pushing males out of their conventional seat of power means taking them out of jobs and management positions. Immigration weakens labor. By keeping labor weak the power of the male worker to fight change is also limited. By bringing in persons without strong conservative values the role of the man is further compromised. When a culture devalues men they no longer serve as the protectors of family and culture.

Return To Top Of Page

AID is various forms of capital externalized usually in support of a social agenda. Often AID is provided in the form of loans or credit to enable the foreign entity to buy domestic goods. Sometimes the AID is sent as feet on the ground assistance or armed intervention. Funds may be sent to foreign states and NGO headquartered in foreign lands. Usually this is done in response to some foreign policy initiative meant to support the domestic economy. The one thing AID seems never to be is charity. It is money spent to achieve a purpose. This is not a Christian perspective. It will not serve to build the Christian church.

Charity starts at home. No level of government has the authority to provide external AID to no foreign entity or agent of any kind, for any reason, including loans, credit, or charity. All foreign assistance has to be provided privately through the church for Christian ends, that is to build the church. No institution providing funds for overseas AID is permitted to receive any assistance from any level of Government.

​Governments who operate with a deficit are not in a position to supplement the costs of other nations. Responsible governments do not offer AID if it will create a deficit position in its own country. All AID is to come from private donors and surplus capital which may be organized and coordinated by the federal government.

Governments that take an active position as regards the giving or getting of charity to overseas entities exceed the authority and legitimacy of government. Government exists to serves the people who elect it. This service is direct and measurable. Speculative activities done because a tenuous connection is seen between it and the public good exceed the duties and authority of government.

Government must not presume to act on the behalf of the people in cases where the people’s position is not validated by the people’s own actions.

​The church is sufficient for all nation’s charitable needs. Government mandated, and orchestrated AID must be scaled back and put in the hands of the church or eliminated. Foreign AID does not belong in the hands of agenda-driven statists.