So, I wonder what I would be considered politically. I know my ideas are pretty much libertarian, but I still want to call myself a liberal. I just can't stomach the bullshit ideas attached to that label currently. Am I a "classic" liberal or a libertarian?
I am pro life, but I support pro-choice politically. We all know how prohibition works, or doesn’t.
I support the Second Amendment, almost completely. I'm a “Just short of nukes” Guy.
I believe all drugs should be legal, no need for a prescription. But, I believe they should be regulated for safety, at least as much as we do other prescription drugs.
I support a strong military, but not 100 bases around the world. I also support preemptive strikes on possible threats when the intelligence is reliable. However, I am not sure how we oversee the process.
I believe gay people should have the same rights as anyone. Some churches are willing to marry gay couples, and some are not. Those that don't, should not be forced. If the government recognizes the marriage from the one church, then they should recognize the marriage from the other church. But, they should really just get out of it completely.
I believe trans is a real thing. You can find plenty of intersex occurrences. Different mixes of genitals in varying working capacities. Since we can see those, we believe. You can't just look, and see if someone has a woman's, or man's brain. But, based on the physical difference displayed by some, I can infer there could be those same differences inside of a otherwise ordinary physical appearance.
I think we need drastic immigration reform. This issue is to broad to delve into here. I'll just say, put up a wall, or don't. I don't think it'll make much difference in the things the media pushes as "the issues." The issues are created by our policy.
I don’t think inequality is the problem others make it out to be. I believe that equality of opportunity exists (in the US), as long as you can see it through your preconceptions of how the world works. I find most people limited by how they think things are going to work, as opposed to the input they’re actually getting from the round the world. I find most people limited by how they think things are going to work, Letting those preconceptions tint the decisions they make. I’m not saying people have not been faced with real discrimination, just that I don’t believe it’s as prevalent across-the-board as I’ve been led to believe.
When it comes to the budget and our financial state, I find it disheartening that people don’t understand how dire the situation could (or has) become. I feel like this is one of the main things that could destroy our country, and we keep running along party lines despite both of these parties hard charging into our pockets, raiding our Social Security fund, and interfering with Other countries in our name.
When it comes to healthcare, I can’t find a universal solution that doesn’t look like shit in practice. Several of the countries that have these systems have plenty of problems. The reality however, is that half the country wants it, and half the country doesn’t. I would love to see more talk of something down the middle, like Medicaid for all. Not exactly what the left wants, and not exactly what the right wants, but a decent compromise. The one thing I don’t like about it, is having it done on a federal level. I try to defer to the constitution when I don’t really know what should be done, and there’s nothing in the constitution about it. If it’s not a power of the federal government as defined in the Constitution, then is a state issue. So the Voters of a specific state would need to vote it in, in my opinion. Then states could band together if they wish, to form a national system. Just an idea.
And now, The environment. Most of us are not scientists, therefore our opinions are uneducated. Most of the scientific community believes that we are at least having an effect on the environment. I would tend to side with them, not the entire scientific community, but with those who's fields coincide with the effects we have on the environment directly. We know the earth goes through weather patterns much longer than our existence as a species. As does the sun, and sun weather can affect earth weather. But, beyond that the agreements kind of dissolved. There are camps that say we are destroying our planet, camps that say we are doing nothing wrong, and then the camp that I’m in who says we must be having an effect, but we need to study more to figure out what that effect is.
2
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I'm not sure you get to call yourself "pro-life", but support pro-choice politically because prohibition doesn't work.
Look at it this way. What if I said I'm against murder personally, but there's no way laws against murder can stop it happening. Sure, murders happen even though it's against the law. I'm pretty sure if it was legal, we'd have a smaller population.
The point behind murder laws and ending abortion by making it illegal is to save lives. Will some people disobey the law? Yes. When caught and convicted, murderers and those who are convicted of being party to an abortion ought to suffer the appropriate sentence for breaking those laws.
Mike9465
Level 6
Mar 14, 2019
0
It's a complicated issue for me. I personally feel that if you support the death penalty,you should support abortion. Ending a life is ending a life. Give me any number of reasons why it's different, I still don't care. I find it hypocritical.
Another issue is, what kind of support do you propose for these unwanted children? Some portion will be abandoned, some will be abused and taken away from the parents. You can't just say fuck 'em. Kids wallow in group homes till they age out of the system. Then they're dumped out on their own at 18, with little real parenting ever having occurred. That's damn near the recipe for a criminal. We have to have a plan to help them, if you intend to birth every single child that's conceived.
-
Government is charged with the duty of punishing crime. A mother afraid of being inconvenienced as a result of her own choices killing her child is a murderer. As is the butcher who kills the child.
-
What kind of support? I'm raising two sons adopted as infants. You? You're okay with kids like them being murdered.
-
Problems in foster care solved by liquidating the children is an awful like the "final solution".
The problem with your premise is that you fundamentally deny the humanity of the child.
@Mike9465 I notice you didn't adopt a 9yo and get them out of a bad situation. I'm not criticizing you, I'm making the point that no one does. A majority of these children will be born into untenable situations, and we're going to have to help, whether we like it or not. I'm amenable to it being illegal, but you can't just set it, and forget it. There will be societal repercussions.
@DomGuerilla when we adopted we were asked what we "preferred". Age, race, sex, disability status, and even sibling group.
Our answer was, "we'll take what the Lord brings us."
That was 15 years ago.
Here they are standing in a family wedding a couple months ago.
Also, solving the problem of surplus people by killing them is not right.
He can himself anything he damn well pleases ... His position is not inconsistent ... He simply doesn't feel it's right for him to impose his morals on others ...
Besides , the pro-life movement isn't pro-life , it's pro-birth ...
The other definition, if it helps, is Constitutional Conservative. The Classical Liberal/Libertarian political world view is tied to the U.S. Constitution as ratified, with limited, small government, that focuses on building and maintaining infrastructure, protecting individual liberty and property, providing civil courts to arbitrate differences between private individuals or groups, and nothing else.
Harpoon
Level 6
Mar 14, 2019
2
Interesting. I'd heard of that before, but I had associated it with the tea party. At that time I was Gung ho libertarian, and felt like they were trying to steal our shine. It was probably born from my inherent hatred for the main parties. But, it does also fit.
@DomGuerilla TEA party wasn’t all that bad. They just got a bad rap from the MSM, and was hijacked by corporate Republicans. Basically, they desired small government that kept within its means.
Sounds mostly Libertarian to me, which is all good.
SpikeTalon
Level 10
Mar 14, 2019
1
Good thing he has your permission
Dont confine yourself to an idealogy. Thats how masters control slaves.
Values are values.
Adopt those that are for life and liberty.
Condemn those which are of death and destruction.
Free thinkers are the pivot. Conduct in discretion.
HectorAMesa
Level 3
Mar 14, 2019
1
A lot to digest! Most of what you espouse has its leaning in Libertarianism or Classic Liberalism (A distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned).That said, some of what you said seems to have a footing in a more left leaning ideology ( Medicaid for all, for instance). Maybe a better question is; Do I think it is necessary to ascribe to any one ideology? All these questions are complex and I believe there is enough grey area that warrants the mobility of leaning in one direction for a lot of things and leaning in another direction for some.
Think
Level 6
Mar 14, 2019
0
In a way, it's a conversation starter. I don't need to pick one. The Medicare thing is a compromise. I don't like universal Healthcare, I can't find a place where I'd rather live that has it. This is another instance where I think government intrusion has caused most of the issues. Why can't companies offer insurance over state lines? Why does every policy have to include products you might not want? Whatever my beliefs, there are a lot of people who don't agree, so a compromise is needed. That is just one I've heard that had some appeal.
I would recommend that you avoid libertarianism as an ideology, because it is founded on a basic misunderstanding of power relations and politics.
It assumes that by limiting the powers of government, one is able to create a free society. This is not the case, because political power is relative. In other words, by limiting the power of government you are simply creating space for something else to take up.
Libertarians do understand this process to an extent, in the common observation that “government constantly expands”. They have it backwards though (governments are more likely to privatise existing services than nationalise new industries) but they see the connection.
Their mistake is believing that by taking this power out of government hands, it won’t be taken by something else. But thr space left will be filled by organisations that will not be accountable to anyone, will use their leverage to demand even more control. This is essentially what lobbying, or “crony capitalism” is.
The more one becomes familiar with the problems of Libertarianism, one eventually reaches a fork in the road. One path leads to watering the ideology down until you are a status quo cheerleader or basic fiscal conservative who likes weed, the other path leads to finding excuses to justify the inadequacies of ideology (racial conflicts, genetics, other ideologies) and becoming a modern day fascist.
InternetDorkWeb
Level 6
Mar 14, 2019
1
You make some valid points. However, isn't a basic tenet of Libertarianism to place more responsibility on states without the constant interference of federal government? I realize that they are tied at the hip due to federal funding but that was never the original intent. Is the horse already out of the barn on this one?
@Think While Libertarianism is by far most influential in the United States, the ideology isn’t restricted to the US.
I’m not an American, so the relationship between the states and the federal government is not something that really concerns me.
Though I wouldn’t be surprised if Republican support for “states rights” was about having more control over that federal funding. If it were federal, it would probably be concentrated on the coasts (where most of the people and economic activity is), ie democrat states.
I’d like to add that believing in more local government is a strange approach for someone who wants to reduce the size of the government overall, because it would require considerable levels of redundancy and additional costs, even if you also cut services...
I think this is the problem with American politics... you guys are always looking through the system itself, rather than the ideas...
I can't get away from libertarian ideals, because they reflect what I believe, for the most part. Crony capitalism is what we have now. Companies / industries lobby candidates to pass legislation in their favor.
@InternetDorkWeb I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "looking through the system, rather than ideas". Also, are you talking about politicians or the American people? I'm truly not trying to be confrontational but I feel as though I detected a condescending air to your statement. Of course I could be mistaken because as I stated, I didn't understand your statement and would be interested in some clarity.
@Think Often times when I have discussed politics with Americans, they try to make arguments based on the constitution, statements made by the founding fathers, and they will go into detail about the various branches of government.
Now I know that Americans value these things, that they consider them to be important and I understand that everyone, regardless of nationality, is going to be informed by their surroundings and experience.
But I’m sure you can also see why someone from outside the USA might not be very familiar with the US constitution, or wouldn’t consider it to be the foundation to politics.
Of course there are many who are gracious enough to make arguments in general terms, but you do sometimes encounter people who use “the constitution” as an argument and there really isn’t any opportunity to respond to that for us Europeans. It’s rather alienating.
And I certainly don’t mean to be condescending, sorry if that’s the impression I gave. We Europeans often give America a hard time, and to be truthful, there is a lot about the United States that warrants criticism. But, one thing that often goes unsaid and that many Americans maybe don’t realise... I think because you are more open about this stuff than we are..is that deep down, we actually love you guys.
There’s so much warmth and optimism from you all, it’s intoxicating.
@InternetDorkWeb I'm also confused. The system is the fruit of the idea. Do you mean we look to hard at the system, and not enough at the outcome?
@InternetDorkWeb I can absolutely understand how someone from outside the US would not have clear understanding of our Constitution. A lot of Americans don't for that matter. Honestly, I still forget sometimes, that I might be speaking to someone from far away lands. ?. You've made some good points and have given me things to think about. Also, thank you for your kind words!
@DomGuerilla The system is the fruit of the idea, but we don’t share the system.
Look at freedom of speech, for example. Sure it’s enshrined in the US constitution, but that means next to nothing to me, a British Citizen. Just as our own acts of parliament probably mean nothing to you as an American. But whether you are an American or a Brit, you can appreciate that people should be able to express themselves freely insofar as that doesn’t endanger others... right?
This is not only a lot more accessible than arguments based around the constitution, since arguments based around the constitution are essentially cultural; it’s also more persuasive because it’s not an appeal to authority.
I hope that clarifies things.
@InternetDorkWeb You're right. It didn't sink in at first.
You are in a very small group. The very smallest possible. You are a minority of one. As a minority of one, you are joined by absolutely everyone else here. Welcome!
RobBlair
Level 8
Mar 14, 2019
2
Ha. Army of one. I've heard that somewhere before. Seriously though, I call myself a centrist. But, only because I always find myself mediating between people in political conversations. I'm not sure if centrist is right, I'm just caught in the middle.
I do like what I've seen here so far, I really hope this level of decorum, and open mindedness can be upheld on a social media platform. Previous experience be damned.
@DomGuerilla Decorum? It says you're from Philly ...
@RobBlair Do I really have to say "you can't believe everything you see on the news" here?
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.