What is your political philosophy?

[PLC1]

Here's mine. It has evolved some in the past few years, but is basically the same:

For future reference, my political philosophy is outlined here:

A fully formed philosophy must include four dimensions, just like the space/time universe described by Einstein. The usual one dimensional, left to right, or conservative to liberal model with the individual placing him/herself usually somewhere near the center is simply too simplistic to describe a political philosophy.

The right to left, or let’s call it the X axis of my model, goes from limited government to big government. I think it is safe to say that conservatives are supposed to support a limited government, lower taxes, and less intrusion into individual affairs. They would logically be on the right side of the X axis.

By that definition, a “social conservative” stance against can not be considered conservative, as that idea advocates that the government, not the individual, make some basic life decisions.

None of that means that conservatives are being hypocritical, not when you add the Y and Z and T axes to the model. The issue of gay marriage is on the Y axis, authoritarian to libertarian, and has nothing to do with the right to left continuum. The authoritarian would have the government use its authority to dictate who might marry who, while the libertarian would leave that decision to the individual. The issue of abortion is on the same axis, as is the issue of legalizing drugs.

The Z axis of the model is from practical to ideologue. Take, for example, the issue of universal health coverage. This issue has been labeled as an extreme liberal position, but is it really?

The practical extreme of the axis would favor this syllogism:

The US is the only developed country without universal coverage,
We pay more than any other country in the world for health care, yet don’t have any better outcomes,
Therefore, we should consider universal coverage.

While an ideologue would be more likely to favor this one:
Universal care is socialistic
Socialism doesn’t work,
Therefore, universal care won’t work.

The fourth dimension, or T axis regards foreign policy. Here again, the so called “conservative” philosophy is contradictory: They want a smaller government, yet want that same government to lead the rest of the world. Still, there is no conflict, as foreign policy is on yet another dimension, that of PNAC to isolationist. The PNAC, as you may recall, wants to increase the military in order to impose a kind of pax Americana on the rest of the world by force of arms. The other extreme is self explanatory.

That explained, my philosophy is slightly past the middle at the smaller government side of the X axis, on the extreme libertarian edge of the Y axis, at the practical extreme of the Z axis, and near the center of the T axis.


Conservatives will still call me a liberal, of course, since I favor universal converge, don’t believe that Obama is out to destroy America, do believe that drugs should be decriminalized, and the war in Iraq was a mistake.

Liberals might call me a conservative, since think that bailing out the auto industry and the banks was a costly error, and that the government must begin to live within its means, and soon.

Call me what you like, as I don’t subscribe to a one dimensional philosophy. I’m a practical libertarian conservative.

OK, I showed you mine. What's yours?

 

[Gipper]

Here's mine. It has evolved some in the past few years, but is basically the same:





OK, I showed you mine. What's yours?

I am a conservative and anyone who I disagree with, is a lib!

 

[PLC1]

I am a conservative and anyone who I disagree with, is a lib!

There's the best example yet of what I just called "simplistic". Maybe if you were to define your terms, so it didn't sound like this: Conservative is what I believe in, so anyone who disagrees is a lib. There are only two positions, mine and that of a lib.

 

[Pandora]

Here's mine. It has evolved some in the past few years, but is basically the same:





OK, I showed you mine. What's yours?

I am heading to Washington for a soccer game so I’ll have to type out my beliefs later. But I have one question about yours…

You said you do believe that drugs should be decriminalized.

Why?

 

[GenSeneca]

99% Capitalist, 1% Constitutionalist... Unlike PLC, I do not consider slavery to be practical, moral, or ethical, as any policy that demands one individual be forced to provide for the needs of another is a violation of individual rights. If we are ever to achieve a society that could truly be considered civilized, we must ban the initiation of the use of force so that no individual, group, or government, can legally initiate the use of force against others. All of my political positions stem from the realization that violating the rights of others is not a Right held by anyone.

 

[dogtowner]

I see a difference between government dictating and society expressing its sensibility.

Marriage is a nice example. Society needed order to be applied to property in this area. Additionally it valued the family as beneficial to society as a whole. When society changes then alteration occurs. When it does not it can also see the need to reinforce what it thought was decided. Something over half the states have chocen the latter. Not sure if the people have ever opted for change. This brings us to your point of government imposing a will by changing the status quo on its own.


so I'm small government pro freedom.

 

[GenSeneca]

I see a difference between government dictating and society expressing its sensibility.

When 'society expresses its sensibilities' through public pressure, for example by stigmatizing an individual or group for actions they disapprove, that does not violate the rights of anyone. However, using the power of the state to ban actions or limit freedoms of those who are not violating the rights of anyone is an abuse of power, it is a violation of the rights of those whose actions and liberties are being curtailed.

Marriage is a good example. If one individual wishes to marry another individual, or multiple individuals, that is not a concern of the state as it does not violate the rights of anyone. The role of the state is limited to that of a record keeper and arbiter where marriage is concerned. Marriage is a contract and it is within the scope of governments power to enforce contracts and/or settle disputes between those who have entered into contracts.

If 'society' wants to disapprove of gay marriage or poligamy, then it must do so without violating the rights of others, that means without using the force of government to impose their will on everyone else.

 

[dogtowner]

When 'society expresses its sensibilities' through public pressure, for example by stigmatizing an individual or group for actions they disapprove, that does not violate the rights of anyone. However, using the power of the state to ban actions or limit freedoms of those who are not violating the rights of anyone is an abuse of power, it is a violation of the rights of those whose actions and liberties are being curtailed.

Marriage is a good example. If one individual wishes to marry another individual, or multiple individuals, that is not a concern of the state as it does not violate the rights of anyone. The role of the state is limited to that of a record keeper and arbiter where marriage is concerned. Marriage is a contract and it is within the scope of governments power to enforce contracts and/or settle disputes between those who have entered into contracts.

If 'society' wants to disapprove of gay marriage or poligamy, then it must do so without violating the rights of others, that means without using the force of government to impose their will on everyone else.

I don't see it as rights so much as privileges based on definitions. I feel the term "rights" is used for many things that are not rights.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't see it as rights so much as privileges based on definitions. I feel the term "rights" is used for many things that are not rights.

You have a Right to do anything that does not violate the Rights of others. Marriage would fall into that category.

I agree that the term "rights" are used for many things that violate the rights of others, I refer to such "rights" as legal privileges and do not consider them Rights at all. So if you would like to make the case that allowing an individual to marry someone of the same sex, or that allowing multiple individuals to be married to the same individual, somehow violates the rights of some other individual(s), then I would be glad to hear your case.

 

[dogtowner]

You have a Right to do anything that does not violate the Rights of others. Marriage would fall into that category.

I agree that the term "rights" are used for many things that violate the rights of others, I refer to such "rights" as legal privileges and do not consider them Rights at all. So if you would like to make the case that allowing an individual to marry someone of the same sex, or that allowing multiple individuals to be married to the same individual, somehow violates the rights of some other individual(s), then I would be glad to hear your case.

rights are enumerated. everything else is an agreed to arrangement.
I realize you don't see it that way, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[GenSeneca]

rights are enumerated.

Where?

 

[dogtowner]

Where?

the constitution

 

[steveox]

Im a hardline conservative tough on liberals like Pat Bucannon,Reagan and Thomas Jefferson. I agree mostly on Jeffersons views. I met him in Williamsburg VA.

 

[GenSeneca]

the constitution

So what of the 9th amendment that states we have other rights not enumerated in the Constitution?

 

[PLC1]

I am heading to Washington for a soccer game so I’ll have to type out my beliefs later. But I have one question about yours…

You said you do believe that drugs should be decriminalized.

Why?

Two reasons:

The result of the war on drugs has been an explosion in the numbers and power of violent gangs in this country and in others. We have a de facto war going on in Mexico between the cartels and the Federales fueled by fighting over who gets the lucrative privilege of smuggling drugs across the border. Our inner cities have become much like war zones as well due to fighting over "turf", i.e., places to sell illegal drugs. Moreover, pot growers are taking over public lands, shooting at hikers and anglers who wander into their "plantations" and creating environmental havoc where they do their growing.

Second, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to regulate what substances are and are not legal.