- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,792
- Reaction score
- 1,475
- Location
- Hiding from the voices in my head.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Okay, I'll guess I'll go into detail.
Pro-gun
Pro choice
Pro drugs
Pro gay rights
****, mind blank...
Basically social liberal
Kinda anti-religion, but I'm trying to tone that down.
Economic
Increase government spending on infrastructure, education, and technology. Not much else...
I'm with you on a couple of those. I believe that there are somethings that government should be doing that it is not doing enough of, and some things that it is doing that it should not be doing.
I'm pro-gun rights but also pro sensible forms of gun control - the two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm pro-legalizing marijuana and some of the softer gateway drugs but not much else.
I'm not anti-choice but I lean pro-life.
I'm not anti-religion but I am virulently anti-ignorance and anti-critical thinking. As a rule I generally can't stand fundamentalist theists, nor militant atheists.
Most of my despise of of organized religion just stems from bad experience with certain people. I try to control it, but then I just think of certain things and I lose it.
Like most libertarians, I could generally be described as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but there are variances on both axis. Socially, I am pro life. I don't think there is a right to gay marriage, but if the people want to redefine marriage through their legislators that's fine. Personally, I'd probably prefer a civil union compromise, but either way its not a huge issue to me. Fiscally I'm OK with government investment in infrastructure, education, and advanced research which has lead to some dogmatic libertarians to call me a statist.
I personally try to mix principle with pragmatism. Too much of either can lead to bad results in my book.
But the problem is that it will create work, not jobs (long-term). What do you think?
I just mentioned last night that we need to work on the infrastructure, education , transportation and research... interesting. I have not seen anyone else mention infrastructure on this forum yet, maybe I am just not looking in thr right places (I tend to debate social issues) but I have only been on this forum for a month or so.
An interesting item about the infrastructure, Obama wants to use it to create work. But the problem is that it will create work, not jobs (long-term). What do you think?
I can never figure out where to put myself, so why don't you guys decide for me.
I identify as socialist as I believe in 100% income sharing -- voluntary, before you conservatives have an anuerism, yes I said VOLUNTARY. No force, stealing, etc...
That said here I am on everything else:
Social Issues
Pro-choice but not yet decisive on when life begins (i do have a theory), I also do not WANT people to have abortions, but it is not my choice to make
Pro-gun
Anti-capital punishment
Pro assisted suicide
Absolute protester of the First Amendment
Pro-gay rights
Pro-civil rights
(My friends argue that the below listed views do not jive with my above listed views. please note that I am against regulating the below listed issues)
Anti-Drug laws
Anti-Alcohol laws
Anti-Tobacco and smoking laws
Anti-Gambling laws
Anti- Prostitution laws
(Got some huge lobby attention in that list)
Foreign Affairs
Um.. this might be weird but how about feed our own first?
There are some conflicts we have no business being involved in
Ambassadorship promotes growth and cooperation
Keep good relations so we can work together / learn and everyone can travel freely
Fiscal Policy
We know my ideal-- 100% income sharing, but if I have to live in the US:
Stop spending money on aesthetics for government buildings!
Stop borrowing money!
Stop spending and taxing for public schools and home school children in a community (organize after school groups for socializing) THUS lowering taxing and spending
Hate to say it guys -- but greed is not good. If you can afford 8 houses and Joe from down the street lives in his car --well then you pay more taxes
If you quit spending money on all the things mentioned in "social issues" that I am "ANTI" then you will save
Is that enough? I realize I am putting myself out there and will probably puty myself at a disadvantage in some threads now.... but I am an honest person and believe in transparency.
Edit: Forgot religion, let everyone believe what they want, I have no god, I have theories, but no god.
I think infrastructure is one of the best places to invest when the economy is down. It is true it does only create short term jobs, but unlike a lot of make work programs or outright hand outs (like unemployment extensions) it leaves something of value behind while also injecting money into the economy in the short term.
I saw a great special that was made a few years ago called the Crumbling of America or something and it details how most of our infrastructure is 50 to 100 years old and is nearing the end of its original projected lifespan. It also details the millions and billions of dollars we spend every year at all levels of government just to maintain our current crumbling infrastructure. With technological advances, we could not only replace it, but often improve it giving us increased efficiancy and also freeing up those annual expenses and work hours to be used to create new opportunities in the economy.
Having good infrastructure is great. But do you need a building that costs 20M when a building that costs 5M would do nicely.
You saved me a lot of time outside of gun control everything you say matches up well. I would add a few things. I am anti gun and anti military. I believe the best defense is being a good neighbor and not acting superior to the neighborhood. How can anyone who has nuclear weapons tell others they can't.
I can live with an extremely strict social safety net system, but it would be so limited that it would not be recognizable compared to current standards. Iow, you would have to be blind and deaf, or have all limbs missing, or be literally terminally ill to receive benefits. No bennies for mental disabilities, and no children would be on SSI. Social security would pay out to an individual no more than he contributed, period. There would be no ag subsidies, no oil subsidies, no green energy subsidies, and no arts funding. I could go on and on, but you guys get the point. :lol:
Somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, apparently. :roll:
Who's talking about buildings? I'm talking about highways, roads, bridges, our power grid, and sewer and water lines.
That's a great defense if you also have good neighbors, but if you have aggressive self interested neighbors then you need something a little more intimidating than good intentions to keep them at bay. Same is true with guns. A gun free society would be great, if there were no criminals to worry about. But there are criminals and a lot of folks don't want to rely on a squad car being at the right place at the right time to save them, their family, or their property from harm.
I don't understand how anyone can be anti-military. Its almost universally recognized as a legitimate role of government. Now you can against interventionism or imperialism, that's one thing. But to say we shouldn't have a military that's just kinda naive. Its like saying we shouldn't have police.
When people start out believing military is necessary there is no chance for anyone to change.
Given some 10,000 years of written history, it's immediately obvious a military is not only necessary but vital, and not being reticent to use it is also a necessary component of national leadership.
I'll agree that a strong military is both necessary and vital. But "using it"? Our military is being used on a daily basis for peaceful purposes. If you're talking about reticence in initiating military force, well let's just say that I think we have the opposite problem the past decade or so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?