In the wake of the Nov 4, 2008 tragedy (the election of Barack Hussein Obama) it seems necessary that those interested in the strength of this nation take a look back and review the principles of the Constitution of the United States. It has become apparent that the majority of our nation no longer votes to elect officials who uphold the Constitution. Both parties have completely gone down the crap shoot.
The Republican party has gone fiscally insane when it comes to spending. They voted for No Child Left Behind and for the 700 billion dollar bailout. This goes completely against their supposed philosophy of CONSERVatism.
And the Democrats? Where do I begin? At least they don't claim to be fiscally conservative. Almost every vote cast by a democrat involves an increase in spending. Democrats and liberals feel that the government should be America's nanny. However, this nanny doesn't punish you when you behave badly. She simply prevents you from feeling the consequences of your actions. When a child goes unpunished he or she usually turns out to be a completely dependent and worthless brat. America's brats are the beneficiaries of government programs (welfare, social security, etc). America's nanny? The Democratic Congress and as of January 4, 2009- President Obama. Democrats punish success and reward ignorance.
So what about the libertarians? Although most Americans harbor strong libertarian beliefs the libertarian policy has never cut the mustard when it comes to electability. We are socially liberal so the republicans (not to be confused with conservatives) disapprove of us and we are fiscally conservative so the democrats can't stand us. Here are some of the things the party stands for (later I will list my personal stance on a variety of issues):
- Laissez-faire principles which limit the state's role in the economy. By this principle, libertarians advocate the elimination and/or privatization of Social Security and Welfare, limited regulation of business, limited regulation of trade, and fewer labor laws.
- Protection of Property rights!!!!!
- The government's only responsibility is to protect our individual rights from the 'initiation of force or fraud.'
- Opposes civil rights laws (ex: affirmative-action and non-discrimination)
- Unrestricted rights to the means of self-defense (guns, mace, etc.)
- Abolition of victimless laws (ex. seat-belts, prostitution, censorship, use of controlled substances, fraternization).
- Free trade
- Hard currency
- ABOLITION OF ALL FORMS OF TAXPAYER-FUNDED ASSISTANCE: (Welfare, food stamps, public housing, health care).
So those are pretty much the basics. Basically our entire view can be summed up in one word: freedom. We believe that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with another citizen's rights. What people do to or with themselves is no business of mine, yours, and the government's. That includes screwing up your life or becoming a success.
Posts
1 comment:
"Basically our entire view can be summed up in one word: freedom. We believe that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with another citizen's rights."
In response to your definition of libertarian ideals representing freedom....
If you oppose civil rights (i.e. non-discrimination policy), you're actually hindering "freedom." Not saying that Affirmative Action is a good policy because it actually creates a reverse type of racism against caucasian individuals. But what IS a good policy is CERTAIN and MOST non-discrimination laws/policies. Basically, if you repeal ALL non-discrimination laws, you will have women being discriminated against for job positions because they "will get pregnant and eventually leave the work force." <-- that's one of the worst types of discriminatory statements. The majority of women who are mothers HAVE to work in order to support their families. very very few families can live on just one spouse's income unless you're in the top 5% of the nation.... OR you will have companies refusing to hire people of a certain race/ethnic background because of an employer's own racist sentiment. OR you will end up with have a huge unemployed disabled population. I'm not just saying people with physical disablities, such as being paralyzed, blind, deaf, etc, but I'm saying mentally or developmentally handicapped which would include people who have learning disabilites such as dyslexia or ADHD. (a growing disability in our society that is just now being understood and recognized as a disability). Is that really what's going to be right? It would be wonderful if everyone had a belief in non-discrimination, but the fact of the matter is, they don't. Non-discrimination laws also don't FORCE employers to hire people of certain races, genders, ethnic backgrounds, or disability. Instead, it says that you can't turn them away SOLELY because of something that they themself did not choose (i.e. race, gender, disability). Really if you start doing that, who's to say that you can't discriminate against someone according to their religion, sexual preference, marital status, neighboorhood they live in, hair color, toenail size...you get the point...
You are dead on when you say that "freedom" means having the ability to do whatever you want to do according to how hard you've worked for it and your qualifications. But the non-discrimination laws help make sure that a person's qualifications are assessed. In fact, it's bizarre that the libertarian party which, according to you, prides itself on "protecting our individual rights from the initiation of force or fraud," would actually be DECREASING our individual rights. Each man, and for that matter, woman, is created equal, right? Why not safeguard that equality. You know the idea that people will do it on their own will not succeed. What will remain for women, minorities, and the disabled in order to make sure that there aren't social injustices? Or are you saying that there just simply are no more social injustices that happen? If you are, you're clearly mistaken and have yet to look outside of your (i'm assuming) white man's perspective.
Another point of contention. If you are reviewing the principles of the Constitution and you are a "strict" Constitutionalist (those are not your words, but from what you're saying that's what you are), do you think women should not have rights? I mean really, according to the principles of the Constitution, it's MEN that have all of the rights, women don't show up until the 19th ammendment in the 1920s. On that same line, should it only be WHITE MEN? Other races (specifically African Americans because of the slavery issue in America) weren't considered citizens until the Reconstruction. I may be putting words in your mouth with these ones, but i dont see the difference.
you dont suport freedom, you support limited freedom and to say otherwise is ignorance on your part.
also, in response to your statment that Bill Clinton made the decision to "invade" Iraq and that Bush was just "implementing" the policy....that's just a direct fallicy. Yes, Bill Clinton dealt with the WMD crisis in the late 90s in Iraq, but he never said we have to invade them. and he certainly didn't do it to "combat radical Islam." Where are you getting your "facts" about this? Unless you can provide concrete, REAL fact instead of just "i heard it from someone" or evading the question, don't make a statment like that. Also, we're fighting TWO wars, not just Iraq, so maybe you should include that AFGHANISTAN in your little "beliefs" section.
Post a Comment