Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Freeme]

This post relates to a prior post, but this is my 1st post so I thought I'd make a new one.

Oddly enough, I think many people don't really even know what "party" their beliefs place them in.

Even stranger is that I feel many would find they are more of a Libertarian if they were asked questions with no spin on them, such as the ones about being on an island and having the only gun.

The problem that exists is that this 2 party system is being used to divide and conquer. That coupled with keeping the people in the dark and even as far as not ensuring an educated public allows a very small group of people to control the masses.

For Example:

What party do you vote for if you believe in owning guns, but maybe also want social programs?

Who do the 80%-90% of the people that want illegal  immigration stopped and the 60%+ that say put the military on the border vote for when neither party will do what the people want?

Well, it has been said we get the gov't we deserve and until we get some balls and shed this 2 party system we will keep getting what we have always gotten. I also believe that it has been said that to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is a definition of insanity.

I see it coming and many of you people see it coming, oddly though many don't. The gov't has us so  sidetracked by pitting black against white, rich against poor, religious against lesser or non religious and even neighbor against neighbor that (sorry for the cliche) we can't see the forrest through the tree. People we are not each other's enemy. The enemy is an out of control gov't that is sticking it to us and many think it doesn't get any better than this. Well it does and it can.

Well, I'm getting off track but here's my beliefs:


The right too bear arms: No other right may be as essential as this one because when those governing no longer govern as the people wish, it will be firearms that bring back our freedom. No guns no freedom. I personally believe you should be able to own rocket launchers and assault rifles. Laughing? Well what good is a 9mm against a tank? or a 6 shooter against a squad?
This may sound strange, but imagine George Washington possessing a cannon after the war. That would compare to a howitzer today. Please tell me who would ever have the balls to tell George or any of those patriots back then, "Uhm sorry, but you can't own that cannon Mr. Washington". I really don't think so.

Social programs: As few as possible. They didn't have them back then and we can do without them now. With great freedom does come great responsibility. You make bad choice in your life, don't expect others to bail you out.

Social Security: A socialist program with no place in a free society. I accept responsibility for myself and know the consequences so should everyone else. I don't expect a 18 year old kid to take of me (pay a tax for me) in my old age because I didn't plan for my future. I will have had 50 plus years to do something about it. If you haven't by then oh well. The only problem now is that our gov't has made a promise to these people and I do feel we need to find some way to keep it. But it should be the most efficient andleast costly.

Separation of Church and state: You have your beliefs I have mine, but don't spend taxpayer money on any of them. To be fair we have to honor all and do we really want to be posting Satanic or Voodoo or Shaman messages on public property. The only fair ways is neutrality and unfortunately this comes across upsetting to Christians.

Death penalty: When warranted but needs certainty of guilt and DNA testing if possible.

Hate crimes: Stupid, A crime is a crime whether you do it out of hate or for whatever reason.

Taxes: As few as possible. Accountability and liability for expenses and no excuse for not knowing Mayor Daley. its your damn job!
What is the difference between the US and Stalin if we lock you up for not paying in what you don't believe in. Usage taxes are the way to go and tax everyone equally. Oh yeah and how about reverting back to tariffs to raise revenue.

Military: Must have one and a strong one or we will lose our freedom, just as if we the people don't have guns. Used only in defense of our country or to defend our allies if needed, but some form of repayment should be expected. Don't tread on US. Walk tall and carry a big stick. When going to war it should be done in the most effective and cost efficient way with the least amount of loss of life, starting with American lives.

Abortion: This issue has so many variables but I would side with the woman's right to choose for now.

Partial Birth: No way

Euthanasia: Not my place to tell someone you will stay alive and suffer.

Drugs: Not my place to tell some adult what they can put in their body. If they harm someone though they should pay the price:

Gays in military: Of course. Don't ask don't tell is stupid. How can we as a country of freedom tell a man or woman they cannot fight for their country. If I am dieing on the battlefield and need to be carried off. I'm not waiting until I get a straight person to carry me off. A gay person can save my life just as well.

Gay marriage: Yes: If 2 people can commit than so be it. My personal belief, be it scientific or not is that we have a physical sex and a mental sex. After all it is not unti ly chromosome that we become men. We start as female and something cna go wrong in the wiring that is opposite of what our organs show. What sex can transgender people marry then? Male, female or only transgender. Clearly something went wrong in their physical appearance, so why not mental state. Not to insult anyone but men having nipples throws a serious problem into the Adam coming first story. Religious influence should be left out of this decision.

Gambling: Of course. If peopel want to lose their money oh well let them its a free country( I think)

Prostitution: Same. I don't care what 2 consenting adults do and if one wants to pay for it who am to say no?

Supreme court ruling on property: Unbelievable. I hope they take his home every where he goes until they overturn this decision.

Illegal immigration: Military on the border now! Take them from Germany for one  and  South Korea for the other.

Foriegn aid: Never with my tax money! Charity starts with the people and ends with the people. If we chose not give that is our voice. Anything else is tyranny.

Finally- Trade with China:

All trade should immediately be ceased from this communist country that is a threat to our freedom. We can't buy cigars from Cuba but we can do 168 billion a year and growing from China and China trades with Cuba. Also 80% of N. Korea's trade is with China.
Check out defenselink and you can read our annual report on them. It's not good. Would you buy from if I was pointing a gun at your head or a rocket at your kids? Well China has them aimed at us and if you buy things made in China you might as well be buying them the weapon they may one day use on your kids. The other day Rumsfield noted they were advancing faster than predicted and their should be an arms embargo on them from Europe. Well no #^%*, but what does it matter we give them billions in trade deficit to shop at Russia or other countries that don't like us.

Wow, I spilled my guts. I hope I didn't offend anyone. Gov'ts job is to defend and provide a means to organize the states. The smaller the better and the cheaper even better. Elected officials that undermine the system should pay heavy punishments as well as voter fraud, because they are crimes against the entire country and jeopardize our freedom.

Remember I am not the enemy. I am your fellow countryman and neighbor. I will respect your rights of freedom please respect mine.

I will leave you with my favorite quote, as I am a rebel and I came up with it.  

If you want to get rid of all the rebels... GIVE THEM THEIR FREEDOM

Matt

[Morey]

Welcome, Matt!  Sounds like you'll fit right in here.  When do plan on signing the SoI and planning your move to NH?

[carkmouch]

I suggest you start listening to Free Talk Live! it may change ur opinion on some of ur issues, and you will see why government just doesnt work.

www.freetalklive.com

[Deez]

To answer your main question (as if you needed one): Libertarian.

Great essay, btw. It makes your point quite eloquently.

[Brien]

Well Matt, I don't know where to start but it sounds to me from what you write that you are more Libertarian than anything else.

A few things seem out of kilter though.  Your comparison to owning rocket launchers personally and comparing it to Geo Washington owning Cannons, I think this is apples and oranges.  GW was the General in charge of the War against the British.  Do you think every Tom Dick and Harry, is comparable to GW and should own rocket launchers?  We would end up with terrorists shooting 757's out of the sky just for target practice.  So I don't think it feasible for citizens to own such mass lethal weapons.  I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and even believe that gun permits are unconstitutional.  But giving the average Joe the right to keep and bear rocket launchers I think is a bit of a stretch.

Now if you are talking about state militias, that is an entirely different story.  I remember when Governor Melvin Thompson, in office in NH wanted to equip the National Guard with Nuclear Weapons.  He was laughed right out of office.  But the National Guard should be a well equipped militia ready for conventional warfare.

The death penalty:  I used to be in favor of this until it came close to me personally.  I sit on a board whose son was executed in Connecticut recently.  I am more in favor of prison reform that doesn't coddle prisoners.  NO tv, no gyms, and simple foods.   No AC and max heat of 55 degrees in the winter.  Cruel & unusual wasn't meant to apply to the way we treat prisoners today.  For convicted killers, I would be in favor of a "devils island" set up.  Banish them to an island where by they couldn't escape.  Make them grow their own food and let them set up their own rules.  I would have the US Navy drop supplies once a month and take a head count.  Otherwise, that is their fate, for the rest of their days.

We, as a society, have to have some social programs.  Those that are deemed essential should all be privatized.

Taxes.  The United States tax code requires a major overhaul.  The current tax code should be abolished and replaced with one fair to all.  Afterall, we must fund the military and the essential government operations.  All legislators should have regular jobs in society.  This business of having "professional politicians" like Ted Kennedy, Orin Hatch, Robert Byrd, and on, and on, has to stop.  Pay them a small stipend for their service, call the legislature into session, get the people's business finished, and GO HOME.

Privatization should be utilized wherever it can replace government services.  I have never seen the government do anything better than the private sector because the element of competition is either misused or completely absent.

Now, foreign trade.  The United States has no business telling private business who they can trade with and who they can't do business with around the globe.  However, every business that trades in the foreign market has to be subject to US Customs.  If a business decides for moral or philosophical reasons to boycott, lets say, Cuban cigars, then so be it.  But who in the government has the authority to tell private business who they can trade with and who they can't.  Business should be left up to business, subject to the US Customs laws. For example, if a US business wishes to sell Nuclear fuel to the Iranians, or North Korea, this is clearly not in the best national interest of the US and it should be regulated by US Customs Law, as decided in the legislature freely elected by the American voters.  There is a distinction between cigars and nuclear fuel.

The military:  If the US would only mind its own business, we wouldn't require half of the military we have deployed today.  We need to stay out of other country's internal affairs.  Only when those internal affairs  directly affect our National Security should we consider intervention.  Diplomacy first, military might, the last resort.

These are some of the issues I would stipulate on what you have written.  Otherwise, I think you have a excellent grasp of the Libertarian Philosophy.

[j_freeman]

Hello, Freeme! It definitely appears you lean quite libertarian, and I think you would fit right in with the crowd around here. But, as Brien has said, you do have a few unorthodox positions I think you might want to reconsider.

For example, your stance on illegal immigration ignores the fact that people have the right to travel. But let's tackle this from a practical standpoint... perhaps you're against open borders because you believe, correctly so, that it puts a strain on our economy when droves of illegal aliens come here intending to leach off of our welfare system. So what are we to do? Let's take away most--if not all--of the welfare system; then there would be no incentive for these freeloaders to come to our country, unless they actually wanted to be productive citizens.

Re: your stance on trade with China... "All trade should immediately be ceased from this communist country that is a threat to our freedom." Again, you're ignoring a basic human right: the right to contract. The competitive nature of the freemarket should provide enough incentive to keep most companies from trading with communist states. (And if it doesn't, well, then I guess Americans don't care enough about the issue in the first place, so it's a moot point.) It's contradictory to restrict trade with China under the pretense of protecting our freedom in that restricting free trade is in, and of, itself taking away our freedom.

Re: your stance on the death penalty, this is actually an acceptable libertarian stance, though there are many who aren't in favor of it. Personally, I believe all punishment should be based on making the victim whole again, NOT simply punishing the criminal for the sake of justice. If I steal from you, make me reimburse you for the trouble I caused. Only if I am unable to do that, should I be put in jail. It's impossible to make the victim whole again if you kill them, so I'm not sure what the punishment should be for murder. Execution seems acceptable, but I don't have a strong stance on that.

Anyway, welcome to the forums. Hope you stick around and consider joining!

[Brien]

Hello, Freeme! It definitely appears you lean quite libertarian, and I think you would fit right in with the crowd around here. But, as Brien has said, you do have a few unorthodox positions I think you might want to reconsider.

For example, your stance on illegal immigration ignores the fact that people have the right to travel. But let's tackle this from a practical standpoint... perhaps you're against open borders because you believe, correctly so, that it puts a strain on our economy when droves of illegal aliens come here intending to leach off of our welfare system. So what are we to do? Let's take away most--if not all--of the welfare system; then there would be no incentive for these freeloaders to come to our country, unless they actually wanted to be productive citizens.

Re: your stance on trade with China... "All trade should immediately be ceased from this communist country that is a threat to our freedom." Again, you're ignoring a basic human right: the right to contract. The competitive nature of the freemarket should provide enough incentive to keep most companies from trading with communist states. (And if it doesn't, well, then I guess Americans don't care enough about the issue in the first place, so it's a moot point.) It's contradictory to restrict trade with China under the pretense of protecting our freedom in that restricting free trade is in, and of, itself taking away our freedom.

Re: your stance on the death penalty, this is actually an acceptable libertarian stance, though there are many who aren't in favor of it. Personally, I believe all punishment should be based on making the victim whole again, NOT simply punishing the criminal for the sake of justice. If I steal from you, make me reimburse you for the trouble I caused. Only if I am unable to do that, should I be put in jail. It's impossible to make the victim whole again if you kill them, so I'm not sure what the punishment should be for murder. Execution seems acceptable, but I don't have a strong stance on that.

Anyway, welcome to the forums. Hope you stick around and consider joining!

j Freeman:

I would like to expand upon "illegal immigration."  I am not against immigration and the freedon to travel.  However I am against "illegal immigration.".  I believe the US should seal the border with standing troops and force all immigrant to "legally" immigrate to the US.  I am not xenophobic, nor am I anti-immigration, but it must be done LEGALLY.  Over 25% of all illegals end up in our jails under taxpayer support.  The other 75% take jobs that perhaps others might not work, but if they were legals, then perhaps we could end the so called minimum wage and let capitalism work once again.

And as for trading with so called communist countries, so what?  China has become more capitalistic since trading with the US.  However, I don't believe in unregulated free trade whereby ABC Company from Albany NY can sell nuclear technology and fuel to Momar Khadaffi.  We, as a nation must, decide where we want to fit into the world politics.  Until then, trading with countries that would support terrorism who seek the destruction of innocent American lives and American society, needs to be monitored and regulated in order to protect America under the terms of our Constitution.

Just a little elaboration.

[SteveA]

When it comes to immigration there seems little reason to keep people from traveling to or from the United States unless someone is considered a known threat.  Most of the problem with immigration is that much of the "free" services (roads, emergency hospital care, schools, enforcement, welfare, courts, legal protection, low income housing, libraries and other public infrastructure) aren't actually free, they cost us close to half our GDP, if I'm not mistaken.  So people come to the U.S. to have a better quality of life, but government distorts these costs and it ends up dragging the quality down for everyone else.

There's nothing inherently problematic with people immigrating here, working and buying property.  Most immigrants do work and provide services.  If we expected everyone (including citizens, there are plenty of U.S. citizens that abuse the system in the same way) to be accountable to support themselves this would be much less of an issue.  If someone trades services in exchange for your home, it's not an invasion.  Normally people could determine whether or not they want someone to stay on their property, privately or who they felt needed assistance but the social system we have denies people this ability to people and turns what would could be a synergistic relationship into an issue of contention.  It's schitzo in my opinion, like offering a kid a lollipop but then if he tries to take it saying he's a thief and violated the law.  Fix the underlying problem - abused social services - and see if there's still any problem.  Government created the problem for all I can see and yet it wants to pass it off as something foreigners are causing.  Don't fall for the hype.  The only issue that might be justified addressing, in my opinion, is that we might want to screen the borders for known criminals.

If we hadn't created this schitzo attitude that has driven people to create entire networks to secretly move people across the border it would be much easier to know who was coming or going, so people worried about security should concentrate on slowing the volume by removing the unnatural incentives to do so, and then see if the rest of it can be handled relatively peacefully.  Economically it will hurt us not only to pay for the social services, but to keep a small standing army patrolling the borders too.  Russia had their Iron Wall, and it crumbled.  North Korea has a tight border also.  Neither of them are role models to me.

Oh, and strong private property rights allows everyone to individually determine whether or not they want someone in their property, including foreigners, so that's something else to keep in mind.

I just think when you look at the U.S. and see that people flowing to and from various states or competing in industries across state lines, doesn't hurt us but is actually beneficial, it's not that hard to see that treating someone across the U.S. border similarly doesn't inherently create any different problem - only if we make it a problem.  Keep in mind that if we find out social programs cause problems with immigration, why don't they cause problems with citizens too?  (They do, but you don't hear that part in the news much ... it's easier to blame foreigners).

[Valerius]

Polemicists against Chinese trade often throw the word "Communist" around it seems just to get peoples' blood up on the issue.

China calls itself Communist, but they're really much closer to being "authoritarian capitalists," in the sense that they're privatising state owned industries and aggressively engaging in international trade, but not really improving human and political rights (though they recently passed some sweeping property rights legislation about two years ago - previously unheard of there). That's no better since that gov't is still a dictatorship (I've been there, my stepmom was born there, and my father lives and works there) and therefore still unworthy of respect.

I think that, if anything, we ought to be encouraging more trade with China, providing we do it in a manner responsible to our own national interest, and I'll tell you why:
China has a burgeoning middle class of tens of millions, with rising rates of education and literacy. So far, the only right they have is to buy whatever consumer durables they like, but as this middle class advances and becomes more aware, it could go one of two ways: 1. their affluence causes them to be apathetic toward their political plight. 2. their affluence is going to lead them to access to education, overseas travel to freer countries like the U.S., and as a direct or indirect result of that, more access to the information and knowledge to empower themselves politically against the "Communist" regime in Beijing.

A wealthier China is also going to be less likely to stir the pot by making a move on Taiwan, not wanting to harm its reputation as a stable investment locale.

It is true, however that in the short run we are indeed legitimising the authoritarian regime in Beijing and supplying them with the capital to militarise by doing business there. In the long run though, I see responsible trade with China (for the above reason) as being both beneficial to us, to the Chinese populace at large, and to Pacific Rim stability.

[Brien]

I think we all must remember that the USA was founded upon "immigration" and that it has been the cornerstone of the growth of this great nation.  But we must also remember that it was "legal" immigration, not people sneaking over the border at night, arriving in boats that barely float from Cuba and Haiti, or in overseas containers from abroad.  People of European decent arrived here and were primarily shuttled through Ellis Island.   Canadians came through legal channels in along the Northern Borders.  For instance, French Canadians came into New England to work in the textile mills from Quebec and flowed primarily through Maine, NH and Vermont.

American "immigration" along the southern borders of TX, NM, AZ and Ca today seems to be mired in an Administration policy that refuses to control our southern borders.  The American society is no longer the society of even 150 years ago when one could just drop down from Canada or come up from Mexico and settle into the "American" way of life.  This is impossible in our modern American society.  Thus, the need to control immigration and force it to flow through "legal" channels so we know who is coming here and what  their intentions are when they settle here.   

We do not need xenophobic people closing our borders completely.  We require an intelligent policy from our government to grant entry to those who will contribute to American society, not drain it of its resources or become the brunt of misunderstood American reactions disguised as "protectionism."  Unfortunately, since the current Administration refuse to act, this can only be accomplished through intelligent action by our Congress.  But alas, therein lies the contradiction in terms.

Until Americans take control of the southern border, we run the risk of all of the problems associated with unchecked immigration.  This is a time bomb waiting to explode.

[Brien]

Polemicists against Chinese trade often throw the word "Communist" around it seems just to get peoples' blood up on the issue.

China calls itself Communist, but they're really much closer to being "authoritarian capitalists," in the sense that they're privatising state owned industries and aggressively engaging in international trade, but not really improving human and political rights (though they recently passed some sweeping property rights legislation about two years ago - previously unheard of there). That's no better since that gov't is still a dictatorship (I've been there, my stepmom was born there, and my father lives and works there) and therefore still unworthy of respect.

I think that, if anything, we ought to be encouraging more trade with China, providing we do it in a manner responsible to our own national interest, and I'll tell you why:
China has a burgeoning middle class of tens of millions, with rising rates of education and literacy. So far, the only right they have is to buy whatever consumer durables they like, but as this middle class advances and becomes more aware, it could go one of two ways: 1. their affluence causes them to be apathetic toward their political plight. 2. their affluence is going to lead them to access to education, overseas travel to freer countries like the U.S., and as a direct or indirect result of that, more access to the information and knowledge to empower themselves politically against the "Communist" regime in Beijing.

A wealthier China is also going to be less likely to stir the pot by making a move on Taiwan, not wanting to harm its reputation as a stable investment locale.

It is true, however that in the short run we are indeed legitimising the authoritarian regime in Beijing and supplying them with the capital to militarise by doing business there. In the long run though, I see responsible trade with China (for the above reason) as being both beneficial to us, to the Chinese populace at large, and to Pacific Rim stability.

Valerius:  You seem have a very intelligent grasp of Chinese / American economic and political relations.  Thank you for the intelligent information.

[SBottari]

There are things we are going to disagree on, as was said you're more libertarian than anything.  You're off on the border issue (in comparison to the LP stance), but even I kinda see both sides of this and it's tough to decide which one is better. 

I do, however, agree with you on the large arms - instruction and safety are important with those, but I think they are important to have.

[DanaInNV]

The right too bear arms: I personally have never owned nor used a gun and not interested in doing so unless absolutely necessary but I absolutely support others' right to do so.  100%.

Social programs: Oh boy, very mixed feelings on this one.  I agree one is responsible for their own bad choices, I've sure made mine in the past and dealt with the consequences on my own.  On the other hand...I would like to see some type of safety net in place for those who are truly helpless.  What happens to the severely disabled with no family to care for them?  I suppose you could say society doesn't need them but I personally can't get behind a philosophy that heartless. 

Social Security: Mixed again.  Same reason, grandma and grandpa living under a bridge is not something I want to live to see anymore than it already happens.

Separation of Church and state: 100% on this one. 

Death penalty: Mixed.  I feel no pity for those that have comitted crimes warranting death.  I have very strong reservations about giving any governing body the power to take human life.  DNA testing MANDATORY.

Hate crimes: Hard to say exactly.  Like the original post said, crime is crime. 

Taxes: As few as possible works for me. 

Military: Duh, no brainer, good luck surviving as a country without one.  All volunteer most certainly.

Abortion: First trimester- yes 100%

Partial Birth: No way

Euthanasia: Individual has the right to choose for themselves.

Drugs: Again it's a personal choice.  If my neighbor wants to get high as a kite in his own home it's nobody's business but his. 

Gays in military: Can hardly believe this is even an issue!  Who cares?  There have been gay people as long as there have been people.  What difference does it make to me who someone sleeps with???

Gay marriage: Again, who cares?  People should marry whoever they want to marry, period.

Gambling: For sure.  It's your money, suit yourself.

Prostitution: For sure.  Again, it's your choice. 

Supreme court ruling on property: The most frightening thing I have ever seen.  My personal stance is to abolish eminent domain completely.  NO ONE should have the right to anothers' property.  Build your damned freeway elsewhere if you need to.

Illegal immigration: You will all hate me here.  Open borders.  No one has the right to tell a human being where they may or may not choose to reside on this planet.  More countries with open borders =more people will vote with their feet.

Foriegn aid: mixed but as it currently exists, do away with it.

Finally- Trade with China: trade with anyone, anywhere you please. 

[JasonPSorens]

Dana - Sounds as if you're a libertarian on everything except perhaps Social Security. I believe in a very minimal safety net provided by local government, not federal. Social Security I would like to see phased out; it doesn't provide a safety net function - it's simply redistribution from the young to the old, regardless of income. Americans got along fine without Social Security before it was created in the 1930s; it was simply a political ploy to buy FDR votes. When it was passed, most voters thought contributing was voluntary. Now it effectively takes 17% of our income. 

[DanaInNV]

Phase out I could get with and I would always choose government at the local level over national.  Frankly I worked under a seperate pension system for most of my life and axed that when I fled the Peoples Republic of California and unless I go work under the ss system for several years I will not even be eligible for ss...so I have absolutely 0 vested interest in the matter .  I gots nuttin' comin' either way after 16 years in public service and with 2 children serving in the military overseas...kinda funny isn't it?