I was under the impression that I was a libertarian that leaned a little to the right. Now I’m reading things that make me believe I’m not what I thought I was in the beginning.
Ok, let’s take ten issues that I think should help me define what the hell I am and maybe you can help me out.
Can you help me?
1. Abortion – This seems to be one of the defining issues of our time. My stand here is that I’m anti-abortion, but pro-choice. Make any sense? It’s like this, I believe in the right of an unborn child, but I also believe I have no business telling anyone else what to do with their own body.
2. Same sex marriage – Another one of those issues that weighed in heavily during the last election. I’m against same sex marriage, but I’m for civil unions. I just have a problem with the use of the word marriage meaning anything other than the union between one man and one woman.
3. The Drug War – I think this is one of the biggest wastes of money I’ve ever seen! This country tried something similar back in the early 1900’s, it was called prohibition. It didn’t work then and it’s not working now. Now go roll me a joint!
4. Welfare – How about I steal a line from a famous liberal on this one. “Workfare not welfare” as the Rev. Jesse would say. I can understand the need for a hand up now and then, but damn! If I give you a boost, at least reach for the next rung of the ladder! I have a bad back and your weight is KILLING ME!
5. Taxes – I keep trying to understand the liberal philosophy that because a person makes more it’s fair to take a bigger percentage of what they make. I’m seriously against any kind of redistribution of wealth.
6. Vouchers – I have a real problem understanding why it’s bad for me to have the opportunity to take the tax dollars that are given to a school to educate my child and using that same money to put my kid in a school where I know they’ll get a quality education. This is a bad thing, how?
7. Social Security – I think privatization of SS might not be a bad thing. The problem I have with this whole plan is how taking money out of SS is going to help its solvency in the long run. My big problem with SS is that too many people think that SS is supposed to be their sole means of support after they retire. That was never the plan from the beginning. It was meant as a supplement.
8. Affirmative Action – This was probably a good thing when it started, but I’ve seen too many people, myself included, discriminated against because of it. AA has turned into reverse discrimination. How about equal pay for equal work, or just giving contracts and college admissions based on capabilities not color. I know, I know, I can’t understand it, because I’m a white guy. Poor me? HA!
9. Presidential veto power - I believe the president should have line item veto power. Think how much pork he could shave off of a budget with this power!
10. Lastly, PC BS. This is the one thing that bothers me more than any other issue. Politically Correct Bull Shit! Why does everyone have to be a hyphenated American? Why can’t we all just be American? Why are Christians being nailed to the cross all the time in this country? Why AREN’T Muslims being nailed to a cross? Who attacked this country on September 11, 2001? I went to catholic school for 11 years. Kindergarten through 10th grade. I learned Darwin’s’ Theory and I learned Creationism. My mind is so fucked up now because or it! The part I don’t understand is that if a private Christian school wasn’t afraid to throw out multiple theories, one of which flew right in the face of their own beliefs, how does it hurt your child to learn more than one THEORY? Let’s remember, they’re all theories. Until someone actually builds Jules Verne’s time machine and actually goes back in time to prove or disprove anything, they’re all just theories.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - swingingpuss
How about a rational flip flopper? Loved the post.
2 - andy marsh
Now I'm really confused! I'm a flip-flopper? Should my feelings be hurt?
3 - Jon Sobel
On your last point, you're reflecting a common misunderstanding of the term "theory." Scientific constructs, even those as broadly accepted as evolution, are referred to as theories because science doesn't claim to have complete understandings of complex systems. Evolution is a "theory" because it's an explanation that seems to fit the facts. The theory itself has evolved and will continue to evolve over time.
Creationism is not a theory. It's a belief, or more precisely, an article of faith. It's not an explanation of any facts. Some people look at the universe and say, "Look at all these complex wonders, how could it all have come about through pure chance?" But that's just human psychology - a modern version of primitive humans inventing river gods to pray to in hopes the river won't flood. Our brains, powerful as they are, can't grasp the universe in its entirety. They're just mortal biological organs, and we're just humble humans. Hence the emotion of awe, the sense of discomfort that goes with it, and the inclination to comfort ourselves with belief in higher powers.
4 - swingingpuss
The word you need to read again is 'rational'. If you didnt flip flopper how about fence sitter? ;-)
5 - Temple Stark
I'm undecided whether I'm a flip-flopper or a fence sitter. I used to think I was indecisive but now I'm not so sure.
6 - Dave Nalle
You're a Liberty Republican or close to it. Your positions match mine almost exactly, and I fit with their platform about 90%, though I'm more pro-war than some RLC members and less pro-life than some. Check out http://www.rlc.org and I think you'll find a home. In particular look at the platform section of the FAQ and see how you like it.
One issue you didn't address, of course, is the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.
Dave
7 - mike hollihan
I'll give you credit for courage in posting this, Andy.
You've got strong libertarian impulses, but.... Look at what you said about abortion. You list two opposing positions (baby's right, woman's right) and leave it there. Something follows from what you've said. What is it?
Also, you list several major government giveaway programs but aren't opposed to them in principle. That's not libertarian.
The cornerstone of libertarianism is private property and the right of ownership. Your money is yours, not the government's to take. It *is* also yours to give, to whom you see fit as you see fit. But government income-redistribution is inherently anti-libertarian because it is coersive; you cannot *not* participate.
With some more thinking and deciding, you could become a libertarian, but you're not quite there yet. You might be what the lazy and derisive call a "moderate."
8 - Steve S
Andy, I always thought you were farther right than moderate, but not right wing necessarily.
Now I'm reading things that make me believe I'm not what I thought I was in the beginning.
What are you reading and what is it telling you?
I just have a problem with the use of the word marriage
So I don't get to get married because you have a problem? Rhetorical question, no need to respond.
I can understand the need for a hand up now and then, but damn!
The Left I know and believe in, agrees with you and believes social programs are a helping hand not a hand out. The only time I read that the Left endorses laziness and a free ride, is when the Right is speaking, never otherwise.
I keep trying to understand the liberal philosophy that because a person makes more it?s fair to take a bigger percentage of what they make.
I always thought it stemmed from humanitarism.
This is why nobody on the Left is swayed when the Right bitches about socialism. We know why we support our ideology and it isn't why the Right tells us we do. It has more to do with the moral values of helping the poor, the down trodden, the sick, etc. and as nations grow and time passes, it expands to include employment, education, etc.
It's basic humanitarianism, of helping your fellow man. It's a premise that works best when everybody is on board. The value of materialism and ownership, neatly wrapped up in the value of individualism, conflicts with that, so now what we have is the concept of humanitarianism being perceived by millions to be conflicting with individualism. Now, if you support the humanitarianism of the Left, charges get thrown back at you that you want to oppress business owners or you want communism and the government telling you what to do for a career, and all sorts of garbage.
Why are Christians being nailed to the cross all the time in this country?
Example, please?
9 - andy marsh
Is it a wide fence I'm sitting on? Those chain link types can get pretty uncomfortable.
Who says praying to river gods doesn't work?
As far as the war on terror and the war in Iraq goes, I'm certain that the war in Afghanistan was the right thing. I believe that the war with Iraq was the right thing at the time and of course, hindsight being 20/20 and all, I'm not sure we would have done things the same if we knew then what we know now. That being said, I support our efforts in Iraq and I'm very pro military...might explain why I did 20 in the USN!
As for the abortion issue...if I was partly responsible for the fetus in question, I would want a say in what happened to it. But I also don't think unwanted children should be bought into this world.
How does humanitarianism give the govt the right to take more from you because you make more? Shouldn't a philosophy like that make you GIVE MORE? Socialism always seemed to me to be another word for getting something for nothing. As far as that rhetorical question...we've had this discussion Steve. sorry dude!
Dave - I'm gonna check out your link...we shall see!
10 - Dave Nalle
"I always thought it stemmed from humanitarism."
Some of the greatest examples of oppression in history originated with humanitarian intentions.
And in the case of graduated taxes what you're talking about is 'from each according to his means, to each according to his needs' which is the fundamental tenet of socialism and a basic disincentive to be productive and successful in society.
"This is why nobody on the Left is swayed when the Right bitches about socialism. We know why we support our ideology and it isn't why the Right tells us we do. It has more to do with the moral values of helping the poor, the down trodden, the sick, etc. and as nations grow and time passes, it expands to include employment, education, etc."
etc. being nationalization of industry, the growth of unemployment and a massive welfare state, negative economic growth, devaluation of the currency, imposition of total state control of the economy, the expansion of the army as a method of increasing employment, forced labor camps to deal with unemployment among those not capable of military service, the invasion of neighboring countries as a means of compensating for lack of growth in productivity, and of course the eventual conquest of the world because of growing demand for resources and wealth to compensate for decreased internal productivity and the ravening demands of a massive and non-productive military. Woohoo, liberalism is great!
--It's basic humanitarianism, of helping your fellow man. It's a premise that works best when everybody is on board. The value of materialism and ownership, neatly wrapped up in the value of individualism, conflicts with that, so now what we have is the concept of humanitarianism being perceived by millions to be conflicting with individualism. Now, if you support the humanitarianism of the Left, charges get thrown back at you that you want to oppress business owners or you want communism and the government telling you what to do for a career, and all sorts of garbage.--
Don't forget that you want to treat people as groups and make them dependent on the state rather than on their own resources.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
What that old axiom leaves out is that if you give him a fish he's going to come back every day for another fish, and as long as you keep giving him fish he'll vote to keep you in office.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
Andy, I have to say that you sound awfully sensible on almost every issue. Your positions are the kind of pragmatic libertarian positions which used to be the standard in the Republican party and which I'd like to see the party return to. I suspect that even if the fit with the current Republican party isn't perfect some of your views are going to make you fundamentally incompatible with any other party.
Dave
12 - andy marsh
Dave - that's why my registration card says Independant.
13 - Steve S
Some of the greatest examples of oppression in history originated with humanitarian intentions.
And in the case of graduated taxes what you're talking about is 'from each according to his means, to each according to his needs' which is the fundamental tenet of socialism and a basic disincentive to be productive and successful in society.
So, Dave to promote your ideology, what you need to do, is convince people that Jesus was a communist.
As far as disincentive, we have had graduated taxes for how long? Since the founding of our country? And we are the most innovative nation on the planet, are we not? If somebody is going through a 'disincentive' to make 100 million (which this country allows them to do), because they will pay 50% in taxes, leaving them with 50 million, so they just accept a 30k a year job, you tell me, is that disincentive or stupidity?
being nationalization of industry
vs. corporate controlled government and huge monopolies that have the freedom to make decisions that affect the lives of millions, with no accountability.
the growth of unemployment and a massive welfare state,
vs. the entrenchment of classism and a 'fuck off, I got mine' mentality.
the expansion of the army as a method of increasing employment
vs. the use of the military/brute force to push an ideology upon millions.
the invasion of neighboring countries
What? If anybody is assaulting neighboring countries, it is the Right who is passing extremely harmful legislation attacking Latinos under the guise of protecting us from 'terroristic outsiders'.
and of course the eventual conquest of the world
which party is currently trying to create the entire world in it's mold again?
Liberal humanitarianism is all about teaching someone to fish, and being compassionate and giving him a meal while he's learning. Conservatism is about teaching him how to fish and then telling him his credit isn't good enough to be able to afford a fishing pole. Is that what I just read?
14 - Dave Nalle
Steve S:
>>So, Dave to promote your ideology, what you need to do, is convince people that Jesus was a communist.<<
Lots of scholars agree with that. He was certainly an egalitarian collectivist, but what he didn't have that keeps him from being a communist is a belief in central state control. I'd call him more of a socialistic anarchist.
>>As far as disincentive, we have had graduated taxes for how long? Since the founding of our country? <<
No, since the 1960s. We've only had an income tax since the early part of this century. The income tax is actually specifically prohibited in the Constitution, but that prohibition was overriden by the passage of the 16th Amendment - which there's a strong movement to repeal. The intention of the founding fathers was NEVER to have any kind of income tax.
>>And we are the most innovative nation on the planet, are we not? If somebody is going through a 'disincentive' to make 100 million (which this country allows them to do), because they will pay 50% in taxes, leaving them with 50 million, so they just accept a 30k a year job, you tell me, is that disincentive or stupidity?<<
The disincentive is at the marginal incomes and especially for entrepreneurs and small businesses. The guy we're concerned about is the one making under $100,000 a year who has to find ways to minimize his income to stay out of the top tax bracket. The system creates an incentive to minimize income, redirect it and conceal it to avoid paying outrageous taxes. There's a similar effect on the very wealthy who are encouraged to change as much of their income as possible into something other than income - to put it in a trust, move it offshore, find ways to put it into tax shelters and do everything they can to avoid paying taxes on it. Lots of loopholes still exist and the rich will find ways to use them.
Consider this. Would you rather have everyone paying a lower flat rate of say 30% income tax and actually paying it because there would be no loopholes, or have the current system where the wealthy are taxed at a high rate, but have ways to avoid paying anywhere near that amount?
>>being nationalization of industry
vs. corporate controlled government and huge monopolies that have the freedom to make decisions that affect the lives of millions, with no accountability.<<
All companies are accountable to their shareholders.
>>the growth of unemployment and a massive welfare state,
vs. the entrenchment of classism and a 'fuck off, I got mine' mentality.<<
The balance of the self interests of individuals creates a dynamic system which encourages invention, enterprise and economic growth.
>>the expansion of the army as a method of increasing employment
vs. the use of the military/brute force to push an ideology upon millions.<<
And where is that happening? You're not trying to say that there's something evil about forcing the Iraqis to be free and have their own government are you, because that would be ridiculous.
the invasion of neighboring countries
What? If anybody is assaulting neighboring countries, it is the Right who is passing extremely harmful legislation attacking Latinos under the guise of protecting us from 'terroristic outsiders'.
>>and of course the eventual conquest of the world
which party is currently trying to create the entire world in it's mold again?<<
Ah, so you admit that the Republican Party is the party of freedom?
>>Liberal humanitarianism is all about teaching someone to fish, and being compassionate and giving him a meal while he's learning. <<
So you believe, yet the evidence of how it is practiced by the Democratic party is not consistent with this
>>Conservatism is about teaching him how to fish and then telling him his credit isn't good enough to be able to afford a fishing pole. Is that what I just read?<<
Don't know where you read that. I mean, you can make up any description of conservatism you like, but it doesn't make it real or correct. The basic philosophy of the Republican Party is that people should be encouraged to be self-sufficient and the role of the government is to help make them capable of fending for themselves, rather than making them dependent on endless handouts.
Dave
15 - Steve S
Consider this. Would you rather have everyone paying a lower flat rate of say 30% income tax and actually paying it because there would be no loopholes, or have the current system where the wealthy are taxed at a high rate, but have ways to avoid paying anywhere near that amount?
Dave, the way you present that indicates to me that the reasoning behind why one chooses an ideology is unexplainable to another. I'm not into progressive taxation in order to 'stick it to the rich guy, ohh, ohh, close the loopholes!'
I am all for equality and fairness. The Right has not convinced me that a person who's income after taxes is 60k has less Opportunity available to them than a person who makes 20k after taxes. I don't see the oppression.
You're not trying to say that there's something evil about forcing the Iraqis to be free and have their own government are you, because that would be ridiculous.
No, I've often bitched about how the Right twists things, I get dismayed when you do it too, Dave. Just like the Gannon affair, where the concerns about misusing the media are being dismissed under the guise of 'it's his own sex life', what I was talking about was the forced spread of Americanized Democracy throughout the Middle East and you are twisting that to imply that I don't want Iraqi's freed from oppression.
So you believe, yet the evidence of how it is practiced by the Democratic party is not consistent with this
Dave, if you go back to my comment 8, I talked about the Left and the Right. Not Democrat and Republican. I was talking ideology, not political policy. I was telling you why people adapt the ideology of liberalism, not what political parties may be doing with the ideology. You're the one that turned this into a political crap flinging.
16 - Steve S
adapt=adopt
17 - Al Barger
Andy, what was it here that made you question whether you were a libertarian? You're perhaps a bit moderate by purist Libertarian Party standards, but pretty much everything you're saying here goes that direction.
18 - andy marsh
It was an artical I was reading on rightwingnews.com titled "Republicans Can Only Go So Far To Please Libertarians".
So I'm a moderate libertarian and a moderate republican...what's that make me...an ultraconservative democrat?
19 - andy marsh
Dave Nalle - I just checked out rlc.org. I will say that I agree with most of what I've read so far and I was impressed to see a politician that I'm actually impressed by on their list of members.
I lived in AZ for about 4 years and got to hear a lot of what JD Hayworth had to say when I was out there. I've always liked what JD had to say. Stand up guy.
20 - Dave Nalle
They've got some other fine office holders as well. Congressman Ron Paul is cool, if a bit dogmatic. Governor Mark Sanford of Sout Carolina is a good guy too - he's the RLC choice for President in '08 right now, though it's too early for him to declare. I actually see him as a good VP choice with someone like McCain. And I also like Jerry Patterson a lot - he's our Land Commissioner here in Texas.
The key thing is that unlike the straight-up Libertarians it's a movement within a major party, so there are members who are actually in public office and have some real influence.
Dave
21 - mike hollihan
>So, Dave to promote your ideology, what you need to do, is convince people that Jesus was a communist.
From Acts of the Apostles:
2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
It always amazes me how few people know that's there.
22 - Angela Chen Shui
You're just one hell of a guy, Andy!
;-)
The only one I can't see the alternative for in the short to medium term is # 5.
23 - DrPat
The RLC link gets you the home page, Dave, but the "list of state contacts" link seems to be broken, for some states anyway. I wasn't too surprised when a click on "California" bumped me back to the home page, but Colorado and Ohio, too?
If you have any "in" there, you might suggest an omnibus page that explains why there is no state contact for those states. Maybe even suggest the viewer might like to create a new RLC group for their state...
24 - Dave Nalle
I'll email the guy who does the page. If you go to google and search for Republican Liberty it will bring up most of the state organization web pages, though.
Dave
25 - Dave Nalle
Scratch that last message. I went to the site and the link worked fine for me. You click on the big US map on the lower left of the main page at it takes you to this page: http://www.rlc.org/?p=States which lists the states with links to their info. All the ones I tried either worked or linked you to info for the RLC recruitment director John Reed - who would work with you if you wanted to create your own state chapter.
California, Ohio and Colorado all have pages there. The California one is highly customized with lots of info on their local ballot iniitiatives. The other two have contact info and links to their web pages.
Something must not be working quite right with your browser on the site. I'm using Safari.
Dave