What are your core political beliefs?

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
Rather than just "liberal" or "conservative" what are the issues that drive you to the polls?

Here are a few of mine:

I believe that the US Constitution is not a "living document" and has an actual process for change called an Amendment. If you don't like a part of it, convince enough people to pass one of them, otherwise, and if you can't, you need to learn to live with my rights and learn to be tolerant of them. Including my right to own and bear arms.

I believe that all drugs should be decriminalized. Not because I believe that they have a value, but because the "war on drugs" has only a negative effect on the capability of children to obtain drugs, it simply makes it easier for a child to buy illegal substances than even those that are decriminalized and regulated, such as alcohol.

I believe that government action should only be taken to protect the rights of the individual, the smallest minority. I believe you should have the right to do as you wish so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others, or victimize them.

I believe in a right of privacy, of property, and that people are at their best when faced with the challenges and risks inherent in a central freedom. I believe that often freedom and risk are almost interchangeable, and that the human spirit thrives best when challenged by just such risks.
 
Damocles said:
Rather than just "liberal" or "conservative" what are the issues that drive you to the polls?

Here are a few of mine:

I believe that the US Constitution is not a "living document" and has an actual process for change called an Amendment. If you don't like a part of it, convince enough people to pass one of them, otherwise, and if you can't, you need to learn to live with my rights and learn to be tolerant of them. Including my right to own and bear arms.

I believe that all drugs should be decriminalized. Not because I believe that they have a value, but because the "war on drugs" has only a negative effect on the capability of children to obtain drugs, it simply makes it easier for a child to buy illegal substances than even those that are decriminalized and regulated, such as alcohol.

I believe that government action should only be taken to protect the rights of the individual, the smallest minority. I believe you should have the right to do as you wish so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others, or victimize them.

I believe in a right of privacy, of property, and that people are at their best when faced with the challenges and risks inherent in a central freedom. I believe that often freedom and risk are almost interchangeable, and that the human spirit thrives best when challenged by just such risks.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with your first belief. We have this belief in common. The 'latest' meme from the leftist gun grabbers, is the 2nd Amendment was passed so slave owners could keep the slaves on the plantations. Well, fine... if that's what you believe the 2nd Amendment was for and why it was ratified as part of our Bill of Rights, just get like-minded people to agree with you and Amend the Constitution!

On your second belief, I have to disagree. There was a time when all drugs were decriminalized, and we had Opium dens in every major American city. A high percentage of the population were addicted to some pretty powerful shit, and it was a growing and nagging social problem. That said, I do believe there is a reasonable "middle ground" here, marijuana is a freaking weed that grows in nature, it should be decriminalized because it isn't addictive and is sometimes proven to be beneficial as a herb. In fact, I would say that we should have the "right to grow" whatever we want for personal use. If you want to grow and produce your own homemade cocaine, on your private property, go for it! My line is drawn with legalized sales and distribution. I don't want these things sold as products, there are too many bad side effects, like when Coca-cola contained cocaine. Now, think about what is going to be the public outcry, when someone stoned on 'legalized drugs' wrecks a school bus, killing a bunch of kids? Our society simply will not tolerate a "free drugs for all" policy. Decriminalize pot, and any other "natural" plant, and keep restrictions on sale and distribution, DUI laws, etc.

I want to agree on belief #3 in principle, but it is a bit ambiguous. Who gets to decide when someone has been victimized, harmed or had their rights infringed? Who's interpretation of which rights? Someone has to make these decisions, we can't come run find you every time a situation arises, to let you make the call. I wish we lived in a world of make-believe, where everyone could do as they wished and there were no public ramifications or no one ever had their rights violated, but that world just doesn't exist in reality. I believe the FEDERAL government should not really be involved in setting social policy. When cases are brought before Federal courts, they should be decided with neutrality, and in accordance with the Constitution, with respect to the rights of the people and state, to make their own determination regarding issues of social involvement. But I think at at least the state level, the people have the right to establish their own 'societal' laws for where they live, as long as the people agree and it doesn't flagrantly violate the Constitutional rights of others.

Okay, forgot where we're at... #4, I think... Not sure what convoluted point you are trying to make about freedom and risk, but I believe in freedom and right to privacy and private property. However, "risk," and more importantly, the management and mitigation of risk, is vital and essential to success and considered "wise foresight" in most cases. So again, I think there is a reasonable balance between liberty and security, and we are wise to weigh the pros and cons. If we can eliminate a risk of something most intolerable, and it has minimal consequence to liberty, we should do that, it's wise to do that. This said, the Federal government has an obligation to protect our security (and freedom) from risk. In fact, this is their first and foremost duty and function.
 
I guess you could break mine up into various integral bits.

1. Anarchist morality.
This entails: - Opposition to the military and it's use to further the interests of a state. It's easy to see that US imperialism and interventions has it's trade offs, but when questions are risen to the ethics of certain endeavors, it's become clear that the we've overreached.
- Opposition to the legal and penal systems and their subsequent, systematic disempowerment of individual or collective entities.
- Opposition to class structure and social hierarchies.

2. The subjugation of every idea and policy to the harshest criticism. And if they fail to meet moral standards, the adoption of a reformist, or abolitionist stance.

3. A government that's near sole use is for the common benefit of the population. This implies policies such as free higher education, free technical training for full time workers, and a jobs guarantee program.

4. Removal of the PS's influence over politics.

5. Horizontal management structure.

6. Absolute freedom of expression.
 
Shy Guy said:
3. A government that's near sole use is for the common benefit of the population. This implies policies such as free higher education, free technical training for full time workers, and a jobs guarantee program..
Click to expand...

The left still trying to invent the “free lunch.” Problem is somebody always has to “pay.”
 
The issues that draw me to the polls are Democrat & Republican politicians. I just need to protest against them. They’ve shit all over my Constitution and bankrupted my country. They’re nearly all meddling busybodies and authoritarians. They’ve together created a government so MASSIVE and expensive and corrupt, only criminals and fools can still have pride in it. They’ve adopted cronyism and bribery. They’ve made us the World’s Patsy and or hated monster. America has become the Neo-Roman Empire.
 
Classic Liberal said:
The left still trying to invent the “free lunch.” Problem is somebody always has to “pay.”
Click to expand...

TANSTAAFL

Even those obtaining "free" stuff still have to pay. They pay with a loss of freedom, allowing the government into their lives at a level where most would be extremely uncomfortable.
 
I believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Let the childrens' laughter remind us how we used to be.
 
Dungheap said:
I believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Let the childrens' laughter remind us how we used to be.
Click to expand...

Randy Watson agrees with you at the 1:00 minute mark.

 
I believe that a government should be forced to work within the confines of the constitution. That smaller government is better. that governments only job is to protect our rights.
 
I want to live in a lawful, productive, society where families are strong, and the majority of Americans are generally well behaved.
 
Dungheap said:
I believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Let the childrens' laughter remind us how we used to be.
Click to expand...

Ahh but there comes politics in "teach them well".
vouchers, public school, private school, religious school, creationism vs evoloution, gay telebubbies, etc.

But you have a beautiful idealism there.
 
I suppose my deepest personal belief that can be linked to base level politics is Personal Responisbility.
YOU are responsible for your actions, and you will pay the price or reap the rewards of those actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top