OK, according to Bubba and his buds, I'm a deeply conservative right wingnut and troll, I guess mainly because I don't support John Kerry, and I object when they use lies and deception to attack President Bush.
If that makes me a wingnut, then I guess there's a lot of us out there.
Then again, as I catalog my personal beliefs, I don't think many wingnuts are going to welcome me to their meetings. (Do they have meeting?)
For example:
I support the right of 2,3, or 12 consenting adults to form whatever type of marriage suits them, as long as they take on the responsibilities as well as the rights, and as long as the state does not mandate that churches recognize these marriages.
I think drugs should be legal. If alcohol and tobacco are legal, then there's absolutely no reason why pot, coke and heroin shouldn't be. The one provision is that addiction should not be an excuse for criminal activity, nor should the state have the obligation to protect users from the consequences of abuse.
I think all the blue laws in general should be abolished. What 2,3, or 12 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of the government's business. There should be no legal drinking age, but the consequences of abuse should severe. Regulations should be imposed to make sure that children are not endangered; beyond that, government has no legitimate interest.
I believe in racial equality, but disagree with Affirmative Action, or any system that takes any notice of racial or ethnic background. You don't erase prejudice by embracing it.
I believe in a limited role for government, strictly circumscribed by the boundries set in the Constitution. To that end, I support limited taxation, in the form of a consumption tax, not an income tax. Tax policy should not be a social engineering tool, ie exemptions for home owners or parents. If the general tax rate is so high that parents can't afford to pay, then it's too damn high to begin with.
I believe we need a strong, capable military, one that can react to and defeat diffuse threats. This will require a painful transformation of our armed forces, since we've spent 200 years building a force effective against concentrated threats, but it must be done, or we'll have the most expensive, useless luxury in the owrld, an ineffective military.
I believe the environment is very important, but that most envioronmentalist groups operate on an extremist agenda that is not scientifically or ethically sound. For example, I've heard lefties say that the hurricanes this year in Florida are a sign that the climate is changing and that we have to do something about it. As any climatologist will tell you, we've been building towards a natural peak in the hurricane cycle for the last several years, and the role of global warming in that peak is negligible at best.
I believe in reason over emotion, in facts over feelings. Don't tell me that we have to DO something. Tell me what we have to do and why, and how it will work. Show that you've achieved some success before. Welfare was a complete failure, trapping people in a cycle of dependency. At the same time, private charities turned lives around with far less resources.
I believe in honesty over deception. If you have to lie to win, you shouldn't win the argument.
I do not support government support for faith based charities, despite their record of effectiveness. Not on establishment grounds, but on free expression. Any time government puts money into an organization, it has a de facto control over that organization. This cannot be allowed.
I believe strongly in personal responsibility. Charity is corrosive to the human spirit; we need to earn what we get. By requiring those who need assistance to pay for it later, whether in cash or services, we save something just as important as their bodies; their spirits. It's true that you can't get something for nothing; a free handout will eventually cost you your pride.
I believe that the United States has a duty to lead the world. If we've learned one thing throughout history, it's that collective goverments are always failures. That simple fact dooms the UN. Corruption and personal agendas always render collective governments weak and ineffective. So, it's not a question of whether or not their should be a global superpower, but who will it be? If the US renounces the role, I will guarantee that China will not miss a beat, but will step in immediately. Do we want a planet dominated by freedom and democracy, or a totalitarian dictatorship? Make no mistake, that's the decision we face over the next few decades. Either America leads, or China does.
I believe the second amendment applies to individuals, and gives me the right to purchase and carry a weapon. I believe that arms refers to what we call small arms, ie rifles, shotguns, andguns, which eliminates all the nonsense about nuclear missiles, etc.
Now, I don't know what all the above makes me, but whatever it is, I'm pretty sure that extreme conservative is off the list.
As for who I'm voting for, there's simply no choice. AS much as I dislike the Patriot Act and other aspects of the Bush Administration, Kerry is worse on every front. And so, my vote will be cast for George W. Bush.
Big surprise there, I know!*grin*
Posted by Rich at October 5, 2004 12:31 PM | TrackBackHey Rich
I agree with you in some cases, disagree in others. Here are some questions:
I understand why you think drugs should be legal, and people don't want the government regulating our lives.
I tend to see it a different way. If a group of people get together to form a club or society, and together they realize that it would be detrimental to the group to allow people to smoke in their meetings, is it out of bounds to put together a rule that bans smoking from the meetings? People do it all the time, and if the majority of the people don't want smoking, then it can become a rule - because the majority of members wish for it to be so.
I think a lot of people think of our government as a monolithic, imperial entity that regulates our lives without our input. Now, realistically it doesn't work the way it should a lot of the time, but I think most people in the country would not like for drugs to be freely available. Simply because it harms society as a whole and its individuals as members. If you polled the entire population: Do you wish drugs didn't exist? The majority would choose, No, I wish drugs didn't exist. And as an extension of this sentiment, congressmen have enacted laws to outlaw certain drugs - because that's what the public wants.
The government is the embodiment of the will of the people, and if the majority want it illegal, it's illegal. For the good of the whole.
Does that make sense?
Posted by: Barry on October 12, 2004 1:53 PMYes, except that there are a few flaws in your setup. First, did we ever hold a referendum to declare drugs illegal?
Nope.
So we really don't know that the majority want drugs to be illegal, and even if we assume that they do, majority rule is not the law of the land; the constitution is. And the constitution places strict limitations on the powers of the federal government, and regulating the private behavior of its citizens is not one of those powers. If a right to privacy covers the right of a woman to have an abortion, it isn't hard to see that it should also cover what substances we choose to put into our bodies.
Another problem is that these laws are passed completely randomly, with no basis in science or reality. To use the common example, an 18 year old is considered old enough to die for his country, but not old enough to buy a beer. It's ludicrous, but it's the natural extension of a government passing laws to "protect us" from ourselves. Why is pot illegal but booze isn't? It's easy to demonstrate that alcohol destroys far more lives than pot.
Your analogy breaks down because we aren't a club bound by majority rule. Instead we are a nation of laws, guided by a constitution that sadly has seen better days. I strongly believe in personal responsibility; if you want to do drugs, fine; just be responsible. If you can't be responsible, expect to pay a price.
Posted by: rich on October 12, 2004 9:52 PMBut, you see, majority rule is the law of the land.
The majority of the people in a particular state elect their Senators and Congressmen. The majority of the people in the country (filtered through the Electoral College) elect their president, who in turn selects Supreme Court Justices and Congress approves or disapproves.
If the people want Congress to amend the Constitution, Congress can. It's a laborious system, but the majority picks the congress which passes the laws.
And the majority of the people in the states vote to ratify amendments.
Majority, majority, majority....
Posted by: Barry on October 12, 2004 11:01 PM"Majority, majority, majority...."
Ummm, you left out an important supermajority in there, which is the key to the whole argument, and that is the requirement for a supermajority to pass a constitutional amendment. 51% doesn't cut it when we come to things like amending our constitution because the FF didn't want the country to be ruled by fads, but in accordance with certain principles that are not subject to popularity contests.
Laws that conflict with the constitution may pass the majority test, but are then struck down by the SCOTUS because of that conflict.
IN short, majority rule is superceded by the constitution, and the constitution severely limits the power of the fedeal gov't to intrude into the private lives of its citizens. We've moved too far away from that guiding principle due to a socially active judiciary who "interpret" the constitution to mean whatever they want it to, thus bypassing the supermajority required to actually change it. Consider the 2nd amendment, even a cursory review of the history and context clearly indicate that it was designed to affirm the rights of individuals to own and carry guns.
Yet too many jurists try to define that right away because they know that passing an amendment banning individual possession of guns would fail.
A similar approach has been taken in our drug laws, decency laws, etc. It's a paternalistic, authoritarian, top down approach to government that would have been anathema to the patriots who fought to free us from a similar government 200 years ago.
Posted by: rich on October 13, 2004 5:14 PM