Where do your politics come from?

[jnkyrdoff6]

SoCal got me thinking about this because I'm really wondering how he came to believe what he does politically. This is open to everyone though. For me personally, one of my teachers was a libertarian, and, just like anyone else, couldn't teach the class without imparting some of his bias. Also, I would consider my dad a libertarian, even though he says he's a conservative. So I probably was more willing to accept my teacher's ideas because they had already been somewhat pressed upon me. Don't be shy. You don't have to specify what you believe politically or anything like that. I'm just wondering where you think your ideas came from.

 

You're welcome to chime in too Knap, Husker_x, Carlfense, Sarge...

I don't want to leave anyone out.

[Husker_x]

It's hard to give a comprehensive answer to the question. Political views can come from a lot of places. Some are based on philosophical principles and others on more practical things. Mine are in a bit of a flux right now on some issues. Illegal drugs being one of them––the more I research the issue I am coming to two basic conclusions. First, the government should have no right whatsoever to tell a private citizen what he may or may not put in his body. And second, the so-called drug war has been an abysmal and expensive failure, costing (last I heard) twenty billion dollars a year to nil effect.

 

The other thing I like to do is read about the Founders, especially Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. They were imperfect people who created an imperfect government, but as someone once said, the Constitution is the best answer mankind has produced to solve the problem of how do imperfect people live with each other. Do I think that the Founders' vision has been clouded by an extensive overreach of liberal politics? Yes, and the Republicans have failed just as much as the Democrats. It's sort of like the old Athenian problem, where democracy is destined for death the minute people realize they can simply vote themselves money from the treasury. I think we've seen the effects of this to the point where it's hardly worth arguing. Every massive government entitlement program is either teetering on the verge of bankruptcy or being funded by Chinese debt. In order to sustain these expenses, the powers that be decide being wealthy is a form of crime, and steal anywhere from 40-50% of their income. The excuses for doing so are embarrassing. ('They don't need that much.' 'They need to give something back.')

 

I could ramble on forever on different issues. Every one of them is nuanced. But in general I am a capitalist, a constitutionalist, intolerant of anyone who attempts to abridge free speech, and for small government which doesn't interfere in the lives of private citizens beyond that which is absolutely necessary. It isn't the job of government to correct it's people, but people to correct their government.

 

EDIT

 

I should also mention that none of my views are sacred cows. Since I subscribe to Enlightenment values of reason and the scientific method, I'm open to changing my views when presented with better evidence or argument on a given topic.

[jnkyrdoff6]

--Snippet--

It's hard to give a comprehensive answer to the question. Political views can come from a lot of places. Some are based on philosophical principles and others on more practical things.

While that may be true, I guess I just think that, for anyone who doesn't agree with everything they see or hear on tv, there has to be some defining moment that changed their beliefs somewhat. I mean, I think most people do believe everything they see and hear on tv. I know that beliefs are altered with time, but I still think they can be traced back to something. I guess that's what I'm asking. What was that defining moment?

[Husker_x]

--Snippet--

It's hard to give a comprehensive answer to the question. Political views can come from a lot of places. Some are based on philosophical principles and others on more practical things.

While that may be true, I guess I just think that, for anyone who doesn't agree with everything they see or hear on tv, there has to be some defining moment that changed their beliefs somewhat. I mean, I think most people do believe everything they see and hear on tv. I know that beliefs are altered with time, but I still think they can be traced back to something. I guess that's what I'm asking. What was that defining moment?

 

I disagree with this sentiment in that a complete political worldview, whatever that happens to be, is built on a range of issues. How you come to an opinion on an individual issue can have one of those revelatory moments, but I wouldn't say you have to. If pushed to give myself a label, I'd call myself a conservative libertarian. Conservative in the sense that I don't want the government blowing my money on social engineering which universally fails, and libertarian in the sense that I'm not interested in trying to legislate my morality on other people when it comes to issues where their behavior doesn't restrict the freedoms of others. If you want to steal and kill, now it's the government's business. If you want to smoke weed or marry someone of your sex, I don't care. The more things we can privatize effectively, the less power and role the government plays, the better.

 

A few books that really molded how I think about a range of political issues might count as 'defining moments'. A book I recently mentioned in another thread was Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death––this killed my faith in any form of televised news. On an issue like education there were a number of things. I went to high school and college for one. I read John Taylor Gatto's Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling for two. And since I've been able to educate myself reasonably well on a number of topics, I eventually came to a pretty unflattering opinion of the public school system and certain aspects of the University (though not nearly as harsh).

 

I also like to read general history, listen to debates, engage in debates. People like SOCAL on this board––though I'd say he's misguided to a point––certainly force me to reexamine what I think, which I'm happy to do. But as your views on small issues evolve, it's possible those small evolutions will result, like in nature, in a larger philosophical shift. For me this hasn't happened all at once. I was raised in a fairly conservative home. My libertarian leanings are my own, and so are my religious opinions. But I wouldn't say I swallowed the conservative pill whole. I think fiscal conservatives make a more sensical argument on how an economy should be run.

[Wild Bill]

My politics come from the truth - don't yours?

[74Hunter]

My politics come from the truth - don't yours?

Truth? Politics? Can anyone say oxymoron?

[Chucktown Husker]

I came more to my own conclusions very recently. While being in pharmacy school, I've been educated on the necessity of being politically involved. This was mostly geared toward advancement of my profession. Now I realize that being involved on a personal level is also important because I have come to believe that our government has tragically slipped away from its basic principles (i.e. the constitution). By using that as a foundation, I tried to come up with my point of view with politics. I would say that I have become excited about calling myself a libertarian. This decision wasn't taken lightly, but was produced solely by myself without outside influence. It's just what I think we need to try to fix what has been screwed up in Washington.

[sarge87]

I came more to my own conclusions very recently. While being in pharmacy school, I've been educated on the necessity of being politically involved. This was mostly geared toward advancement of my profession. Now I realize that being involved on a personal level is also important because I have come to believe that our government has tragically slipped away from its basic principles (i.e. the constitution). By using that as a foundation, I tried to come up with my point of view with politics. I would say that I have become excited about calling myself a libertarian. This decision wasn't taken lightly, but was produced solely by myself without outside influence. It's just what I think we need to try to fix what has been screwed up in Washington.

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. - 234 years to get it right and still running deficits every year.

 

Social Security was established in 1935. - 74 years to get it right and still have $18 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

 

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. - 71 years to get it right and it is still getting bailout money.

 

War on Poverty started in 1964. - 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

 

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. - 44 years to get it right and still have $74 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

 

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. - 39 years to get it right and it is still getting bailout money.

 

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. - 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

 

Now the government has control of 1/6 of the American economy with their "so-called" Healthcare Reform.

 

This can only end badly.............

[SOCALHUSKER]

People like SOCAL on this board––though I'd say he's misguided to a point––

What's that point?

[Enhance]

My political views come from whatever I think. Both of my parents are a conservative, but I take things from both sides. There are many topics that I just take an "I Don't Care" attitude towards. Abortion, for example. I believe it's whatever the woman feels like doing. I don't think people should get in your face and tell you what you should do with your life and with your baby. Just do what you want to do.

 

Or for gay marriage. I don't necessarily like seeing homosexuals together, but I have no problem with them getting married. If they want to do it, just let them do it. If they can love one another and raise a child the correct way, then I'm completely fine with it.

 

There are obviously more difficult topics to wrap our heads around, but I try my best to read up on both sides of the argument and then see what I think. If I listen to a Fox news broadcast, then I'll go and find the most liberal S.O.B. I can and I'll see what he has to say about it.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Basically, my anti-political philosophy is derived from the idea that I own myself, just as everyone else also does. From this establishment of self-ownership comes the idea of property rights, non-aggression and from both; the voluntary basis and employment of the free market. It is upon this logical, just and non-contradictory foundation that men can choose to live life as they see fit, make choices based on their own values and preferences, accept responsibility and accountability and either benefit from or suffer the consequences for their own voluntary actions and choices.

 

I came upon and accepted this philosophy through much of what I have experienced, read about and have been taught. Until a little over a year ago, I was what one could consider a minarchist, Constitutionalist or Big "L" Libertarian. I grew up in a conservative/religious family, joined the military when I was 18, thought the most of the Constitution and shamefully held some pretty contradictory views when it came to foreign policy, personal freedom and economic issues. Luckily, I was introduced to the ideas of liberty via Ron Paul, became more familiar with and educated on the free market and became convinced of the freedom and prosperity that it has brought to mankind. From there I simply followed the libertarian philosophy to it's logical and non-contradictory conclusion, that being Voluntaryism or a philosophy better known as anarchy.

 

With that being said, like most rational beings I continue to learn and alter my philosophy when I encounter new and more logical ideas. However, I have yet to encounter any arguments or philosophy that can prove anarchy is illogical, unjust or contradictory. Better yet, I have yet to hear an argument that could convince me that the free market needs regulation or planning, that any action can be beneficial if it requires forcing individuals to comply at gunpoint or that I do not know what is best for me. I am always open for suggestions though!!

[knapplc]

I grew up in a Republican family right here in Good Ol' Nebraska. I volunteered on a campaign in high school (David Karnes' reelection bid, 1988) and I've voted in every primary and general election I could since I turned 18. I've always felt strongly about the responsibility of voting.

 

As I grew up I slowly realized that my political views of right/wrong, fair/unfair, didn't jive with everything I heard from the Republicans. I think the next major mental hurdle I crossed was in the late 1990s when Newt Gingrich and his mates took power during the Clinton Era with their "Contract With America." Once in power they proceeded to do…. nothing.

 

About that same time I worked for Ernie's in Ceresco as a furniture delivery guy, and the dude I was paired with on the truck liked Rush, so I listened to Rush. A LOT. And even though I detested Clinton, even then I realized that this Conservative Mouthpiece was going way overboard. As much as I disliked Clinton, not every single thing he did could be wrong. And that just further solidified my growing belief that the party of my parents wasn’t something I was obliged to embrace.

 

So I began really looking at the Democrats, thinking that if I wasn't a Republican, I had to be Democrat. Then we moved to California during the latter stage of the Dot Com Boom, and everyone I met out there was either 1) apolitical or 2) Independent. We talked a LOT of politics, and once I realized you could vote in their elections as an Independent, I jumped on board.

 

Then the Dot Com Boom collapsed, the wife and I both lost our jobs within two months of each other, and we decided to come home to Nebraska, where I was pleased to discover I could also vote in Primary and General Elections as an Independent. And it stuck.

 

That was almost ten years ago, and in that time we've elected Bush twice and Obama once. And in all of the candidates I've had to choose from: Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry, McCain/Obama, I've discovered that none of them really truly care about me. And that trickles all the way down from the presidential elections to the mayor and city council.

 

In my nearly 40 years I've determined that those in politics want three things from me, and three things ONLY:

 

1) My vote

2) My money

3) My silence

 

They want me to put them in power, pay to keep them in power, and shut up about how they wield that power. And that holds true whether that person is Republican or Democrat, or any other major or minor flavor of political party out there. I don't trust any of them.

[Husker_x]

People like SOCAL on this board––though I'd say he's misguided to a point––

What's that point?

 

The point where utopian fantasy becomes reality. The point where we forget that the free market has no standard of practice it needs to meet and will cater to a person's baser instincts and demands as well as his good ones. We have free markets, black markets, which sell drugs, massively destructive weapons, and even human beings––children––to perverts and sadists. By every argument I've seen you make the response is simply to wish these things away for one, and argue that a government can't completely eradicate them either, for two. The first is dishonest and the second irrelevant.

[knapplc]

With that being said, like most rational beings I continue to learn and alter my philosophy when I encounter new and more logical ideas. However, I have yet to encounter any arguments or philosophy that can prove anarchy is illogical, unjust or contradictory. Better yet, I have yet to hear an argument that could convince me that the free market needs regulation or planning, that any action can be beneficial if it requires forcing individuals to comply at gunpoint or that I do not know what is best for me. I am always open for suggestions though!!

 

 

People like SOCAL on this board––though I'd say he's misguided to a point––

What's that point?

 

The point where utopian fantasy becomes reality. The point where we forget that the free market has no standard of practice it needs to meet and will cater to a person's baser instincts and demands as well as his good ones. We have free markets, black markets, which sell drugs, massively destructive weapons, and even human beings––children––to perverts and sadists. By every argument I've seen you make the response is simply to wish these things away for one, and argue that a government can't completely eradicate them either, for two. The first is dishonest and the second irrelevant.

 

I would (with respect to you, SOCAL) agree with this. You state in the quote up above that you, "… have yet to encounter any arguments or philosophy that can prove anarchy is illogical, unjust or contradictory. Better yet, I have yet to hear an argument that could convince me that the free market needs regulation or planning, that any action can be beneficial if it requires forcing individuals to comply at gunpoint or that I do not know what is best for me."

 

You have been presented logical, real-world arguments which show that the philosophies you espouse are not practical, real-world realities, you just don't wish to believe in them. You have your bugaboo about politics and the free market. I have mine about religion. Neither of us hurt anyone with our beliefs as long as we don't force them on anyone else, but we're both examples of the old saw, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

[SOCALHUSKER]

People like SOCAL on this board––though I'd say he's misguided to a point––

What's that point?

 

The point where utopian fantasy becomes reality. The point where we forget that the free market has no standard of practice it needs to meet and will cater to a person's baser instincts and demands as well as his good ones. We have free markets, black markets, which sell drugs, massively destructive weapons, and even human beings––children––to perverts and sadists. By every argument I've seen you make the response is simply to wish these things away for one, and argue that a government can't completely eradicate them either, for two. The first is dishonest and the second irrelevant.

First of all, there is absolutely nothing utopian about individuals being allowed to voluntarily make their own decisions/choices, and either benefitting or suffering, as long as those decisions/choices do not infringe upon other individual's property and their ability to do the same. Property rights are a reality, and whether you care to believe it or not, what is utopian is those who believe they can protect and uphold property rights, while at the same time violating them. How misguided and contradictory is that?

 

Secondly, there is so a standard of practice involving the free market and it is that all transactions and agreements are made voluntarily and free of coercion, how could a violation of someone's person or property not constitute a violation of the free market? Since it does, what you describe is not a free market at all, but merely a consequence or result of a controlled market.

 

You claim that black markets are so horrible, yet you fail to realize that the only way they are created is through government regulation. Without arbitrary laws controlling what individuals can put in their own bodies, who they can trade with or what line of work individuals can pursue; most of the violence, irresponsibility and poverty accrued through and a consequence of the black market would tend to dissipate in a free market. Regulation keeps all prices high, whether in the white or black market, and because of this fact, and the fact that higher prices brings about the possibility of higher profits, it is guaranteed that only the most violent and those who are willing to take on risks will flock to the banned and controlled markets. Regardless of this fact, do you not see a difference between a market that violates individual's rights and one that does not? Also, what proof do you have that if government legislation was disbanded that the markets you describe would explode and crime would be rampant?

 

All this is not to say that the sadists, perverts and violent individuals who do and will continue to pursue the ventures you describe will ever be completely stopped. That's impossible because individuals do, AND ALWAYS WILL, have the ability to act irrational, but there are much better, just and logical ways of handling that type of irrational behavior rather then through the employment of a coercive monopoly. There is nothing dishonest, utopian or whimisically wishing about knowing that a problem exists and seeking the best alternative as a solution. Do you really find it necessary and/or beneficial to use violence and theft as a means to solve all ends? Is it not possible that the free market defense/protection/justice markets, ostracization, and the countless of other solutions known to the human mind; could do a more just and efficent job at providing what each individual desires and is voluntarily willing to pursue?

 

Has it ever occured to you that markets such as those for weapons of mass destruction and slavery, both of which are based completely upon the violation of individual's rights and property, could be nullified by those you see it as wrong, meaning ostracizing those who participate, or enforced and regulated much better by a protector or defender of property rights competing with others in a free market? It's simple logic really. Does competition not ensure the best quality of service for the best possible price? Does a monopoly not ensure the worst possible service for the highest possible price? How could markets that require a violation of property rights prosper to the extent they do today if there actually existed voluntary-based, competing entities whose sole purpose and lifeline required that they be stopped? How could a voluntary protection or defense business maintain its existence if it did not do its job and did not satisfy its customers? How is that not a huge difference from a coercive monopoly, one which has zero incentive to stop anything and costs individuals whether they voluntarily choose to participate or not?

 

You say that the non-ability of government to stop crime, produce justice, or fix any problem whatsoever is irrelevant, but how do you figure? If you insist on having a coercive monopoly so that you can pretend that rights are protected, order is restored and crime is curtailed, why is it irrelevant to point out that it absolutely does not do that job? In fact, if anything it actually promotes that which is claims to halt. If you fear that a free market will create and exacerbate the chaos, murder and poverty that already exist, how can you possibly think that suggesting as a solution the biggest murderer, most chaos creating, least prosperous and a coercive monopoly to boot will solve anything? And you say I'm misguided?