blog, the first: a manifesto
So-called “Conservatives” will defend your right to keep what you earn (sometimes), pray where you want, and defend yourself and your family with weapons if necessary. So-called “Liberals” will defend your right to say what you want (sometimes), engage in adult relations with any adult you choose, and maybe even leave you alone to decide what medication is best for you, though certainly not all of them do.
“Conservatives” do not respect your right to decide for yourself what you put in your own body, if it might make you giddy or thoughtful; “Liberals” don't either, if it might make you wheezey or fat.
“Conservatives” want America to bomb this or that country to protect "American interests" - which are usually corporate in nature - and “Liberals” want to spread "liberal democracy" by any means necessary, including militarily, which oddly enough often includes bombing this or that country as well.
Sometimes “Conservatives” are on the side of the individual against the tyrrany of the majority, and sometimes they’re not. Same with the so-called “Liberals”, usually on the opposite issues as Conservatives. Both groups attempt to protect liberty with one hand while trampling it under foot with the other (pardon the metaphor mangling).
Why is that?
I still haven’t quite figured that one out, but it’s a secondary issue anyway. Whatever compels folks on the “left” and the “right” to protect some of my rights while disregarding or actively campaigning against others, my concern is with protecting ALL my rights. And as a natural consequence of that – all of yours as well.
This is why I am not a “Conservative” or a “Liberal” in the common, current usages of those terms. This is why I do not hew comfortably to the “left” or to the “right”of the American political spectrum. This is why I’m a Libertarian.
Also, I’m fun at parties.
|
Change Location:
|
Marginal,
Let me give you a clue.
Only a died-in-the-wool Libertarian is going to assert that your liberty is more important than anything else in the world, and that is perfectly fine if you live on a desert island.
Conservatives, for the most part, understand that we have an obligation to society and thus are willing to part with some of their liberty in the interest of the common good. We accept taxes grudgingly and always demand that government justify them. Is this bad? We accept restrictions upon addictive drugs because we have seen what they do to people and a society that allows them. We accept restrictions upon our right to keep and bear arms, but not as much as the left wants to impose. We accept speed limits, stop signs, and many other restrictions upon our liberty, but again, we draw the lines where they make sense.
Liberals, for the most part, think that you are even more obligated to society than society is to providing you liberty. Sure they will tell you its OK to smoke dope, but they will not legalize it because its all about getting you to vote for them. They do not want to live with the consequences it would have upon society. In general, they will promise you all sorts of liberty, and then take it away from you. Look at health care... if the government provided you health care, then they would get very concerned about the cost of heart disease, and before you know it, they would be mandating vegan burgers at McDonalds to lower the cost of health care. They want to take away your right to firearms because armed people do not take totalitarianism lightly.
Libertarianism is great for single island dwellers, but if you want to live in a rational society, conservatism is the next best thing.
R_T, I would almost have to agree with you. I think Libertarianism would work if conservatives and liberals didn't feel a need to protect me from myself...
"we draw lines where they make sense." "rational society". "conservatism". "Liberals" When I said I would almost have to agree with you, it is that I would if it were MY definition of these words and phrases. And that's the rub. Many of the lines conservatives draw don't make sense, are not rational to many of us, conservative values do not have to include christian values and so on...
Thanks for you post Marginal.
Thanks, marginal_elite. We need more voiced in the political sphere around here. I can't say I agree completely with the Libertarian ideology, but we do have some commonality.
While I may not agree 100% with your post I will have to agree with your perception of Liberals and Conservative. Both ideologies are full of holes and what happens is that both tell you what they think you want to hear, that is why the disparity exists.
marginal has managed to summarize why throughout my life I have voted for conservatives and liberals and voted against conservatives and liberals. One side of the political spectrum usually doesn't fit too many people like a glove. When it does fit you have your extremists...the people who are ultra-orthodox conservatives and liberals and who can't be budged from their established positions even with high explosives.
I agree with others that pure libertarianism isn't too far from anarchy but in a society as complex as today's it's hard to see how a purely libertarian government and citizenry could possibly function without a total breakdown.
As Roland said one person's definition of conservatism can be quite different from another's. True also for liberals. I left the Republican Party after the takeover by the religious right and the incredible dumbing-down of conservative thought with things like Intelligent Design, emphasis on abstinence-only birth control, rejection of stem cell research, rejection of the theory of human-caused global warming, etc. Other factors in my decision to vote more often for liberals recently included incompetence, a willingness to trample civil liberties and the lack of compassion in compassionate conservatism.
I do expect the Republican Party to recover from its current doldrums. The single most important step the Party could take is to move to the left on social issues and leave the religious zealots to fend for themselves while taking back the mantle of fiscal and foriegn policy prudence that they handed over to the Democrats over the last eight years.
I really have to agree with RT on this one. We live in the most far left state in the country, and we can thank the left for so many intrusive laws that cover every facet of our lives. At the rate is going, it will be illegal to breath without a carbon offset license in the next 10 years.
I rest my case.
I've said before that I learn so much from reading these posts. Just this morning I learned about the many intrusive laws that cover every facet of our lives that we owe to the left...you know, like Prop. 8. Who would have thunk it? timeslip...your closing arguments with which you've rested your case are certainly hard to dispute....
Roland, do I really need to tell you how this state is soaked with silly leftest inspired government? I would perfer a prop that requires chickens to be fresh and taste good any day. Props are generally a good sign that government is disfunctional. We spend more on less every year, and no one is ever held accountable. The people pass bonds when government has no money to cover the basics. Government never downsizes when it needs to. The bus is officially over the cliff, and here we sit talking about prop 8.
I hope we all have a job next year, so we can continue to worry about the important thing in life. Odds are, some of us will not be so lucky. I appreciate your comments, always, so I hope it is not you.
Otherwise, I am fun at parties, too....
Thanks for the comments, folks... it's been a while since I created this account and posted this explanation blog, and haven't really responded in a timely manner, I'm afraid. Let me try and address that oversight here.
I especially appreciate Rational Thinker's attempt to give me a clue, as I have been floundering around out here in the darkness without it. Apparently - if I'm reading it right - said clue boils down to "freedom is all well and good, as long as there's not too much of it"... That liberty only works if there are no other people around. Not sure how many other self-identified "conservatives" would agree to "accept taxes" - whether "grudgingly" or not - nor "restrictions upon our right to keep and bear arms" though you're right (as always) that a depressingly large number of self-styled "conservatives" support the New Prohibition, the one that didn't even require a Constitutional Ammendment like the first one did. I think "draw[ing] the lines where they make sense" is the right thing to do -- so how about we agree that the line is this: anything that harms the person, property or liberty of others is actionable and everything else is NOT. There's a line we can agree on, and make an end-run around the philosophical connundrum that Rolandmc points out in the second comment.
I don't know that I wnat to live in a "rational" society, as defined by one anonymous poster to the Auburn Journal's website -- I want to live in a free society. I guess the "clue" could also be boiled down to this sentence: "Only a died-in-the-wool Libertarian is going to assert that your liberty is more important than anything else in the world" but I'm not just thinking of MY liberty, Mr. thinker, sir. See -- I actually believe that YOUR liberty is more important than anything else in the world, too. So I'll fight for it, part and parcel with my own. Hey, don't mention it.
Rolandmc puts it pretty straight with this comment: "Libertarianism would work if conservatives and liberals didn't feel a need to protect me from myself... " Actually, though, it works regardless of the dinosaurs of "right" and "left" trying desperately to enforce their conflicting visions of Utopia, but those areas where we have reached a pretty high lefvel of autonomy and freedom aren't very controversial anymore so they go unexamined. Someday most of these currently controversial arenas will go the same way, I think. Liberty is the future; everything else is just a speed bump or obstacle on the road there.
And I'm guessing that BirchBricker, loomisresident and Miuwtant are more libertarian than they may let on or even know; most people are. Agreeing 100% with libertarian theory isn't necessary -- if you merely agree more often than you disagree, you're almost there. The Big Two (Rethug & Dumbo) are so internally inconsistent and virulently invasive that even some crying-from-the-wilderness loony libertarian p[osition looks better and better in comparison. Miuwtant seems especially ready to make the Big Head Change, as his [her?] differences with the Rethugs are all the "social conservative" (ie authoritarian) elements... probably the same things that you don't like about the Dems, am I right? So why not drop all the authoritarian elements out of "left" and "right" and see what you have left...
timeslip unsurprisingly feels he has to agree with Rational Thinker on this one. then he goes on to list invasions by the "left" while telling us all to move on from Prop 8 and everything it implies. sigh. hey, at least a so-called "conservative" is half-right, i suppose.
thanks, people.