[VerminLord]

Ideologically, I am a libertarian conservative, but I want to know if I lean more towards libertarian or more towards conservatism.

-Abortion: I am pro-life except for when the mother's health is at risk. However, I think leaving abortions up to the states is the closest pro-lifers will come in America. I also support working to reduce the amount of abortions that occur through teaching responsibility, providing birth control, and offering alternatives to abortions.

-Homosexuality: I am mixed in this area. I do not support same sex marriages or child adoption by homosexual couples, but I do support civil unions. Homosexuals are people and the government should not discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation. I also support open homosexuals to serve in the military.

-Drugs: I am for drug legalization personally, but I think it should be left up to each state to decide as it is now. However, if it is legalized nationally, the government should regulate it to make more money, not for moral reasons.

- Death Penalty: I support the death penalty, but only for serious crimes like homicide and terrorism.

-Immigration: I have nothing at all against immigrants as long as they come to America legally. We do not need more laws regarding border control, instead we should enforce our current laws. However, offer amnesty immigrants who come here illegally only if they contribute to society.

-Euthanasia and attempted suicide: I am all for these things as long as the patient or their relatives has given the doctor permission to do so.

-Economy: Free market capitalism with some regulations for the health and safety of the workers and to prohibit monopolies. I support balanced trade. I support a flat tax.

-Welfare: Welfare should only be for people who actually need it and it should be temporary. A person who is qualified for welfare is someone with a serious disability or someone who is unemployed. Once they get a job and make enough to get by, they should get off of it.

-Inalienable Rights: I believe all people have the right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, right to assembly, and the right to bear arms.

-Foreign Policy: America should not go to war unless it has been attacked. Justice should be served, but America should not be the world's police.

Education: If the government gave vouchers to parents, then there would be more money for private school and more kids in private school. This would mean the public schools would have less money and continue to be bad. Therefore I oppose government vouchers.

The public school should not favor any religion, student led prayers are okay, teacher led and school led prayers are not. Teach both evolution and creationism and stress that they are both only theories, or do not teach any origin theories.

[Old_Hat]

You're more libertarian than Conservative. I'd say a lower case libertarian.

[Drlee]

Your answer lies in this one:

-

Homosexuality: I am mixed in this area. I do not support same sex marriages or child adoption by homosexual couples, but I do support civil unions. Homosexuals are people and the government should not discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation. I also support open homosexuals to serve in the military.

Ponder this:

You said: Homosexuals are people and the government should not discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation.

Marriage and adoptions are both functions of government. How can you favor the government discriminating against homosexuals in this area and not others. It seems to me that you have no problem with homosexuals having their finger on the nuclear button but you don't trust them to remember their mate's anniversary or get the kids to school on time.

In this area you seem to be a right-wing religious conservative.

Here is the deal though. Somehow we have come to be obsessed with labels. We want to belong to a club and we imagine that these clubs have membership rules.

So if you want to know what club you belong to ask yourself this: Of all of the issues I mentioned, which are deal breakers. Which positions would always get someone your vote and which would always loose it.

It sounds to me like you are a fairly typical American independent voter. Actually, if you were to reconsider your position on homosexuality, you would sound very much like a typical democrat. That is the hell of it isn't it? The democrats have been painted as some bizarre liberal loony club but in fact your positions are very much in line with the vast majority of them. Don't be afraid of that. Some of our most conservative presidents have been democrats. JFK for example. And some of the most liberal, Republican. (Nixon)

Have fun with figuring this out. In this case, I think you will be very surprised.

[mikema63]

When saying same sex marriage shouldn't be allowe rather than saying that government shouldn't be defining or regulatingarriage you revealed a somewhat nonlibertarian mindset IMHO.

Honestly drlee's advice about considering which issues are most important is good. After all people rarely fall in lockstep with a party position on all issues.

[Old_Hat]

How can you favor the government discriminating against homosexuals in this area and not others

He's right, you know. You should abandon your mistaken belief that it's wrong to discriminate. Marriage is not a right but a privilege. A privileges, by definition, must be exclusive.

[mikema63]

How on earth is it a privilege?

[Old_Hat]

You tell me how it's a right.

[mikema63]

I don't really argue on the grounds that its a right, except insofar as its a government granted right. The concept of marriage is mainly a property merger with various benefits.

Homosexuals should have it to further equality and provide the benefits conferred by marriage. This would be things like taxes and visitation rights.

Now I've heard various aruments about marriage from it being a right to a duty, but never a privilege. Can it someday be earned by homosexuals? What is required to qualify for this privilege? Being born the appropriate gender gives you privileges now?

[Old_Hat]

I don't really argue on the grounds that its a right, except insofar as its a government granted right. The concept of marriage is mainly a property merger with various benefits.

To what end do these benefits exist? Have a think about that.

Homosexuals should have it to further equality and provide the benefits conferred by marriage. This would be things like taxes and visitation rights.

You take for granted that equality is a moral good and therefore the more equality the better. Why is this the case? Absolute equality, as well as being unnatural, is a recipe for mediocrity and banality. It's difference, diversity and hierarchy which adds meaning to life.

Now I've heard various aruments about marriage from it being a right to a duty, but never a privilege. Can it someday be earned by homosexuals? What is required to qualify for this privilege? Being born the appropriate gender gives you privileges now?

Homosexuals can qualify by restraining their urges and adopting a healthy hetrosexual lifestyle. Making choices which benefit society qualifies one for privileges.

Samuel T. Francis: A "society" that makes no distinction between sex within marriage and sex outside it, that does not distinguish morally and socially between continence and debauchery, normality and perversion, love and lust, is not really a society but merely the chaos of a perpetual orgy. It is an invitation to just such an orgy that the proponents of normalized and unrestricted homosexuality invite America.

[mikema63]

To what end do these benefits exist? Have a think about that.

They developed over time for a variety of reasons in a variety of circumstances.

Libertarian Thread.
Post details
Re: Another Am I a Conservative or Libertarian Thread.
Post by Old_Hat » Sat 10 Jan 2015, 22:44
Quote:
I don't really argue on the grounds that its a right, except insofar as its a government granted right. The concept of marriage is mainly a property merger with various benefits.

To what end do these benefits exist? Have a think about that.

You take for granted that equality is a moral good and therefore the more equality the better.

Just because I support equality in this case doesn't mean I support absolute equality in all cases. For instance I don't necessarily support absolute equality for prisoners.

Why is this the case? Absolute equality, as well as being unnatural, is a recipe for mediocrity and banality. It's difference, diversity and hierarchy which adds meaning to life.

While I disagree that hierarchy gives meaning to life (I believe we give meaning to our own lives) you arent arguing this one issue but mistakenly arguing against some other belief you think I have here.

Homosexuals can qualify by restraining their urges and adopting a healthy hetrosexual lifestyle. Making choices which benefit society qualifies one for privilges.

I don't feel like arguing about the "healthiness" of homosexuality but it begs the question of why obese people and diabetics can marry if health is the qualifying factor.

Why wouldn't homosexuals being able to marry and adopt unwanted children benefit society.

Mr.Francis makes a very long assertion with no justification.

[Rei Murasame]

I tend to take the opposite view to everyone on this issue, because I actually think that it doesn't make sense to try to cram the gay lifestyle into a heterosexual institution. If same sex love is the purest form of love (and it indeed is), it follows that when same-sex marriage is made legal that gay people should avoid using it anyway.

Those gay people who seem to think that there is a use for it after it is legalised, are chasing the wrong dream, I think. Marriage is nothing that anyone should seek after if they can actually just avoid it, since marriage is a prison. It's one thing to make it legally possible to enter the prison. But don't actually enter the prison if you didn't have to.

[Contrapunctus]

I tend to take the opposite view to everyone on this issue, because I actually think that it doesn't make sense to try to cram the gay lifestyle into a heterosexual institution. If same sex love is the purest form of love (and it indeed is), it follows that when same-sex marriage is made legal that gay people should avoid using it anyway.

Those gay people who seem to think that there is a use for it after it is legalised, are chasing the wrong dream, I think. Marriage is nothing that anyone should seek after if they can actually just avoid it, since marriage is a prison. It's one thing to make it legally possible to enter the prison. But don't actually enter the prison if you didn't have to.

Love? In marriage? That's the craziest thing you've said. I always looked at as a legal issue. Gay couples deserve to file jointly on taxes, raise children, share healthcare plans, etc. I agree with you, its their prison to enter, but at least it's a prison with tax breaks and healthcare.

Shit I just agreed with Rei. I feel the Fascism coursing through my veins. Ti amo Il Duce.

[Rei Murasame]

Yep, it happens. The other usage for it is semiotic. If a country permits gay marriage, then it is a sign that homosexuality is no longer off limits at the next generation, because kids growing up will hear, "theoretically you could also marry someone who is the same gender as you", and the knowledge that you could is actually more powerful than the act of actually doing it, from the perspective of "is there acceptance?".

This pattern was observed in the Netherlands, where they legalised gay marriage, and acceptance went way up, but barely any gay people actually chose to utilise the institution. Marriage is - like you say - an economic institution and it isn't required for love to exist. So given a choice, people tend to only use it if it confers some kind of economic function that they couldn't otherwise get.

On the issue of the political right as a whole, there is a lot of confusion on the issue, because people don't know if they should be in support or in opposition to it, so the answer that you get will actually depend on ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Sometimes people even give different answers because of what they are defining themselves in opposition to.

But I hope that eventually they will all come to the conclusion that it's worthwhile to legalise it and get the issue dealt with.

[Contrapunctus]

Yep, it happens. The other usage for it is semiotic. If a country permits gay marriage, then it is a sign that homosexuality is no longer off limits at the next generation, because kids growing up will hear, "theoretically you could also marry someone who is the same gender as you", and the knowledge that you could is actually more powerful than the act of actually doing it, from the perspective of "is there acceptance?".

Thus is the goal of liberal, secular government. Strip all the joy and religious meaning out of time-honored institutions and turn them into egalitarian tools of the state.

[Drlee]

You tell me how it's a right.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Rei Murasame]

Thus is the goal of liberal, secular government. Strip all the joy and religious meaning out of time-honored institutions and turn them into egalitarian tools of the state.

Well, to be fair, they can't strip something that was never there. Marriage pretty much was always an economic contract, wasn't it?

[DrSteveBrule]

Well, to be fair, they can't strip something that was never there. Marriage pretty much was always an economic contract, wasn't it?

An economic contract disguised as something lofty and venerable.

[ComradeTim]

Marriage is nothing that anyone should seek after if they can actually just avoid it, since marriage is a prison.

What about open marriage? Is that still a prison in your estimation? To me it seems to provide an excellent solution, which provides for both the human desire for stability and impulse for fun.

[Contrapunctus]

Well, to be fair, they can't strip something that was never there. Marriage pretty much was always an economic contract, wasn't it?

To an extent yes. It used to have a religious connotation to it.

[Old_Hat]

Marriage has always been about promoting the best possible upbriginging of children. I defy anyone to tell me that single parent "families" produce equal or better results. There are always exceptions but as a rule they cleary do not. The destruction of the traditional family unit has led to a bloated and bureaucratic managerial society, which feminists euphemestically call "the village". Most of us accept that having a state bureaucracy running the economy is a disastrous idea. However, a surprisingly large number of the same people think that it's a good idea to have the same bureacracy raise our children. In relation to marriage being a prison; civilisation has always been based on the Panopticon ideal. No civilisation has existed without enforcing behavioural standards.

Frank Herbert: Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.