What Am I?

[distantearlywarning]

I am a registered Libertarian. I voted for John Kerry last fall. However, I feel that I don't really fit in anywhere right now. I am frustrated by the fact that no candidates really seem to support what I believe in. I took that 4-way political test that was floating around a while back and it told me I should vote for Al Sharpton. (Like that's a viable candidacy!)

Here are my beliefs on all the various issues. Can someone tell me what party I should be sending money to?

Drugs: The use and possession of any or all classes of controlled substances should be legalized and possibly taxed.

Abortion: Barely pro-choice (and probably mostly that's just reaction to fundie nonsense - if they didn't scream and throw fits about it all the time I might actually be pro-life - I just don't want to be associated with or support those fruitcakes and their fruitcake opinions in any way). Abortion is a necessary evil.

Religion: Should be kept out of my government! I would happily, for instance, support a ban on religious text on currency and legislation to take "One Nation, Under God" out of the pledge. I do not want to live in a theocracy.

Religion: At the same time, I am a practicing Christian who believes that Jesus was the Son of God. I just don't want to force my beliefs on others.

Euthanasia: Why do we consider this to be mercy for our suffering animals, but deny it to suffering people? Assisted suicide should be legal.

Funding for the Arts and other Public Works: I wish people were mature enough to see the point/bigger picture in making voluntary contributions to this kind of thing. Until that happens (not holding my breath), I guess I also chalk this one up under the category of "necessary evil".

Welfare: Helping people out helps our society as a whole. Another necessary evil. I don't believe that most welfare recipients are lazy and I understand how the power of sociological constraints makes it difficult for some people to get along. I wish the government would do better things with the welfare system, though. Right now it's badly managed. Corporate welfare (in all it's permutations), on the other hand, needs to stop immediately. Companies should not be allowed to tax shelter offshore, or be given perks, or other similar things. Trickle-down should be called trickle-on.

Gun Control: Gun control is using both hands. :-)

War/War in Iraq: I am not a pacifist in general, nor am I opposed to sometimes using violence as a tool to achieve a larger good. At the same time, I believe that if we use thuggish means to win (e.g., torture, suppression of free speech, etc.), that just makes us new thugs, no better than the old thugs we replaced. I originally supported the war in Iraq because I hated Saddam Hussein. I now oppose it because I think we ARE Saddam Hussein.

Free Speech: As I said in another post a while back - I follow Voltaire's example. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I think the ACLU should defend the rights of KKK members and other "undesirables" to hold rallies.

Death Penalty: On the fence on this one. Not sure.

Civil Rights: Those who give up liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither.

Affirmative Action: Against it. It isn't fair. If we have to do it at all, it should be based on socio-economic status, not race.

Immigration: Another on-the-fence issue for me. I would like to see more data on the impact of legal and illegal immigration on our society as a whole.

Gay Marriage: I think people should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult(s) they want to. I would like to see civil unions become the "legal" side of marriage for everyone, and have "church" marriages be between an individual and God. (Churches can then decide whether they think it's ok for gays to "marry" in their congregation if they want to, but can't deny civil rights to any population under the law.)

Homosexuality: I believe that homosexuality is at least in part biologically based, and think that Leviticus is both overrated and out of date. I also believe that God loves people regardless of sexual orientation.

Intellectualism: I am unashamed to say that I am an "elitist". I value education and science and have absolutely no patience with "NASCAR Republicanism".


I guess that's all I can think of right now. So...who should I vote for in the next election?

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. Sounds like you chose right (for you) the first time.

That mix of beliefs sounds about right for the Libertarian party.

Of course we would appreciate your help in 2008 though. And in 2006, if you get a Libertarian into a neocon's seat in Congress, it could only be a positive, right?

[Enquiringkitty]

5. Right! If a vote can't be cast for what you are for, vote for what you are

are against. Sometimes that is our only recourse.

[distantearlywarning]

14. Re: Libertarian in Neocon's seat

This is true. At least a Libertarian won't attempt to make science teachers teach religion (and probably won't be too interested in spending taxpayer money on pointless wars, either).

[applegrove]

2. Some drugs cause addiction which is deadly. Some drugs cause

mental illness and brain changes. Don't you think the drugs that are dangerous should be illegal?

[distantearlywarning]

4. I should have added:

I'm not really interested in debating any of these individual issues at this time. I would be happy to discuss the generally accepted values and beliefs of any given political party, however (or what people think these beliefs are).

[applegrove]

6. You are definitely a Republican - ha ha ha I jest!! n/t

[Enquiringkitty]

7. Some drug that are dangerous on the streets are good for real patients

[applegrove]

11. True! Some drugs should be regulated & by prescription only

[Enquiringkitty]

3. Hilary Clinton .. she has no right to judge anyone and she must REALLY be

a forgiving, accepting and understanding person when it comes to the failings and struggles of other people....lol!

Seriously! I agree with everything you listed. I have trouble making a choice too. I just try to find the person who matches my ideals the most regardless of the odds of them winning. I don't see it as a wasted vote ... I see it as using my vote to tell the others that this person has something to say that I agree with enough to give my vote to him/her. It's hard. By the way, Do you find that people ask you or want to argue with you about your views? .... I get that all the time.

[distantearlywarning]

9. Yes, people constantly try to argue with me about things.

See post #2 above.

Sometimes it's interesting, but I always suspect that other people think that I just adopted my viewpoints because they seemed nice, rather than putting years and years of thought behind them.

There are very few arguments about any subject that I haven't already heard and thought through in some detail. I based my choices on the best available information, and unless you have new information, argument is kind of pointless.

I also don't believe in trying to convert people who aren't already at least somewhat interested in my viewpoint, so there's not much in it for me either.

[B0S0X87]

8. Where are you on economic issues?

You sound liberal enough to be voting for democrats, but social issues are only half the story.

[distantearlywarning]

10. Can you name some economic issues?

Remind me of some and I'll tell you what I think about them.

I agree that social issues are only half the story.

[applegrove]

13. Supply side economics - can you get to heaven by cutting the costs

of production? Or do you have to tithe too?

[distantearlywarning]

16. I must confess up front

that I am uneducated on this subject. A quick perusal of this Wikipedia entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

leads me to believe that I would not be a "supply-sider", as I have not seen much evidence that the whole "trickle-down" thing really works in a society of selfish people (although philosophically I wish it did). But, again, I am pretty ignorant about this topic, and probably related others (never took any economics at all). Would you like to provide more enlightenment on this topic? :-)

What do you think the Democrats would say about this? I already know that the Republicans like to give big tax breaks to their corporate buddies (regardless of the effects on the populace at large).

[applegrove]

20. Supply side : IMHO

1. Supply shocks such as spending on a war or an Opec Oil Crisis "shocks' the economy and the economic models to a higher level (the aggregate supply curve). So even if you want to increase demand or decrease demand the line it crosses (the supply line) has been shocked up so you cannot meet any of the targets (efficiencies) you met before.. you cannot find the "nirvana" you had before. You have to 'shock' the economy back to the level before the 'supply shocks' (ie if it is 1980 then shock the economy back to supply levels of 1970s - by a long recession. Prices come down). Reagan's Supply Side measures - to reduce the costs of what he could - moved the aggregate supply curve back down to where it had been before and stopped the stagflation. Wealth, jobs, efficiencies that had not been attainable since 1972 then returned. It was called the 1980s. And Central banks all-over watched carefully over inflation so as it would not take off and cause price rises, etc and start stagflation again and kill an economy. Tis why there are so many mini recessions.

2. The whole purpose of undoing SS, or making the tax base more regressive or reducing the size of government is to undo what those 'supply shocks' did to the marketplace in the nasty 20th Century (well it was nasty if you were a FDR hating Conservative). The theory that if the USA returns to the same structure as the Night watchman Marketplace of the 19th Century ... then wealth creation will go back to that level. And you will be in heaven.

Do you believe in this? (1 + 2)

Or is it a tool you may use to get out of stagflation but we do not need to go back in time because that much wealth required the workmen make only pennies a day and those days are over? (1)

[applegrove]

21. In other words, the people who made money off of the War & Opec

price increases were not the ones who paid the price. The workers paid the price to get things back to the old 'normal' of the way the economy functioned.

Looked for new "Supply Side - Laterals" in the years to come. Though with an emergine BRIC & Iran economies, the supply costs will be coming down for years so chances of Supply Shocks will be less (as the USA economy will not be at full-employment for eons).

[B0S0X87]

15. Sure...

small federal government or big federal government?

privatize some programs to save money and hopefully make them run more efficiently (i.e. Amtrak) or keep them public?

Protectionist or free trader?

Do tax cuts help anyone?

Do we need tax reform? And if so, which way should we go?

Deregulation or more regulation?

minimum wage- should it be raised?

Can presidents actually create jobs? If so, how?

That should get you started.

[distantearlywarning]

17. Thanks!

Small or large federal government: As small as possible while still maintaining the integrity of our society. I think some social programs are ok. I am actually more concerned with how money is being managed than the exact things it pays for, if that makes sense. Better management = smaller government.

Privatizing programs: Yes, but depends on the program. Amtrak might be ok, but I wouldn't want to see prisons privatized, for instance.

Protectionist or Free Trader: Free Trade.

Do Tax Cuts Help?: I'm inclined to say no, but as stated above, I haven't thought this one through.

Tax Reform?: Yes, we need tax reform. I am kind of attracted to the idea of a national sales tax in lieu of income tax. I also think a flat tax would be fairer. I really wish that U.S. corporations would be required to share more of the tax burden.

Regulation?: Yes.

Minimum Wage: Although I agree that a minimum wage that is low enough to prevent workers from finding adequate housing and health care is a major problem in our society (I say this from a pragmatic viewpoint - uninsured workers clog emergency rooms, homeless workers are a drain on charities, etc.), I am also not convinced that raising the minimum wage is the correct solution. I think that we should tackle this problem from the other side - let's address the issues of affordable housing and healthcare instead.

And on the subject of healthcare: this is one area in which I have become quite "liberal" - I now believe (I didn't always) that socialized medicine is the best solution to our problems in this area.

[B0S0X87]

18. Sounds at least somewhat liberal

Your views on regulation and health care are definetly liberal-leaning. A flat tax, no minimum wage increase and free trade make you more to the right, but you make up for that with your positions on privatization and efficient government make up for that.

You kind of sound like me. I'm a social libertarian through and through, but I scatter my shots across the board when it comes to economic issues. I guess if I had to come up with a label for myself fiscally, it would be a pragmatist. I usually follow economic principles when it comes to things like wages and trade, but I'm certainly no supply-sider and I believe it's necessary for the government to help those in need.

[ourbluenation]

12. I agree with most of what you said and I am a DEMOCRAT...

and quite content with my decision.

[housewolf]

19. More issues to consider....

Do you support the right of workers to organize and to lobby business for their rights? Are regulations on working hours & conditions "workers rights" or penalties on business? Or do you believe that business "owns" all the rights?

Do you believe that profit trumps all other considerations?

Do you support environmental regulation/protection? Or do you believe that business has the right to despoil the environment as it pleases in order to maximize profits? Who is responsible for polllution clean-up - business or the public?

Do you believe that an educated public benefits the entire society and thus support the goals of publicly-funded education?

Do you believe that there are certain aspects of a society that belong to "the commons" - that is, to the whole of society for the benefit of all (such things as roads, water, greenspace, wildlands, clean air, etcc)? Or do you believe that individuals have the right to privately own every feature of our country?

Do you believe in "every man for himself" or is society an inter-dependent group?

Do you believe that taxes are a penalty or a contribution that we make to support mutual benefits?

Do you believe that the role of the courts is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority? Or to protect the majority from the minority?

Just a few more things for you to think about in your quest....

[GarySeven]

22. You are a Southern Liberal !!

Your values are more in tune with what I call "rural values," as opposed to "urban values," the most important of which is gun control. Urbanites simply see no use for a gun except to kill and commit crime. But what is worse is their disdain and contempt for those who think differently. The doxology of their idelogy is so strict that anyone who disagrees with them on that one point, or any other point, is immediately outcast - or worse, lumped in with conservatives.

Rural liberals, like Southern liberals, are condemned to that briar patch. I believe firmly that the many so-called "Red States" voted the way they did simply because of the contempt they felt from would-be fellow liberals for their "rural values." Being completely shut out by urbanites, they had no one else to vote for.

Because rural or Southern liberals are thought to be "insufficiently liberal," the urbanites refuse to reach out to us, leaving us to drown amid the Neanderthals, with no political power to oust them or to build a new coalition to defeat conservativism. Your rural values (which you could have even if you live in the city) makes you ideologically suspect to most of the people on this board - and that is the source of your insecurity as to where you fit in.