[Waitone]

Other threads got me to thinking about political philosophy and hence my two-fold question.

First Fold--How would you succinctly describe your political philosophy?
Second Fold--Describe the origin of your position on firearms.

I asked the question so I'll go first.
1>I consider myself to be a "Thinking, Constitutionally Constrained Libertarian."
2>All humans have the right to exercise self-defense regardless of what human institutions say.

No political manifesto's. Just a pithy right-to-the-point descriptor.

[Ky Larry]

Waitone, you pretty well nailed both parts of the question.

[CentralTexas]

the original Star Trek, that's where most of my philosophy started as a child.
Prime Directive etc.=Libertarian today. Guns? I grew up in Texas and we never thought they were weird or unusual, just there.
CT

[Chris Rhines]

1.) Voluntarian subset of the Libertarian Anarchist set. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarian

2.) Non-Aggression Principle -> ownership of property cannot be considered aggression -> firearms are property.

- Chris

[robert garner]

I was raised a citizen of a Republic;as such I have a duty to my Nation,State,Family and self to Defend against all who would do us harm, forign or domestic.

[Fletchette]

I think of myself as a libertarian as you have defined it. Perhaps a strict Constitutionalist (but I am concerned that if enough statists get their way the Constitution will itself become anti-American).

After I lost my religion (ex-Catholic) in my early 20's I spent a lot of time thinking about right and wrong, ethics and what to believe in. I don't have all the answers, but I know this much: tyranny isn't it. :cool:

[lee n. field]

This has been asked before (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=27871).

Now, as then, pessimistic anarcho-Calvinist. Maybe a bit more pessimistic now. The jury's still out on whether coercive states are more or less murderous than individuals or small groups of individuals. Brigands will take you out one by one, but states go in for occational line-em-up-and-shoot-em genocides.

The answer to the second question is complicated, and heavily tied in with the political question, but comes from a gut feeling that I can't finally trust "the authorities" to protect me.

[1911 guy]

Strict constitutionalist, it means what it says. English has not changed in the last 500 years, much less the last 250.
I have a right to own a firearm to ensure the remainder of my rights, as do you. We collectively have an obligation to ensure that our government serves our needs. Read the Declaration.

[308win]

I believe that each person is responsible for their own actions. I believe in STRICT separation of church and state. I believe that the Constitution is not nearly as ambiguous as the SCOTUS would have us believe. I believe that less government is better. And I do not believe in the 'what's mine is mine and what's yours is ours' philosophy that both the Ds and Rs have adopted. I also believe that it is the 'United States is' not the 'United States are'. So whatever that makes me, guilty as charged.

As for the 2d ammendment, I was fortunate enough to grow up in an era and area where most people owned guns and those who didn't were neither chastised nor chastising.

[dev_null]

Libertarian, with the proviso that I do believe in limited, reasonable (definitions TBD, but examples would be environmental and employee relations -- before flaming note the word "limited") oversight on what corporations may do.

Fully support the 2nd Amendment and the various enumerations of the philosophy behind it in the writing of Jefferson, Madison, et al.

- 0 -

[EghtySx]

Politically as well as in life I believe in minding your own business and what you do in your backyard is none of mine as long as you aren't hurting anyone. I don't know what that would be officially labeled but I call it Live and let Live.

As far as guns go, I have always been around em. For my first birthday my Dad got *me* a birddog. I was never taught that guns were for killing. We would have "play shoots" on our local trap range once a week, everyone drinking, and sometimes people would get in fights. No one ever thought of getting a gun to settle a score, it just wansn't part of the thinking. Guns are for fun, that's it. Big boys' toys. The thought of shooting someone never crossed anyone's mind as far as I ever knew.

[peteinct]

Keep ypur hands out of my wallet and your nose out of my buisiness and I'll grant you the same courtesy.

Shooting guns is like voting but with a lot of noise and smoke!



pete

[c-bag]

Libertarian more or less.

My support of the right to bear arms/ self defense originates in the idea that all individuals are free agents that are utimately responsible for their own well-being, self-preservation being only one of many things we all are responsible for

[DRZinn]

If it doesn't hurt anyone, no-one has the right to prevent it.

I'd like to see a tort-based legal system. If it can be proved to have harmed someone, or have been an attempt at such, it's prosecutable. If not, hands off.

Some things could be legitimate "crimes against society," such as gross pollution, which may not harm anyone directly, but can in some cases be shown to harm many indirectly.

[Joejojoba111]

"If it doesn't hurt anyone, no-one has the right to prevent it.

I'd like to see a tort-based legal system. If it can be proved to have harmed someone, or have been an attempt at such, it's prosecutable. If not, hands off.

Some things could be legitimate "crimes against society," such as gross pollution, which may not harm anyone directly, but can in some cases be shown to harm many indirectly."

That's good one, I like that one.

I think government is a good thing, but only when it is small and completes merely the 3 main roles which require it's existence.

[2nd Amendment]

I'm a Constitutionalist, with Minarchist/Anarchist leanings. I believe government is Evil by nature, but necessary on a local level to constrain greater evil by the strong over the weak. It must be closely monitored and controlled to prevent it from becoming that greater evil itself. Checks and balances at the grassroots level consisting of the Citizenry over elected officials, basically.

I'm a Fundamental Baptist who believes everyone should be free to do what they please so long as it doesn't harm anyone else, which includes allowing me to tell them what wrong headed/perverted/stupid/nasty SOB's they are for living like that. At that point my obligation is fulfilled and it's between them and God, without any need for the nanny-state to step in, than you very much Mr Drug Warriors, Alphabet Agency hacks, etc.

Yeah, it's a philosophy that makes for an interesting balancing act. :D

[Ian]

Rational anarchist (a la Heinlein), anarchocapitalist, voluntaryist - whichever you prefer. At this point the subtle and oft-argued differences are irrelevant to reality.

Freedom to own firearms is simply an extension of the right to own property and the right to do what you like (see also, NAP/ZAP).

[stevelyn]

Very top of the diamond Libertarian.

(Former christo-fascist republican voter)

[Duh_Bear]

I'm just a guy who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, ownership of property, and right to self-defense. I'm not much for labels. :p

[SaintofKillers]

Me, I dont really know where I stand anymore in the political arena. I feel that for the most part the government is a failure and has become a faceless eating machine that We the People have let get out of control.

Some of us, actually very few, are struggling to pull the plug, most of us are just trying to get by paying our bills, watching the big game on TV, and drinking a cold one.

I think most are still wondering what happened or simply dont care what happened. The most important thing in their lives right now is who is going to be the final contestant on American Idol and who is doing what over on Desperate Houswives.

I was a diehard Republican from the moment I was able to think about such things, it all seemed like common sense to me at that time. Now I dont really find much difference between the two political parties.

I am a practicing Witch, Wiccan for those who are not in the know, I am not a tree hugger or animal rights activist. I believe the animals are there to enjoy and to eat if necessary. I enjoy the hunt, its not the kill but the thrill of the chase. The trees are there to enjoy also, and to build shelters, and burn to keep warm and to cook the deer that I harvested to feed my family.

It really disappoints me that in a country that claims to be so tolerant of other religions, that Wiccans,Pagans and etc, are not considered legitimate by our own government.

As for the Second Amendment, had those executed during the Salem witch trials exercised their right to defend themselves.....

I guess your religion is OK as long as it falls under the heading of Christianity.

[armedandsafe]

#1) Rational anarchist, strict Constitutionalist...

#2) Tools is tools.

Pops

[Barbara]

How Would You Describe Your Political Philosophy?

1.) Antagonistic? :D
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

2.) Bill Clinton and Sarah Brady.

[dasmi]

I asked the question so I'll go first.
1>I consider myself to be a "Thinking, Constitutionally Constrained Libertarian."
2>All humans have the right to exercise self-defense regardless of what human institutions say.

+1, Waitone

[shermacman]

Right-wing, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal, gun-toting, conservative.

[dolanp]

If there is no victim, there is no crime. Nobody can be a criminal against themselves.

[Sistema1927]

I am an RLC Republican.

[hightech]

States rights, personal rights. :)

[WT]

Republican trending toward Democrat and will probably eventually become Socialist. Guess my age is showing.

Under the Republicans the USA has lost millions of jobs to outsourcing. Now George is talking about screwing more Americans by abolishing social security - many Americans depend on it. With no job, somebody has to pay for food.

Maybe Hillary will get elected in 2008. I don't think she will mess with SS or Medicare.

A few years from now when I am really old, still paying high taxes, I expect government to help me out - some payback is due.

I feel sorry for you guys under 50.

[beerslurpy]

Dont feel sorry for us. We know social security is a scam and we are saving up plenty of money for retirement. If we still have social security by the time I am 40-50, I will start taking money off shore in preparation for becoming an ex-pat. If I dont have enough money by then I will just keep working until I do. Same way my anscestors did it- with no handouts and no help from the government. Just good old american ingenuity and industriousness.

I feel sorry for myself and for our children and grandchildren if we continue to permit this cannibalization of the most productive members of our society to support the least productive.

[White Horseradish]

I would be an anarchist if I wasn't enough of a realist to see that anarchy does not work for the same reason that communism failed - human nature. A somewhat realistic anarchist is a libertarian, so there we have it. I believe the only reason for laws to exist is to protect either individuals or society from harm. If it does not harm anyone, government has no business regulating it. In effect, I stand with the folks that have said similar things already.



Back in the 1970's or so there was this joke in Russia:

What is the difference between an optimist and a pessimist?
- The optimist studies English.
- The pessimist studies Chinese.
- The realist studies Avtomat Kalashinikova


As I mentioned above, I consider myself a realist. My present view on firearms was greatly influenced by the Long Island Railroad massacre, where Colin Ferguson kept shooting at defenceless people because no one on the train had the equipment to stop him. I lived in Queens at the time, and it struck kinda close to home.

[45Badger]

Fiscal conservative, social liberal/libertarian.

Money note to all elected officials- Do not waste another friggin' dime of my hard earned money. Spend it wisely, do not spend it if we do not have it, and do not mortgage my children's future trying to make today feel better.

Live and let live. I promise that my actions will not bring any harm to you. You should do the same. While you're at it, save yourself. Don't worry about me, the children, Terry Schiavo, evolution, gays in the military, Bill Frist, Hillary Clinton, or anything or anybody that somebody does that does not physically affect you.

Extremely disappointed in current Repub so called leadership. Chasing waste of time social issues, being seriously irresponsible with money, not helping the environment. Only Hillary scares me more.

Gun freakiness stems from the "live free or die" libertarian bent in my brain.

[lee n. field]

English has not changed in the last 500 years, much less the last 250.

It has, actually.

"Well regulated" means something different now then when written 2.x centuries ago. "Shall not be infringed" seems to be a void concept now, meaning precisely nothing to most of it's hearers.

[Hawkmoon]

First Fold--How would you succinctly describe your political philosophy?
Second Fold--Describe the origin of your position on firearms.
First: "A" (as in apolitical)

Second: My grandfather said a man should know how to use a firearm ... so he showed us.

[Refirignis]

First Fold--How would you succinctly describe your political philosophy?
Second Fold--Describe the origin of your position on firearms.

1. libertarian-constitutionalist (note the lack of a capital 'l') with a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
2. "The right of the individual to buy, keep, and bear military weapons of war shall not be abridged."

My views are that all victimless crime laws are bull????, that everyone should cease to be a contracted 14th Amendment citizen ("United States citizen") as soon as they are able, and I don't care what others do unless they mess with my property.

[rick_reno]

That's easy - I'm perfectly alligned with the greatest President to ever hold the office - our current leader, George W. Bush.

[Khaotic]

(.1) I agree with Patrick Henry, have ever since I read anything about him - I suppose that makes me an Anti-Federalist with leanings toward anarchy.

My stuff, hands-off.
My money, hands-off.
My rights, hands-off.

(.2) Logically you have only one rational means of enforcing those things, especially against overwhelming numbers of people hostile to the concept.

-K

[Spiphel Rike]

I'm a funny one.
I believe strongly in the right to own whatever kind of weapon you like (not nuclear, biological or nerve agents and the like).
I support genetic engineering, science (stem cell research) and believe that abortion is justified in some cases.
Some of my beliefs will have me labelled as a weirdo, but they're MY beliefs so that's that.
Otherwise i'm reasonable, don't waste my tax dollars, don't say or do stupid things e.t.c

[Mongo the Mutterer]

I've noted a lot of us have said "libertarian" in this post. Me too, I guess. The Republicans I grew up with have become Democrats. The Democrats are really off the reservation, screaming Socialists and Commies. So that leaves the Libertarians, because I think the Greens should be stripped naked and dropped in the Amazon with nothing. If they want to go back to nature, let'em.

I am a social liberal and very very conservative fiscally. I don't care what you do with your life, it is your business. Just don't make it mine by parading your "lifestyle" or whatever. I don't care how folks have sex, I just hope they get enough because it makes things more peaceful. By the way, I am not going TO PAY for your lifestyle.

On the second part, I have studied history enough, and seen the 100 million or so people killed by THEIR OWN governments in the last century. To disarm would be absolutely suicidal.

[dvines]

that's what we all are here, from what I see.

We lost the first part our nation/rights starting with the 12th Amendment. Then the rest starting with FDR and continuing to now.

I don't see anyone here who is going to do anything but blame Bush, point a finger at everyone but themselves, have some cheese with their whine, and take no responsibility for their own actions.

Libertarian / Republican my bu--.

CAWs, IMHO..

[Fletchette]

Talkers / Posters not doers

that's what we all are here, from what I see.

Pretty cynical opinion, isn't it? Afterall, you have no idea what we do outside of posting on this site (some of us may actually be *gasp* politically active!)

That said, talking, posting and otherwise communicating *is* doing something, as it helps develop a concensus for concerted action. Were the Founding fathers just wasting their time with all those silly Costitutional Congresses, or the postings of thier opinions in their Federalist Parpers?

One of my optimistic hopes for this country is that technology like the internet keeps the form of govenrment our Founders envisioned a viable one despite the amount of people now on the planet.

Oh, by the way, welcome to The High Road...

[Molon Labe]

Libertarian, though I certainly don't agree with everything in the Libertarian Party's platform. I believe abortion is murder, for example.

[shermacman]

dvines:

First of all: Welcome!

Second: That will go down in the record books as one of the dumbest, most arrogant first posts in history.

You have no idea how much hard work many of us put into our local governments, state and Federal. You have no idea what we do to encourage friends and acquaintances on behalf of RKBA issues.

But more importantly, given your idiotic first post, why are you here? Is it to spew garbage? Or is it to enlighten us pathetic morons?

that's what we all are here, from what I see.
Careful how you use the word: "we".

[RealGun]

Fiscal conservative, social liberal/libertarian.

Money note to all elected officials- Do not waste another friggin' dime of my hard earned money. Spend it wisely, do not spend it if we do not have it, and do not mortgage my children's future trying to make today feel better.

Live and let live. I promise that my actions will not bring any harm to you. You should do the same. While you're at it, save yourself. Don't worry about me, the children, Terry Schiavo, evolution, gays in the military, Bill Frist, Hillary Clinton, or anything or anybody that somebody does that does not physically affect you.

Extremely disappointed in current Repub so called leadership. Chasing waste of time social issues, being seriously irresponsible with money, not helping the environment. Only Hillary scares me more.

Gun freakiness stems from the "live free or die" libertarian bent in my brain.- 45Badger

That works for me, except that I would have a community interest in what children learn about life and living and the quality of parenting. I would stress critical thinking, not brainwashing...both rights as well as responsibilities. I am not sure people have a right to be stupid, if stupidity becomes society's biggest burden.

[Baba Louie]

I don't see anyone here who is going to do anything but blame Bush, point a finger at everyone but themselves, have some cheese with their whine, and take no responsibility for their own actions. Methinks he doth protest too much with an opening post spewing forth as such. But then again, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion :rolleyes:

Blame Bush? :confused: You've got to be kidding.

Lots of politicians and bureaucrats deserve more than a pointed finger. (Which finger by the by?)

I'd opine that the vast majority of people on this board are the type to take TOTAL responsibility for their own actions... having been here since THR morphed form TFL's quasi-shutdown and having read more than one or two threads/posts...

But... WhaddaIknow? ;) Oh, and dvines... Welcome to THR :p

Me? I'd classify myself as a Neo-Non-Partisan-Boy-Scout-Environmentalist-Self-Sufficient-Be-Prepared-Helper-of-Others-When they-REALLY-need-it-Conservative-Liberal wannabe...who believes in well behaved children, firearms, books, science, music, intelligent pretty women, dogs and cats and leaving people alone for the most part.

Is there a Cynical Curmudgeon Party? If not, there oughta be...

To quote/paraphrase Will Rogers, "Thank Goodness we DON'T get all the Government we're paying for...Yet" (Tho' Uncle Sam is trying awfully hard at times)

[Control Group]

Describe my political views? Individualist. That's the only one that matters. And not in any kind of hippie-dippie "I'm expressing my individuality as a beautiful and unique snowflake that's just one part of Gaia's eternal whole" way, in the simple "society exists to serve the individual" way. That is, the betterment of individuals is the goal. This is as opposed to the opposing party, collectivists: "the individual exists to serve society."

Everything else follows from that, most especially the politics of guns. It's the first thing you need to find out from someone before debating the topic with them. If they're collectivist, then there's no arguing the 2nd, self-defense, statistics, or any of the other normal points with them. They want to ban guns to protect society as a whole, and do not see any problem with sacrificing individuals (both individual rights to own firearms, and individuals as victims of violent crime) to that cause. Every intellectually-honest anti (and they certainly exist) is a collectivist.

As an individualist, my rights and my safety are more important than the well-being of society (not than the well-being of the other individuals that make up society, of course, but more important than society itself). Therefore, it's obvious that I should have the right to weaponry at least as good as that used by society to defend itself (i.e., the military and the police).

[RealGun]

Individualist. That's the only one that matters. - Control Group

Can you reconcile that with children being reared by communities, or is that wrong too?

[dolanp]

Dont feel sorry for us. We know social security is a scam and we are saving up plenty of money for retirement. If we still have social security by the time I am 40-50, I will start taking money off shore in preparation for becoming an ex-pat. If I dont have enough money by then I will just keep working until I do. Same way my anscestors did it- with no handouts and no help from the government. Just good old american ingenuity and industriousness.

I feel sorry for myself and for our children and grandchildren if we continue to permit this cannibalization of the most productive members of our society to support the least productive.

Amen beerslurpy! I'm not relying on any corrupt Ponzi scheme to fund my retirement. Doing it the good old fashioned personally responsible way. After all, if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself. I have no doubts that I will retire a millionaire (laughing? you shouldn't be! it's easy), a lot more than the Socialist Insecurity will give me.

[dvines]

As diverse as the group appears to be.

And they, the Comments / Retorts / Excuses, always allow me to better understand the "individuals" within a "group".

Thanks for the Welcome.

[Yanus]

1. just a little to the right of Genghis Kahn....... just a little :D
2. gun ownership? - I come from a long line of gun owners and users.

Yanus

[Ian]

dvines - Y'know, if you want to find out what people do about the political situation, the place to look would be a thread titled something like "What do you do to change the US political situation?". This thread is only asking how people identify themselves, so of course you won't find talk about actions.

[dvines]

Gosh, what a deep concept.

Thanks so very much for such profound insight.

Have a nice day,

I must return to earning my filthy lucre.

[Control Group]

Can you reconcile that with children being reared by communities, or is that wrong too?
I have to admit I'm not entirely certain what you mean, so if my response is way off-point, I apologize. Feel free to correct me, too, of course.

Ignoring for the moment how one legally defines "children" (since any clear line will always lead to cases that are patently ridiculous), and going with the more intuitive and ambiguous idea that children are people who are not capable of effectively taking responsibility for their own lives, I see no problem with children being reared by a community.

If nothing else, a family is a small sort of community, so it would be a bit silly of me to object to it.

But the key is that, from my point of view, children don't have any rights. I realize this sounds more than a bit out there, so let me elaborate. In my mind, rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand; you can't have one without the other. If I've got a right to life, then I also have the responsibility for it. That is, no one else is going to provide me with food, shelter, clothing, etc., I have to arrange those for myself. If I've got a right to own a gun, I've got the responsibility of using it correctly.

Since it's not fair to give a child adult responsibilities, it's not legitimate to give a child adult rights. Parents (or guardians, or whomever is providing for the child) have an absolute duty to provide for the child appropriately, and take on the responsibilities the child can't.

Now the problem, of course (which I think is what you're getting at), is the idea of the community deciding what "appropriately" actually means, and how much society can dictate what's good or bad parenting. On one end, you've got situations of sexual molestation or outright murder, and on the other end, you've got parents deciding to spank their children. The only answer is that community (collective) standards have to apply.

Yes, this is a collectivist point of view. I'd note that it's the collective working to protect a future individual (the child), though. Which doesn't make it not collectivism, but I've yet to find a pure ideal which is universally applicable. This may make me intellectually inconsistent - obviously, I don't believe it does, but I'm not exactly objective.

[Control Group]

So, dvines, what would constitute doing something, in your view? Are you trying to say that anyone who isn't actively taking up arms against his oppressor is just engaged in navel-gazing and finger-pointing? Or do you just have to be politically active? Run for office? Write your reps? Donate money to a cause?

Of course, you don't know that anyone here isn't doing any of the above, up to and including armed resistance, so criticizing them for not doing it is a little strange. No one even asked what people were doing, and no one has answered it, so you've got precisely zero information on what people are actually doing.

Unless you just assume that if one's got the time to post on THR, one isn't active enough.

Which is a funny sort of stance to take in a post on THR. But rather than calling "hypocrite" and ignoring you, I'll point out that most people spend their time doing more than one thing. It's possible that people might be fighting the good fight, and still have time to post on THR. They probably also have time to eat, and sleep, and maybe even talk to their significant others every now and again.

I seem to recall a certain group of gents back in the late 18th century spending a lot of time writing each other letters and discussing politics. There might even have been a couple people "pointing the finger" at the British government. Maybe even complaining about the way things were. Lucky for the British government that anyone who spends some time laying blame and complaining obviously isn't actually doing anything, or they might have lost their American colonies.

(To everyone who isn't dvines: I apologize, but there are times I can't help feeding the trolls)

[R.H. Lee]

I lean toward strict constructionism with qualifiers. I know that sounds weasly, but think about it. The FF could not have anticipated all the technological advances that have given rise to legal quandaries. The rise of the corporate culture and influence for example, and its intertwining with career politicians. They thought of public service as just that, do your duty and return home to your occupation or business. That concept alone would have kept government growth to a minimum.

The ‘federalization’ of education, health and welfare, product liability….all these are questionable areas for federal involvement IMO. OTOH, the single greatest strength of this country lies in the unity of the states and our (heretofore) common language and values. Without some binding force, we become balkanized thereby opening ourselves up to imposed controls……..

The bottom line is that fed .gov has become too big, too powerful and has too much of our money. They are not accountable to us in any realistic sense and I don’t know how you turn that around. A government reflects the culture of the people it ‘governs’. Over time, we have allowed our culture to become diluted and unfocused as we have lost the values handed to us by the FF.

[308win]

that's what we all are here, from what I see.

Unless you have a mouse in your pocket use the we word cautiously thank you.

[Iain]

Thought I might contribute.

Socially liberal, reasonably fiscally conservative, not at all authoritarian. Strongly in favour of independent politicians, and far less authoritarian behaviour on the part of political parties. Labour recently tried to impose an all-women party shortlist on a safe Welsh Labour seat. The male incumbent ran as an independent and won. This cheered me no end.

These days it seems easier to provide a list of things going on in the world of politics that I disagree with. Tends to make me think that too much goes on in the world of politics, and some should just plain slow down and see just how things don't work instead of replacing them before they get a chance to not work.

Firearms position - odd one. Most people here (UK) seem to think I am some sort of dangerous nut. Not sure what people here (THR) think. I tend to think that the strongest argument against firearms prohibition (in the absence of a 2A-alike) is the one about whether or not the govt trusts it's populace.

[RealGun]

I have to admit I'm not entirely certain what you mean, so if my response is way off-point, I apologize. Feel free to correct me, too, of course. - Control Group

You followed me perfectly. Good job. I guess my point would be that some philosophical concession to the collective may be in our best interest, more as a family or a business than as a private and independent individual.

I think young hot dogs see things differently than those with a family experience. It shows in their politics.

[Farnham]

1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

2. Be ready, willing, and able to do unto others before they do unto you.

S/F

Farnham

[stonewall34]

1. Political philosophy: I am Jeffersonian in my political beliefs, in other words I believe the least amount of government is what works best.

2. 2nd Amendment: I believe that in order to properly pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness you have to be able to defend them if necessary.

"The most dangerous words in the English language are "there ought to be a law"!!!

Stonewall34

[Byron Quick]

Rational anarchist. I sadly acknowledge that many people have a pathological need for government. I try to live perfectly in an imperfect world.

[Control Group]

You followed me perfectly. Good job. I guess my point would be that some philosophical concession to the collective may be in our best interest, more as a family or a business than as a private and independent individual.
Agreed. Man is, by nature, a social animal, and I don't think there's any point in denying it. My self-proclaimed stance of total individualism is, admittedly, much informed by the current context. Since we've swung so far towards collectivism, it's perfectly safe for me to be a counter-extremist...if we as a country were in more of a stereotypical "wild west" state, I'm sure my position would be more moderate. But it's easy to see what happens when one side is extremist and the other is moderate (gun control being the perfect example), so I take up what I see as the opposing position to the dominant mindset.

Of course, part of that is just me being contrarian. ;)

I think young hot dogs see things differently than those with a family experience. It shows in their politics.
Guilty as charged. At 27, unmarried and childless, I think it's perfectly fair to say my perspective and opinions are subject to change with nine months' notice. In my own defense, I didn't succumb to a mid-late teens bleeding-heart, save-the-world mentality; I've refined my politics since high school, but the rough outlines have been essentially the same since I was fourteen or so.

On the other hand, I have to think that suddenly taking on responsibility for another person's whole life would have a...significant, shall we say, impact on one's outlook.

At least I hope it does, or all my worrying about whether I can raise a kid right has been a waste of time. ;)

[middy]

1. Jeffersonian Constitutionalist :D
2. I grew up around guns. Nobody I knew ever abused the responsibility and nobody got hurt, so I recognize guns for what they are; inanimate objects that are to be treated with sober and constant attention as they are quite dangerous in the hands of a fool.

[bjbarron]

What I believe... (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bjbarron/blogfiles/whome.htm)

[The Real Hawkeye]

I am a libertarian who considers the preservation of traditions and traditional institutions (e.g., the family) to be essential for the preservation of liberty under the rule of law, which sort of makes me a conservative libertarian. I am a believer in the tendency of power to corrupt, and therefore favor a strict adherence to the plain meaning and original intent of the Constitution. I believe in decentralization of government power, preferring local control over state, state over federal. Local communities, as far as possible, should be allowed to govern themselves, and set their own standards, and have their laws reflect those standards without federal interference. I am a believer in states rights, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Personally opposed to abortion, but favor a hands off policy on this issue by the Federal Government, which means that I believe Row V. Wade was wrong and needs to be reversed in a future decision, as being bad law (i.e., not in accord with the Constitution). I believe that no fault divorce has contributed much to the destruction of our society, since it, in effect, outlawed actual marriage (and therefore healthy family life) which once meant a legally binding commitment, requiring the proof of fault before the government would recognize a right to dissolve it, permitting legal remarriage. I could go on, but that's a start.

[rock jock]

1. Conservative, strict Constitutionalist. I believe local communities have the right and authority to regulate certain behaviors not addressed by the Constitution.

2. Original Intent.

[The Real Hawkeye]

just a little to the right of Genghis KahnI'm sure this was meant to say that the poster was very right wing/conservative, but actually this common saying is misleading and destructive to a correct understanding of right wing politics/conservatism. Genghis Kahn is better described as a tyrant, which means that he is a far from a conservative as can be had. There has never been a right wing/conservative tyrant, since right wing/conservative means that you believe in strictly limited government in accordance with the rule of law and the preservation of the people's traditions as against government encroachment, i.e., the opposite of tyranny. I wish, therefore, that people would stop saying that they are to the right of Ghenhis Kahn, meaning to imply that they are very right wing and/or conservative.

[coylh]

Rule #1. Be Nice To Other People(TM). Most of the world's problems (political, economic, social) would instantly vanish if everyone was simply nice to other people.

[Sindawe]

Anarcho-capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist) Like Byron Quick, I realize that some folks just HAVE to have a Boss over them to tell them how things are done and where they fit in the world.

[R.H. Lee]

Sindawe- as an 'anarcho-capitalist', how do you balance the human tendency to engage in coercion and deception for profit with everyone's desire for honest and fair dealing? Is it left to each individual's ethical practices? Is there, for example, a small claims court in your world view?

I'm not challenging or taking you to task, only looking for more information. I do, however, have a problem with the libertarian philosophy to some extent, as they do not seem to acknowledge the concept of 'fabric of society'....not as as altruistic idea but a very real component of humans living together. We are more complex than simple 'quid-pro-quo' creatures.

[The Real Hawkeye]

RileyMC, you are confusing libertarianism with anarchism. The Founding Fathers adhered to a variety of libertarianism, and they surely believed in government. Read the Declaration of Independence to get an idea of what role they thought government served. Government's purpose is to secure the blessings of liberty and to protect rights. Government, in their conception, is not something out there, but it is you and me at all its levels. We are not all legislators, but we all have a part is selecting them, and they make the laws using the authority we temporarily loaned them. We are not all chief executives, but we all have a part in selecting one of us to serve in that capacity for a time. The chief executive is simply borrowing our executive authority, and so on. Government is just another word for us and our inherent authority over our environments. If we all acted as individuals in all things, there would be a state of nature, but that would only last until a group established some form of tyranny over the rest of us. That is why (and is in fact the only reason) government is necessary, i.e., to prevent tyranny, and tyranny would ALWAYS be the end result of anarchy. It is the nature of man. When government stops being the solution to tyranny, and starts being the cause of it, the Declaration tells us that it needs to be scrapped and replaced with a new government which correctly serves the only legitimate role of government, i.e., to PREVENT tyranny, and defend liberty, individual and state's rights.

[Igloodude]

1 - roughly libertarian

2 - I had very little exposure to guns growing up (I shot a .22 rifle a couple times, my parents were politically conservative but not particularly gun-ish) and a bit more once I got into the Navy. While in the Navy my wife (former police dispatcher) got me into target shooting, which quickly led to CCW as well.

[iapetus]

1) Mostly libertarian.
To elaborate:

As a first principle of government/lawmaking, I would go with the NIV principle / "Everyone should be free to do what they like as long as they are not harming others or restricting their freedoms" / some similar definition.

But I believe there is a need for government (and hence taxes to pay for it),
a) to protect/enforce the above principles.

Also, I believe there are such things as "family", "community", "nation", and "humanity", and tradition, and that they are worth something and worth preserving (not that that is incompatible with being a libertarian, but some libertarians/anarchists seem too willing to throw them all away).

Also, I believe that when people come together in large numbers in small spaces, there is a need for some rules and regulations to prevent chaos and keep society functioning. So I think it is also reasonable to have laws and regulations that help society to function properly, even if they don't strictly fit the previously defined principles. (Traffic regulations are a good example. If everyone drives on whichever side of the road they feel like, it may not be a violation of the NIV principle, but it sure as heck will make things difficult for people).

And I also think it is reasonable to the government to fund or help fund things like education and health care (just not mandate the use of government-controlled facilities), provided taxes aren't too high, and it actually works.

So, I guess that makes me a left-wing statist, at least by the standards of those round here ;)


2) Origins of my opinions on firearms:
Various pieces of history, recent world events, and a general altering of political opinions as a result of entering the real world, etc, suddenly came together in the realization unarmed civilians are vulnerable to persecution at the hands of mobs/governments/invaders, and as there will be no time opportunity to arm when the SHTF, people need to be armed (and have the right to be armed) beforehand.

I'd also note that when I was very much younger, I did actually have a very "libertarian" outlook, as regards the role of government, just laws, taxes, and even RKBA for self defence, before it got "educated" out of me. (Although in this case, the RKBA I was most interested in was open-carry of swords :), driven in part by a rather romanticised image of medieval life).

[Dan from MI]

I'm generally a limited government conservative.

Fiscally arch-conservative.
Socially libertarian for the most part, although I am staunchly pro-life and oppose abortion on "use of force against another person" grounds.