'Oly Shit!
I think I’ve just found out what political party I am!
I’ve often tried to describe where I stand party wise: I’m Republican because I agree with them on most of their financial views. I’m also a Democrat because I agree with them on most of their social views. But I’ve never felt that either party represents ALL my views, and I've never felt welcomed by either party because of the conflicts. (Not to mention that as soon as you agree with anything from an opposing party, people tend to dismiss you as an idiot.)
But that may be about to change!
I’ve been called a Libertarian before by people of both groups, but I’ve always just assumed that they were referring to being Liberal. (Talk about making an ass out of u and me!) Well, I finally decided to look into what a Libertarian actually is, and this is what I’ve come up with so far:
From: The National Libertarian Party
What is a Libertarian?
Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.
Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?
Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.
In a sense, Libertarians "borrow" from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole.
Lowering taxes... slashing bureaucratic regulation of business... personal tolerance... right to choose your own personal habits and lifestyles... ??? That’s me all over the place!
Granted, I’m still studying on it and it may turn out that I’m not a Libertarian after all, but damn! This is exciting! It may actually get me interested in politics!
I’ve often tried to describe where I stand party wise: I’m Republican because I agree with them on most of their financial views. I’m also a Democrat because I agree with them on most of their social views. But I’ve never felt that either party represents ALL my views, and I've never felt welcomed by either party because of the conflicts. (Not to mention that as soon as you agree with anything from an opposing party, people tend to dismiss you as an idiot.)
But that may be about to change!
I’ve been called a Libertarian before by people of both groups, but I’ve always just assumed that they were referring to being Liberal. (Talk about making an ass out of u and me!) Well, I finally decided to look into what a Libertarian actually is, and this is what I’ve come up with so far:
From: The National Libertarian Party
What is a Libertarian?
Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.
Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?
Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.
In a sense, Libertarians "borrow" from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole.
Lowering taxes... slashing bureaucratic regulation of business... personal tolerance... right to choose your own personal habits and lifestyles... ??? That’s me all over the place!
Granted, I’m still studying on it and it may turn out that I’m not a Libertarian after all, but damn! This is exciting! It may actually get me interested in politics!
posted by RT at 12:47 AM
27 Comments:
Oh! Or maybe I'm a Centrist?
http://www.centristcoalition.com/
Either way, it sounds better than being caught in the middle. It's emphasizing that you don't have to be Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. There's smart middle ground that can benefit us all!
Maybe I am in the same boat cause I cannot in good conscience side with either democrats or republicans cause both leave me wanting.
Well, well. I know what I am now, too. I think?
Whenever I take a test to see where I stand, I pretty much come out as a Libertarian.
I don't want to bore anyone here, but it's almost impossible for them to gain any ground. The two major parties are so entrenched, it's extremely difficult for them to gain any seats.
That's unfortunate.
I was first introduced to libertarianism by a friend in college 25 years ago--the movement has come a long way. At that time I thought it was just too bizarre to gain any traction. Maybe I was wrong.
I don't Fred. With so many people being dissatisfied with the way things are being handled, but not having much of a choice for change... (How many people felt they were just voting for the lesser of two evils?)
Maybe the Libertarian Party hasn't gain much support in the past, simply because not enough people know enough about it.
I was actually thinking that I may be more Centrist, because handling things on a case by case basis seemed pretty attractive too. But then, if we did it that way, I would be afraid that those who want their laws pasted would resort to even more extreme measures to sway our vote. And that just sounds scary.
It's rather funny but I was planning on holding back the label until I was ready to post on it. I've been a member of the Libertarian party for the last 5 years. As with every party, there will be issues you don't hold the same opinion on. I find too many problems with the major parties and less with this one.
As for believing that they will not be able to generate seats: An initiative was started a few years ago for those Libertarians wishing to further the strength of their party to move to New Hampshire. A focus on one state could make major changes in representation. It's an interesting concept.
As I find a lot of things that I agree with from the Libertarian Party, I also find that they want a lot of changes as quick as they can. I'm not against those changes but would like to see focus and patience. Otherwise, I'd see myself in the Constitution Party.
I started to add in my last post that we may not see any major changes in the near future, and maybe not even in our lifetime, but if we can get the knowledge out it could be something great that we pass on to our kids.
As for the Constitution Party that you spoke of, Martin, I had to look it up too. Unfortunately, I don't think I could ever support that one. I think the govt is too involved with religion already, and I don't like that. Religion should be personal and passed on through example, not imposed by the govt. And with the way a lot of religions are nowadays, giving them more power just doesn't seem wise to me. Seems like it would be totally contradictory to what the Constitution stands for.
OK Great! Now I'm starting to see an "inner" and/or "hidden" agenda with two of the three new parties I've found... You guys know more about this than I do, what should I be watching out for from the Libertarians???
I agree with Fred...there's no way that the Democrats or the Republicans will ever allow there to be a consistent third party in the mix.
Oh sure, there are ones like Ross Perot that hop up every now and again and cause a stir for the major parties. And then there's Nader...he's done more for the Republican party than his own...not personally of course, but because he ran and did well relatively speaking, that was the beginning of the end for Gore.
Is that really what a third party wants? To merely be able to throw a kink into someone elses plans? I mean I know they have to start somewhere, but still.
I say, don't feel ashamed for not believing everything that one party believes in. Like 80'snut said, you are never going to find a party that has everything you agree with. I feel like I am mostly a Republican, but I don't hesitate to speak up about believing in a woman's right to choose. That's why I am scared shitless about Bush's boy, Roberts.
But ultimately, you are absolutely right, everyone NEEDS to vote and vote for what they believe in. No one should ever have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Of course I am not one to talk...I didn't vote in Clinton's second term...I knew Dole had no chance, and Clinton had already screwed me out of Pell Grants after I helped vote him in the first time. That's right...my one vote helped put him in...everyone's ONE vote helps put someone in. :)
But we are the ones with the power. If we don't like what someone is doing, we need to fire them through voting. That's why I think that Blogs are going to be so powerful. Does some public official really want to not respond to a letter from one of us and have us start trashing them on the web?
So you go RT. Find your party, get excited, and let's all demand that the world be changed...or at least lets start with America. :)
Oh...and by the way...not a big fan of no government intervention of businesses...can anyone say Enron?
I am a registered democrat, but being so, I do not vote for people based on the fact they belong to "my" party. I think being forced to choose a side and then expecting me to vote for everyone on my side is insane. The need to label everyone and fit in a nice neat package is the problem.
RT, check this website. It should more accurately tell you where you lie on the political spectrum.
Political Compass
BTW, RT, I fear that handling things on a case by case basis may lead to an illogical worldview. I think that it is this type of thinking that has spread among many American voters, and leads to a rise in relativism, as opposed to universalism.
Oh I hear where you're coming from Teri, because I was there not too long ago, lol. I agree, labeling as a way of discriminating is not good in any situation.
But in this case, it really was frustrating because I am so torn between the Dem and Rep points of view, and I thought those were my only choices. While I know that I may not agree with everything the Libertarian Party stands for, it seems to be the best for me, for now. In this case, it's a label that I will gladly accept if it causes others to question and maybe helps them find an answer of their own. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Until now, I've always had to defend my views not only from the opposite party, but even from the party that I say I'm supporting. It's made me hate politics. That can never be a good thing for a voter! Even if the Libertarian Party isn't in power yet, and even if they don't have a candidate, they can give me a fresh third party (Har har, get it? Third party?) perspective on the two we do have to choose from.
Oh! And PS: Trust me, if they don't hold true to what they promise, I'll not support them either.
The major points of focus for the Libertarians are taxation, less federal government intervention and pot legalization. Depending on your point of view, these can all be critical issues.
I think that it would be interesting if in 2008 there were more registered voters for minority parties. What would happen if the next presidential candidates actually had to adjust their platform to get voters?
Ah! The pot heads! I knew there had to be a catch, lol. It was just too perfect.
Actually, those are fine with me. I'm all for more responsible govt spending, taking responsibility for yourself instead of letting the govt handle it, and even though I don't smoke pot myself, it would make my life a heck of a lot easier because I wouldn't have to feel so paranoid hanging around my friends that do, lol. Nah, seriously, I don't know why pot is illegal in the first place. It can't be any worse than all the other drugs out there...
What else ya got for me???
BTW, Welcome to my blog, The Mad Hoosier! I don't think I've seen you in this parts before, and I'm glad you stopped by :o)
Something you said struck a cord with me.
"Everyone needs to vote."
This isn't necessarily directed at you (and I like that you added "vote for what they believe in
",) it's just something that I would like to address because I hear that statement a lot. I agree whole heartedly that IF you know what you're voting for, it is your responsibility to vote. But if you're just voting for the sake of voting (just because you're suppose to, even though you haven't educated yourself on the issues)... I don't get the logic behind that. And more-so, I suspect that it may the reason we end up with such lousy Presidents.
To me, voting is almost sacred. If I vote for someone, and someone else questions me about why I voted for so and so, I don't want my answer to be "because he's the Republican candidate." (or vise versa) I want to be able to state specific reasons for my vote, reasons that I can stand behind through thick or thin.
I have yet to be that comfortable with any candidate. Even with as much as I liked Bush during his first term, I still had enough doubts that I couldn't vote for him the second time. And there was no way I was going to vote for Kerry, I still have no idea where he was coming from. The only two strong points that I heard about him were 1) He wasn't Bush, and 2) He was going to end the war... With no clear plan, he was just going to end it.
Granted, I know a lot would say that I should have educated myself on the issues, but that's not as easy as it sounds. I also suspect that a lot of the people that would say that have not taken the time to do it themselves. Otherwise, we would have a damn fine government, and none of this would even be an issue because Everyone would Want to vote.
Rt- I know what you are saying.
I think for me it is almost like religion. I really do not believe in organzied religion for the same reasons.. if you want to belong to their club you have to have the same groupthink as the rest of the club. If not, be prepared to defend your views and or be ostracized from the club.
LOL Teri! I was actually going to use religion as an example. But even as I was typing it, I caught myself going off in a whole other direction and I had to stop because I didn't want to lose my focus :o)
Oh, religion. I'm about at my wits end, trying to understand it...
I agree...religion is something that I could go off on a tangent with as well...so I'll just say my quick peace on that and keep it brief. I honestly think that religion is like politics...you don't have to fit into one mold. I go to a baptist church, and I love my pastor, but I don't believe everything that he does...and that's ok. Ultimately, I think one's Lord (that's the most politically correct and all emcompassing way I could phrase that) wants us to question things and decide on our own how we feel. He gave us free will, after all, and a mind to use, not to follow everything we hear like a zombie.
So anyway, back to voting. RT, I take no offense to your stance on "Everyone Needs To Vote". Perhaps I should elaborate a bit...and the same goes for me...none of this is directed specifically towards you.
I think that if you have the ability to vote, meaning that mental capacity and the age requirement, then you NEED to vote. You NEED to educate yourself enough to feel comfortable with your choice. It's ok to be wrong...heck, like I said before, I voted for Clinton the first time around. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Clinton HATER, I just think he did some bad things, but also did some good things.
Now, if you are of age and sound mind to vote, but feel that you don't NEED to, then I don't even want to hear your complaining about this or that in politics. To me, you haven't earned the right to complain unless you have done your part to try to fix what you think is wrong, i.e. vote for the other guy.
I know it's not easy to learn out all the issues...and I don't think you have to...but you need to know the issues that are important to you. Hell, I really liked John Edwards in the primaries...but I found out he was a previous Trial Lawyer...that changed things dramatically. I have big issues with frivilous lawsuits.
So anyway, to sum up my dissertation, when I say "NEED to vote", I mostly mean that if you feel something is broke, you had better be doing your part to fix it...we all are allowed to participate...that's what democracy is all about.
Sorry RT for taking up such a vast amount of space on your reply board...It's an issue that I'm working on remedying...bare with me. :)
I took the test that Matty D sent...I am SO middle of the road it isn't even funny.
Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62
And all this time I felt mostly Republican. Thanks for ruining my life Matty. :)
Tell ya what, when they put a "none of the above, because it doesn't matter which of your sorry ass candidates I vote for, I'll be screwed" line on the ballot, I'll be the first in line!
Does that put it into perspective as to why I don't vote, and why I'm so excited about the prospect of having another choice?
By voting, even when you don't like the candidates, it's the same as saying, "Yes. I like this candidate." And if I didn't know any better (which I don't,) I would say that the two major parties started that little saying just to ensure that no one from a lesser known party would run.
Maybe if enough people DIDN'T vote when they were dissatisfied, those people out there that have thought about running, but don't because they figure they don't have a chance, will reconsider.
And excuse me, but I'm an American. I DO have the right to bitch about my government and to protest by not voting, when I feel that my choices have been limited to two parties that I do not like.
BTW! I would really like to thank everyone who has responded to this post. I know it doesn't sound like I've been appreciative, but I am.
This is new territory for me, and although knowledge is important, so are the opinions of those I trust. I don't mean to trivialize this because I know that your opinions are as important to you as mine are to me, but just having feedback (whether in agreement or challenging) is really helping me to find my way.
Thank You!
PS: I scored:
Economic Right: 5.13 and Social Libertarian: -5.23...
But ya know, those questions (like on most test I've taken,) seemed very leading to me.
I'm with ya, Vavoom!
I think I will give this a rest for a while... My brain's starting to hurt.
I agree with you on the test RT. I was pretty shocked at where the questions about the responsibilities of businesses were being lead.
You know...I see all over the place, cars that have bumper stickers reading, "Proud to be an American"...then I see LOTS of them speeding and driving recklessly, cutting people off without a second's hesitation, even having DUI's.
Because of this, a buddy of mind started a signature on his emails that reads, "Proud to be an American -- Is America Proud You're an American?"
The bottom line is that being an American is a priviledge that, despite the negative publicity, millions of people from around the world long to live in America and be an American citizen...to be an American. Not because we think we are better than everyone else, but because we value everyone's thoughts, opinions, and rights.
So if being an American is a priviledge, should we not treat it as such? As though at any second it could be taken from us?
And if we should treat being an American as a priviledge, then shouldn't we be driven to participate in the democracy that is the backbone of being an American?
Each election, there are actually more than the two major party canidates on the presidential ballot. The Green Peace party is an example...or is it just Green Party?
And you're right...under the First Amendment, a person does have the right to say and gripe about whatever you want. But don't expect me to put any weight into their words or thoughts on the subject if they haven't even taken the initiative to make a difference. In essence, if they haven't given the same respect to the electoral process that I have.
In my opinion, doing nothing is not a protest. By not voting, you are doing nothing, and thus have conceeded for others to make your decision for you.
When I voted for President Bush, no one else was telling me that Gore, or Kerry, or anyone else is the best choice. I was telling them that Bush was the best choice, in my opinion. It just so happened that the majority of Americans agreed with me...or the electoral college, depending on which election you want to talk about. :)
If someone didn't vote, then they are essentially throwing their hands up in the air and say that they give up...and I was all to happy to jump in and say, "Here you are, Bush is the best guy for the job".
To me, a person that doesn't vote doesn't value their own opinion enough...which is unfortunate, because at the very least, everyone should value their opinion enough to stand up and say, of the choices I have, this is the guy that I think would make the best President.
Granted, it may not be the best guy in the world for the job, but again, saying nothing, conceeds your power to someone else. And I just don't give my power to any Tom, Dick, and Harry, that would have any Al, John, or Bill as President.
Please, RT, or anyone else out there, please don't think that I am attacking anyone with my post(s). I just honestly believe that WE have the power in this country. There is never going to be a time when Everyone is happy...but the more we take into our own hands, the greater chance we have of making more people happy.
I agree that this is a great topic...I am trying my best to spark people to think, rather than be overpowering. I too welcome open discussion, and I sincerely apologize if anyone took offense to any of my posts. That was certainly not my intentions.
You know what, seeing how we've strayed from the original topic and went into personal attacks, I say we change the subject...
What do ya think?
Personal attacks? That's not what I did...or at least not what I meant to do at all. I thought we were having a great conversation. I apologize for offending.
This is your blog...I do apologize for taking up so much space, and I certainly honor your request to cease and desist.
Well, it did kind of bother me that you said, "don't expect me to put any weight into their words or thoughts on the subject if they haven't even taken the initiative to make a difference." Right after I said I didn't vote (and gave a pretty good explanation, I thought.) You may or may not meant it for me personally, but it was hard not to take it personally.
Of course, I'm afraid to tell you that because I don't want to squelch what you may say in the future. So I didn't know what else to do, but to ask that the subject be dropped.
That being said...
Yep! My last comment was directed more at Jill... And she knows why I'm giving her shit. >8) We've been round and round on this subject, she knows why I didn't vote and I know why she voted the way she did...
Quit hijacking my post with these old debates, Jill! I'm trying to learn something here so I can vote with good conscious the next time :p
Post a Comment
<< Home