I think he means that he is all for liberty and individual freedom for everyone, as long as the government maintains the war on drugs and controls and regulates marriage. Freedom and liberty for some.
I think he means that he is all for liberty and individual freedom for everyone, as long as the government maintains the war on drugs and controls and regulates marriage. Freedom and liberty for some.
I don't endorse homosexuality in any way. But do support the rights of people to live there life in any way they want so long as they aren't hurting anyone. Gays want to get married, doesn't hurt me, go for it.
I absolutely am not pro choice. I completely support the right of anyone to do with their body what they choose so long as they aren't hurting anyone. The unborn have rights to not be harmed.
Drugs should be legal. Yes, all drugs.
I absolutely am not pro choice. I completely support the right of anyone to do with their body what they choose so long as they aren't hurting anyone. The unborn have rights to not be harmed.
Drugs should be legal. Yes, all drugs.
I don't see a dichotomy in being a socially conservative libertarian. It is quite possible to separate one's societal norms and expectations from their views on government rule, despite what the current GOP cognoscenti believe.
For instance, I'm not pro-abortion, but I consider it a social issue, not a legal issue. Legislating abortion at the federal level is a violation of the separations between church and state. It has nothing to do with the common defense, interstate commerce, national infrastructure or any other issue that relates to the good governance of the country. The nation is not going to go al supernova if the federal government doesn't regulate it. The churches can picket, boycott and otherwise exercise their rights to free speech to condemn abortion till the cows come home.
The same goes for gay marriage and a whole host of other social issues. The federal government legislating rules and restrictions is an over-reach. That doesn't mean it's a free for all. If the states, or the people respectively want to legislate, so be it. If California wants abortion and Oklahoma doesn't, so be it. If a woman wants to go to California for an abortion, it's a free country.
For instance, I'm not pro-abortion, but I consider it a social issue, not a legal issue. Legislating abortion at the federal level is a violation of the separations between church and state. It has nothing to do with the common defense, interstate commerce, national infrastructure or any other issue that relates to the good governance of the country. The nation is not going to go al supernova if the federal government doesn't regulate it. The churches can picket, boycott and otherwise exercise their rights to free speech to condemn abortion till the cows come home.
The same goes for gay marriage and a whole host of other social issues. The federal government legislating rules and restrictions is an over-reach. That doesn't mean it's a free for all. If the states, or the people respectively want to legislate, so be it. If California wants abortion and Oklahoma doesn't, so be it. If a woman wants to go to California for an abortion, it's a free country.
Who's job is it to defend an individual when States violate individual rights? Its not a "free country" if a person must cross a line to find a right. Rights either exist or they dont. Your either an American first or a citizen of a State first.
Abortion, gay marriage and a few other social issues are civil rights issues, not to be left up to the whims of States or popular opinion.
You might think that...But you'd be wrong.
It is the job of the courts to right legislative wrongs. Social issues aren't civil rights issues. Do-gooder busybodies in this country have hijacked the rights of States and The People to make these societal decisions. Yet in an odd twist, they have hidden behind this very cloak of legality to deny natural rights such as the right to keep and bear arms in cetain locales, and steadfastly refused to use the courts correctly to overturn these wrongdoings.
I'm sorry if you don't understand the rules and restrictions of our Constitutional Republic, but feel free to do some more research and come back with any questions you may have.
Why do we need to be this or that? Why can't we just vote for what and whom we want. If it was up to me we wouldn't have a party system. Seems to me like it just causes division and gridlock. I think it's human nature to want to catagorize everything, I just don't think things are that simple though.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 70%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%
According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
SO BE IT !!!
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%
According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
SO BE IT !!!
Do you learn nothing in school? Have they done away with Poli-Sci?
libertarianism is a school of thought a collection of political ideologies, typically it is defined in the US as fiscal conservative and social liberal. It has to do with minimizing outside influences i.e. government intrusion into our personal lives, recognizing that you are your own person, strong views of rights not so much inalienable rights but the belief is that only a man in possession of his rights may forfeit those rights for himself. No other man may forfeit the rights for another person.
Hard as it is to believe but a lot of what people associate the republican party today is in fact classical liberal school of thought... And conservatism would have resulted in the status of many societal changes that have been recognized as good and beneficial remaining in the dark ages. True conservatism could have meant that we still owned slaves and that segregation would still acceptable.
I loathe voting for the religious moral majority and detest the sham that has been made of the democratic(liberal) party.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.
Under the classical definition a true liberal would be fighting side by side with conservatives views of inalienable rights on the subject of gun control.
Unfortunately the term has been perverted and every "liberal" has been indoctrinated to believe that the private ownership of firearms somehow oppresses the rights of others.
Just my .02 on the subject. Yes I am libertarian. It's simple guns will never go away, something the weirdo's that clam to be liberals never fathom. Nuclear Warheads will never go away, Chemical weapons will never go away, weaponized biological agents will never go away, in order to defend our rights and liberties from attack every man willing to defend his liberties and freedoms should be allowed the means to do so and those who chose to depend on the kindness of others for protection should have that right as well. We credit too many of today's problems with the item that was used to commit an act of violence or the influences on people that bring them to do bad things. Well that's bullpuckey as I see it.
Taking firearms away impinges on my natural liberty and potentially hinders my ability to defend those liberties, my possession of a firearm does not hinder your liberties.
Once pandora's box has been opened it can never be closed again.
Superb analysis. Sadly, most people today can't adequately fathom or describe left vs. right. You start throwing terms like classical liberal vs. neoliberal, neoconservative vs paleoconservative, etc. at them, they'll lock up faster than a top fuel engine with no oil in it.
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have become so meaningless in popular usage that I avoid them as much as possible. There is certain terminology that is so loaded that it just shuts down rational discussion, makes people super defensive, and makes them revert to their pre-planned talking points.
Similar threads
