I have alluded to my struggle to reconcile my libertarian leanings with my conservative roots. This is no doubt skewed by the particular brand of politics that America practices. You virtually have to be Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. The moderates and Independents are usually just the ones that can’t make up their mind which side to choose. I am clear on one thing, I do not like the Democratic party.
The Democratic party has demonstrated a constant desire to grow government and redistribute wealth. I can not support that. The Republican party isn’t much better most of the time, but they do provide the occasional obstacle to the Democratic party. As far as being liberal, I suppose my social views could be considered liberal, however the name evokes Hollywood douchebags in my mind. I’m sure some have the same aversion to the term conservative (envisioning the religious right or the like), but at least I see conservative figures that I can relate to. I could just call myself a constitutional conservative. I’m not sure how much my bias impacts my views but as I try to find a way to define my views I thought it was worth my time (not necessarily yours), to go over my views on some issues.
Legalization of drugs:
It was long considered unconstitutional to ban drugs. For instance, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 used interesting legal maneuvering (based on the National Firearms Act of 1934) to prohibit the use of marijuana. This act was ruled unconstitutional in 1969. The response was the Controlled Substances Act, which added even more absurdity to drug laws. This introduced Schedule I controlled substances, which states; “substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment“. Yet, it includes several drugs that have been and continue to be used medically. The “war on drugs” has resulted in prohibition-era lawlessness and needless violence. The irony is that if we simply upheld the right of the individual, we would have avoided much suffering, loss of life, and waste of taxpayer dollars along with potential medical breakthroughs and treatments we have prevented.
It is not sheer coincidence that we see a path of government intervention that starts with prohibition, leads to gun control, then ends up with banning drugs. The government constantly seeks to enforce and establish it’s authority and rarely concedes mistakes. It is preferential to try make even more laws to cover up for bad ones, and increase spending to compensate for the problems they created. I wrote earlier about gun control, so I don’t need to elaborate further than to say it’s a constitutional right affirmed by our founding fathers.
This is an interesting issue because it mainly seems to exist as a battle between the religious right and gay rights groups. Yes, a lot of others are involved but those seem to be the two most passionate groups. I honestly do not care what consenting adults do with each other. That’s of no concern of mine. However, I do not have a knee jerk “let the gays marry” response either. They’re asking for the government to recognize their union and I fail to see why in the hell the government should involve itself with people’s relationships. The mistake the religious people made was allowing marriage to become a legal institution. It should have absolutely no bearing on how the government views you or treats you. By allowing the government play a role, we’ve allowed for judges and politicians to decide what constitutes a marriage. This is incredibly silly, should a judge or a politician decide who can and can get baptized? The two should never have been married (pun intended). Now, religion and government are fighting over what constitutes marriage.
This is an incredibly contentious issue and something that really evokes a lot of emotion. If you discuss abortion with someone, you must do it knowing that they might have had an abortion or encouraged someone to have an abortion. If you don’t think this affects how they react, you’re fooling yourself. There is a knowledge there that this isn’t just a medical procedure, on both sides. Libertarians tend to take the approach that it’s a woman’s body, however I take the approach that a person can’t be a possession. I have defined my view of human life starting with the beating heart. I know this is not necessarily the perfect definition, but it’s a almost universal sign of death, why not of life? Our legal system has great confusion on this issue, it can be murder if done without consent, perfectly legal if done with consent. A truly illogical conclusion. I do believe abortion is murder, and represents a failure to protect our young. However, I am pro-birth control, I am not even against things like the day after pill. There are a lot of ways to not get pregnant, but I don’t see children as disposable once they’re alive. I’ll pretty much concede all ground up to the point the heart starts beating. After that? That seems a hell of a lot like a living human to me.
Possibly related posts: