Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; (D&C 98:10)

Thursday, December 19, 2013

What is your -ism?

This post got me thinking about my views on government and society and how they have developed over the last few years.  I particularly like this comment.
I am, for instance, a moderate neo-con with war policy, social con with social issues, but a libertarian economically.
Here is where I am:
1, War is absolutely necessary and the old structures of war are long gone. We are living in an era when lines on a map cannot define or contain enemies. They are out of everyone’s control. Strict rules of war, for me, are today for losers no matter how powerful.
2. My religious moral convictions are open for political consideration. Freedom guarantees that I can “force” my views on the whole country just as much as atheists can “force” their views. Whoever convinces and comes out on top wins. The U.S. Constitution is already ripped to shred, so there is no turning back. Moral decay can only be put under control when the laws support morality.
3. Corporate welfare is the number two cause this nation has no economic progression. Obama care became number one reason. The markets are not free and haven’t been for some time. That means that the losers are just as likely to continue as the winners, and therefore we all lose. Let banks and businesses work alone; no help and minimal hindrance.
It is close to how I see myself. Though I am more libertarian in my social views.  I tend to be more like this.
2. Why must our nation be a nation of internal battles? If it becomes a battle between religious conservatives fighting for traditional marriage and against paying for contraceptives vs liberals that are fighting for gay marriage AND to make conservatives pay for their sexual revolution, then all we’ll ever see is the pendulum swing back and forth until there is an absolute winner and an absolute loser. Ever read about the French Revolution? That’s where such divisions end up in history. Freedom does not mean there are political battles. It means we leave each other alone to enjoy our freedom. Tyranny forces itself upon others, and sometimes this includes religious people forcing religion on others (ever hear of the Inquisition?).
In American history, there really wasn’t a problem with Mormons doing polygamy until it was made a national issue, and people demanded the nation to force the Mormons to stop. Yet, today we have a judge that wants to end Reynolds v USA as unconstitutional (which it really is bad law), because there is no evidence that polygamy itself is bad. Heck, our nation is full of people living together outside of marriage with little/no committment, and we’re worried when people want to establish a committed relationship?
How about we keep the federal government out of all social issues, and allow states or localities to make their own determinations. So liberals could gather together and be happy, while conservatives could congregate in their freedom to assemble/associate without having others impose their moral/amoral views upon one another?
This also caught my attention, "Bush’s concept of pre-emptive war places the nation in an ongoing war state that does not end."  It may be the biggest shift in my views of good government over the last few years.

There is much more in the post and comments.

I also retook a political spectrum survey with these results.  Some of the questions I had to pick the least worst answer.  I didn't like the options.

No comments: