Why I Don't Agree With Anyone (Politically)

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by Cheimison, Oct 26, 2004.

  1. Cheimison

    Cheimison Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    58
    Basically my theory is that the market works best without government intervention. In this sense the Republicans (that is, people in the party) are quite a bit more respectful of private property than the Democrat/Liberals are, but in practice the Republicans are just as bad as Democrats in terms of freedom.
    I am what I consider to be consistently for freedom, all freedom and I think both the Republicans and Democrat politicians are just as bad in making bad, stupid, harmful, state-expanding laws as the other. Any government employee is going to be served by expanding government power, and politicians don't get into their position by action, they get into it by rhetoric, demagogoury and lies.

    My view on foreign policy is that of Pat Buchanan. I think the 'Neo-Conservatives' and pro-war/foreign meddling guys are completely out of their god damn minds. I hate the way the US conducts its wars, and I don't think it ought to be in the majority of them that it is in.

    Let's see how I agree with (some) Republicans and Conservative (people, not politicians. I think politicians are all liars and what they say is bull - Bush included):
    The right to firearms: Now I'm further on this than some conservatives - I'm for the right to own any firearm. M249s, grenades, F16s. Some people say that the private sector and certain people can't be trusted with automatic rifles, or RPGs or tanks. They may be right. But, in my opinion, he government CAN NOT be trusted with these things and the best we can do is to have access to the same stuff.
    No Criminal Coddling: I believe that any invasion of property, assault or immediate threat of violece can be responded to with force, up to and including immediate lethal force. When shooting a thug, I do not shoot to make him stop, or to incapacitate. I shoot to kill. I hope he dies. As far as I'm concerned the moment he chose not to respect my rights, he lost all of his and became a garage for bullets. This is more extreme than many Conservatives would go, but I can't see any reason for letting punks off.

    Where I Agree with the Left:
    Drugs: I absolutely oppose all drug laws, patents and regulation. They're nothing but cartelism by the Pharmaceutical companies andaste of money and police time. I am not personally a drug seller or user. However it is my firm belief that people can make, buy and sell ANYTHING WHATSOEVER as long as they are not violating the property of another human being in the process. People who think we should prevent drug sales because drug users are more likely to commit crimes ignore two things: #1 Drug users only commit crimes because the illegality of drugs pushes their price through the stratosphere, #2 The exact same argument could be made that guns are more capable of killing someone. However people who want them will still get them, and all the banning does is create a profitable underworld for scumbags and thugs while hurting innocent people.
    Homosexual Marriage: Now I don't particularly care for 'gay' rights. I think people who happen to have sex with the same sex have the same 'rights' as anyone else, that is to do whatever they want with what they own. I don't think the government, any government, has any business in determining who is married or not, though. I think if you want to marry your cat and leave your house to it, that is your business. I didn't say I thought it was smart or right, but I have no right to tell other people what to do.

    Now here's a thing where I differ a lot with the Conservatives, but I don't think that the law should have anything to do with morality. Morality is all over the map and I don't think, no matter how strongly you believe in a principle, that you can ever prove you are the absolute correct moral arbiter in the eyes of God. I think that the function of law and government, the only function, is to protect the negative rights of people. What I mean by negative rights is the right to NOT have their property invaded. I consider all rights property rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from attack - these are all rights because you own your body and in someone else's land you can lose these rights (thus I can kill an invader to my home, and I can tell my son to stop cursing or leave my home).
    Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent work on my view of law, it is available freely online.
    If you look into the history of the Old Right (before that Bastard Lincoln) you can see that the actual Old Right were in agreement with me. Private property and individual liberty are paramount - there is no such thing as 'society', there are only people and a government that that is not serving the interest of any individual person has no right to command that person. Thomas Hobbes, a very pro-government writer, even admits this in Leviathan. The Founding Fathers were also proponents of this philosophy, as classic Liberalism was what this country was founded on. I believe that loss of individualism, personal responsibility and private property are what has led this country-downhill, and not all of it was commited by the left.

    Now following from Classic Liberal, Old Right and basic Anglo-Saxon law it follows that police are very often criminals. I do not intend this as an insult of the undoubtedly numerous law enforcement officers on this board, but in his role as the disruptor of willing, non-violent merchant exchanges in: drugs, prostitution, gambling and weapon sales (among others) the police officer is the offending party and the people commiting these so-called 'crimes' would have every right to defend themselves against him - even violently. In this respect I think a police officer who accepts bribes to protect drug dealers is morally superior to the hard-nosed NARC.

    To address a specific defense of drug law that drug dealers are often (real) criminals who have commited violence, I would respond in two ways: #1 the reason drug dealers are real thugs is because outlawry has prevented honest merchants from being able to deal in drugs. These people would drive the thugs out of business, which is why we don't have gang bangers peddling cereal and wine glasses. #2 The classic expression that it is better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man is something I firmly believe, although practically speaking the ratio need not be nearly this bad (IE we should try to convict real criminals). The logic that some drug dealers are real criminals, though, directly inverts this proposition. We jail hundreds of thousands of drug offenders (they make up the largest portion of prisoners, as well as drug crimes being the greatest budget expenditure of police) in order that we may catch a few murderers and con-men.

    And that is why no one agrees with my politics. Let the flaming begin.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2004
  2. Slimslam

    Slimslam New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    124
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    Well said. I agree witch ya.
  3. dge479

    dge479 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Haskell NJ
    At least we agree with Firearms ownership and criminal coddling :)
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr British Photojournalist Finds American Gun Owners Don't Fit 'Gun-Nut' Stereotype Yesterday at 9:56 PM
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr You just don't know how to Use the internet ( By Harry Reid ) Mar 26, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Don't I have the choice? Feb 26, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr NAACP Moral Marchers: Tea Party is Racist, But We Don't Know Why: From IJ Review Feb 16, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr SADLY, THEY DON'T MAKE 'EM LIKE THEY USE TO...... Feb 1, 2014