Skip navigation

Over the last week or so I have been hinting at, even going so far to say as I have flipped my political philosophy, that I can no longer consider myself a Conservative one hundred percent.

That is not to say that my ideals are not Conservative, and socially they still are.  That is not to say that any of my opinions have changed, simply because I switched.  And that is not to say that I am now a big government progressive that wants to eat babies and force you to give money to the poor, although charitable donations are part of the backbone of this country.

Recently I have been taking various political quizzes.  Now I do not hold one hundred percent stock in them, as ideology is from the heart and your own observations of the world order, and the results of ideologies that you believe have resulted from them,  yet when something like 6, 7, 8…12, of them say you are one thing, well that tends to indicate that you may in fact lean toward that specific ideology.

Then I did research for this blog, and whether or not I should write this blog the way I want to.   I did some research at Libertarianism.com, and the Advocates for Self Government.

While I do not agree with all of the positions espoused on the site, and while others make me uncomfortable, there are two things that really attract me to the movement.

That government (especially federal government) should provide for the common defense and ensure that no other citizen, or nation-state, violates our rights.  In its most basic that is all the federal government should do.

Secondly is the conversation about freedom, and liberty, and even though their positions on a variety of issues I consider to be wrong-headed and radical, and needing a lot more thought about them from me, I still admire them that they are willing to discuss about the liberty of individual people.

Also, that they trust people to live their own lives, and do anything with them that they will, without harming other people, to be refreshing.

Now that is not saying that other philosophies do not have this conversation, and do not have valid points to bring to the table.  That is not to say that conservatives lie about wanting a drastically smaller government.

I in fact believe that Conservatives and Libertarians, despite difference on policy, are natural allies.

I used to call myself a ‘Conservative that leaned libertarian’ and joked that ‘I am so Conservative that I am libertarian’.  But that no longer works for me.

On one of those political quizzes, the ‘Enhanced Political Precision Quiz…in 2D’ my dot was well into the libertarian corner, but I got the answer ‘Right leaning freedom lover’.

Never before has an answer on a political quiz made that much sense, or cleared thins up for me.  I am a Libertarian with Conservative leanings, I am pro life, I am against gays marrying, and I have a deep love and respect for local government and the free markets.  But on these opinions I recognize that other people do not share those views and we should allow for their freedom.

So the question boils down to what your individual priorities are, do you believe in the freedom of all to make their own choices, or do you think that their need to be government safe guards?

My answer is, and has always been, to err on the side of freedom.

Now this is a new experience for me.  And there are several positions I will need to take a long hard look at.  Keeping in mind the respect for others freedoms, and respect for other opinions.

I look forward to any help, any debate, or any conversation, from anyone on any political spectrum.

Advertisements

16 Comments

  1. Yeah this is rather interesting for you and I got a similar result on that quiz… I was a Right Leaning Freedom lover as well. And have similar views as you do on the issues however, I am not ready to call myself a libertarian 100%. I’m not sure why maybe because of fear. I am all for freedoms for the people, but I have seen how people do abuse the system and work it around to benefit them and how then that can lead to imposing onto others or infringing on the rights of others. I want to have faith in humanity to know that people are basically good and wanting to do the right thing, however, I have been around long enough and looked at our history to know that when things are left wide open people tend to take advantage of the situation. Look for example throughout history of any natural disaster. What happens? You have looters and people who take advantage of the fact that store windows have been blown out and so many go on a “shopping spree” until some form of gov. organization comes in and stops them. I think people need to have a check and balance system….they need a big brother to watch them to ensure they are indeed doing the right thing. Does that mean I want a Big Brother government that controls everything?? NO absolutely not, I want the smallest gov. possible ….one that makes sense and does not infringe on the rights of people. Because we are such a varied nation of people with diverse ideologies, cultural religious beliefs and so forth I want them to be able to practice what they want and live their life according to how they want to live it, however, I still think there needs to be a “standard” Christian value system in place here in America that our leaders work in conjunction with….that lays a plum line for issues to bounce up against. Without it I think you are asking for trouble, because we have seen the result of Political correctness in this country and the fact that everyone is too nice to say what needs to be said or they just choose to look the other way because….oh well because it is their right and it’s ok…. NO it is NOT ok….somethings ARE NOT OK!! And we need to have the guts to say that…and stand firm with it…and too frakking bad if it hurts their feelings or if they feel they are being treated like 2nd class citizens. When people come into this nation they know this is how we operate…we need that standard…and you either embrace it or learn to live with it. But don’t expect for the whole nation to change for you…because it may make you and the other 15% of the people who believe like you feel uncomfortable. We simply cannot have a gov. system that makes everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Quite frankly that would be like trying to make our gov. system just like the universal health care system…a one size fits all ….IT JUST DOES NOT WORK! Without a plum line you may have all sorts of weirdos trying to get their rights heard….who may for example claim that Tuesday is their sabbath and they demand that all businesses need to be closed and so they take up arms and lobby and picket for this and force businesses at gunpoint to close their doors. I know this sounds ridiculous but seriously it can happen…we’ve seen some pretty wacky zealots do some pretty wacky things that have changed many peoples lives as a result of their crusade. So again, I’m all for liberty but it comes to a point when you just cannot look the other way and allow anything to go on. There has to be limits to anything in order to keep it’s integrity in tact IMO.

    The key is balance. People will only rise to the standard they are given. If you lower that standard or remove it….they do not aspire to any standard at all or create one that may in fact go against what our nation stands for. I hear you….but at the same time I am afraid…afraid of what will happen if we begin to function as a total 100% libertarian nation.

    • whoa where do I start 😛

      First of all you seem to be making a common mistake. Confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism. The two are mutually exclusive, and while the more rabid libertarians are very close to anarchy, they are not. The examples you use are the perfect point to consider. In fact based on most of the research I have done Libertarians feel that government should be responsible for protecting peoples life, liberty, property, and rights. And their pursuit of happiness. Those are the things that are being violated in this specific case, which should be the things that government are supposed to do for us.

      As for the rest you are right, and that is the thing, and the key of it. Society should have its own rights, its own traditions, its own morals and precepts. But it is not the governments rights to force that behavior on someone else. All Society can do is to encourage, to guide, and to teach others what it feels is the right way to live. And that is the point of freedom, to allow for, and to tolerate others behaviors, but still allow people to discourage that behavior and try and change it. The key being to try, the key is to love the sinner but hate the sin. So say I anyways. It is a balance. Security, liberty, right and wrong. But in the end we should trust people and spread the power out.

        • squirrely1
        • Posted March 17, 2010 at 12:29 pm
        • Permalink

        I agree and I have heard Glenn refer to the extreme end of Libertarianism as “anarchy” and that is what I am referring to. 😛 My biggest problem in your comment is the the phrase “tolerate others behavior”. Because to me tolerate is so closely related to condone or “approve” and I just have a problem with that. Especially on things that I think break down the moral fiber of our society. And while I see your point that really how much should the government “regulate” the personal issues of our society? Well as few as possible I agree with you…but that has to make sense….because I know that for some issues you are always going to have to have the govt hand in on it because of the nature of it. And Gay Marriage is one that comes to mind. It gets down to the point that you eventually have to define marriage…you have to. Otherwise you have people wanting to marry relatives or animals for that matter. Without a “definition of marriage” you cannot know whether it is allowable (hence right or wrong) no matter who does the marrying. So that has to happen. Well once you define it then you have to enforce it somehow…you have to have a ruling body that determines if that “couple” falls inside the parameters of that definition and either allows or denies the marriage. Then as we have discussed you have the whole messy situation of separation and divorce…so While it seems nice to have this “out of government control” I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. I mean I am all for freedoms don’t get me wrong, it’s just that there are some things that need to be “defined” as well…. right or wrong and then enforced accordingly.

        • colfoley
        • Posted March 17, 2010 at 6:37 pm
        • Permalink

        Tolerance I mean by that is you tolerate bugs, you tolerate the exisistance of other countries, you toloerate alliances. Tolerance does not have to be that big of a deal.

        And on the issues of gay marriage there already is a ruling body that defines it. Its the Catholic Church. its Religious institutions, its however government defines its own wing of it. True you might have some group that will start marrying dogs and horses and humans and stuff but that is not societally appropriate. That violates societies law without violating the laws of the government, and thus I doubt many people can or would do that. As for the rest, you are right, divorce is a sticky issue, but it always has been. And you are right, this will take a whole nother mind set then we have now, because in the end its really not about marriage, its about the markets, its about buying, its about learning, its about charity, itsa about not automatically blaming the government when things go wrong.

        • squirrely1
        • Posted March 18, 2010 at 12:34 pm
        • Permalink

        Oh so you say NOW YOU SAY it’s not societally appropriate to marry humans and animals?? I agree….but who says it’s not societally appropriate?? Where did you get that moral value?? I think that is the point…you have to draw the line in the sand and to you…your tolerance is going to be a whole lot different than my tolerance and/or the tolerances of other people and while their may be a small group (heaven forbid) That insists that it’s ok to marry human and animals and really may begin to advocate for it…you and I stand up and say NO….that is wrong!!….how is that really any different than the same gender thing?? To me…that just as much goes against the natural order of things…and yeah the animal/human marriage thing is outlandish…but hey that is how things break down….you give an inch and then you are miles down the road wondering just what in the hell happened…wondering how you got there. It opens the door to all sorts of things. I just don’t feel that if a smaller group of people cry out for certain “rights” we have an obligation as a society to accept or tolerate them…..the majority rules and this has to be the way it works….so yeah….keep bringing it before the people and let them decide on it….because I don’t see the majority in most states are going to tolerate this type of thing. At least that is how I feel on the matter.

        • colfoley
        • Posted March 18, 2010 at 6:56 pm
        • Permalink

        You just don’t get it. Its not up to me to decide how other people live, its not up to you to decide how other people live, all we can do is try and show them the appropriate ‘path’ and do our best to enlighten them when the situation calls for it. Most people will not marry their animals, and I think it is very wrong if someone did, but it is not up to the government to make that descision for you. Basically, I would like to see an exisisting institution marry someone with their Dog, the Catholic Church won’t do it, and I bet most judges and justices will look at you like you are insane. Which means you will either find a legal battle over it, or form some sort of wonky cult. As I said there are many things that really need discussion on.

        But we as a society and as a government are facing massive debt, a government that is hell bent on taking away what little freedoms we have to ‘provide’ for our healthcare, ‘provide’ for our education, whether cats and dogs live with eachother is so far down the list. If we are to revive this nation we are going to need to strip it down to the nuts and bolts, and then we can decide all the fluff we will add onto it, especially at the state level. Because the Federal Government should not determine who you marry, and who you should not marry.

        • squirrely1
        • Posted March 19, 2010 at 8:17 pm
        • Permalink

        Ok then I have nothing more to say on the matter since I obviously “don’t get it”.

        • colfoley
        • Posted March 19, 2010 at 9:08 pm
        • Permalink

        I am sorry, that was unfair and really terrible of me. especially when this is a valuable conversation for me to have.

        But I think that is the point in the long run. It is up to the individual to have the moral compass, that is not something that government could or should give you. You have a great moral compass, I hope I have a great moral compass…but how was this handled back in the day before the Progressive era? How did they solve it? How has this country always solved great moral crisis? As far as I know it is through and by the people, and usually it is the people that has to drag the government to do the right thing. So it is, and so it should be, not the other way around. I am not saying that I am for gays marrying or for cats and humans to marry ot anything else, but it is not my choice to effect someone else’s choice. And it is not up to the federal government. I highly doubt taht this will happen, or palygamy, or any of the other really nasty things, and only all these things can enter the world if you legally recognize things, because people confuse government and society.

        And also this is really frustrating for me, out of all the issues facing us we are talking about marriage. Which is a non issue for me, I am sorry but it really is, we are drowning in debt, we are drowning in corruption, evil, they are trying to ram ‘rights’ down our throats and take the place of God, which should be really concerning to people of a religious persuasion. I am sorry, that is the way that I feel about it, it is so frustrating to me, and I should not have taken it out on you.

        But this is the point. We cannot rely on the government for our healthcare, we cannot rely on our government for our education, and we cannot rely on our government to be our moral compass. We need to be our moral compass, and we need to have laws and freedoms that encourage that all over. And this battle is not going away anytime soon, it will always be here until the rapture, the balance between freedom, control, morality, and security. And in this day and age when we are going so far to the other side, when we are having the federal government going national on us, this is not good, we need to take a long hard look at everything in our society, and our laws.

        And finally if you do not get it, and you probably do get it, then that is my fault, I need to express myself better on this issue which is part of the ‘newness’ for me. I shall do better in the future and I certainly hope I have done a good job here. If we are to be a moral people, then we need to be a moral people.

  2. I always knew this about you Foley, didn’t tell you before? Anyway the thing about Libertarianism is that it is not as defined as Liberalism or Conservatism. Conservatives in my opinion are more interested in preserving a good system that we started off with.

    Liberals are interested in finding new and better things.

    Both tend to trip here and there, and both tend to come up with bad Ideas at times.

    However Libertarianism in my opinion is not about maintaining or inventing a system but about fulfilling an Ideal set forth by our founding fathers.

    Small Government, but responsible and effective. A free people who can do as they please as long as the peace is maintained. Take Gay Marriage for example, Liberals want to go all the way and say that a Pencil can marry a Cow and force you to not be against it, while Conservatives want everyone to hate the Idea and go to their own church by force.

    Libertarians may have a conservative view of marriage, but they do not want Government involved. All they want is for government to understand that blood relatives are not the only ones who have certain privileges. That two people should be allowed these relationship privileges based on Religious/cultural bonds (I.E. Marriage).

    Populists want to tell everyone how to marry where to marry and when to marry and to OBEY!!!…OR ELSE!!!!!

    So yes, being Libertarian is seeking for an old Ideal in a modern world.

    • I generally agree with you, but whoa hold on their.

      I think you do still miss the point on Conservatives a lot, they are interested in societal fabric, but the balance is what roll the government should play in that. Now I do not think they want anyone to take them to their church by force, that is contrary to popular opinion, that is contrary to the Constitution, that is contrary to the ideal of Small Government Conservatism. Now maybe there really is not much of a difference between that and Libertarianism, maybe I am confused, but you seem to be talking about a big government Conservative that I do not think many people advocate.

      As for the rest you are dead on. Libertarians do seem to be more into thinking way outside the box to solutions, I have found anyways. And the basic tenets of Libertarians is that of ultimate and maximum freedom, that really attracts me to it, and that is something that I really really like.

      As for the rest the rest, there is a lot of stuff going on, and I acknowlege this, this is a beginning, for nearly a decade I have called myself a Conservative, and I still am. But I do think of others freedom, I look forward to going through with that and having conversations based on freedom. I expect help.

      Oh and a blog topic but I think one that I can adress here, people keep on saying that Obama’s policies are creating a conservative backlash, that a whole new generation of Conservatives are being raised. Yeah, small Government Conservatism, Regan Conservatism, but in the end its libertarianism, its the idea that you cannot neccessarily trust the government anymore.

  3. I was exaggerating, the Cow and pencil comment should have been a good clue, no I don’t think Conservatives feel the need to force people to go to church. I just was trying to outline the differences and I think I did just that. And I was polemic at best at it too, if beck can do it…

    Big gov Conservatives are all the same as small gov Conservatives. They want a Government that is bigger in security issues and to pass laws that protect and enforce conservative social issues such as Marriage. Even Liberals claim to be small government because they don’t want to pass laws regarding social issues. yet they pass big huge womping laws on Economic issues.

    Both are not small gov, they are basically opposites on issues. Much like I said, Conservatives want to stay with what works while liberals want to fix what’s not broken. And Conservatives want to find small gov. solutions to what is broken and Liberals want big gov. solutions to what is broken.

    Libertarians as I see it want to go back to the architects, to the master plan. We don’t want to conserve anything, we want to find the Ideal listed in the constitution, in other words we want to restore the republic to it’s mission that it abandoned so long ago. Or at least that’s just me.

    I don’t want big gov. solutions, I don’t want Social enforcement or Socialization of industries. I like gov. insuring our freedom and health, but it should do just that, insure our freedom.

    Once again, I am being polemic…

    • sorry about that 😛

      Well I think though that there is a huge difference between Big and small government solutions,the smaller the govt, the less this problem would be. I mean you do have a point about all of it and Conservatism and Libertarianism, but I am just saying that Conservatives wanted a drastically smaller government then liberals do.

      Which is why I lean right as a libertarian. I love economic freedom, to me without economic freedom all of our other freedoms would be quite meaningless.

  4. And that is why you are conservative…or were? or both? Because you value Economic Freedom more heavily than Social freedom.

    I guess I am moderate Libertarian as in not all Conservative or Liberal. I’m sure you could tell that by now.

    • lol
      I am still Libertarian, but I lean Conservative. Right leaning freedom lover remember 😉

  5. OK Apology accepted…but look….I really wasn’t going to post to this anymore…because I don’t know what else to say to help you see my side. First off this IS part of the evil and corruption…I’m sorry but it is. It is contributing to the downward spiral of the moral fiber of our country IMO. Secondly….aren’t the people the government?? I mean really?? This is why I say….bring this before the people and let them decide. I DO NOT WANT To unleash this onto the churches to allow them to decide who is going to marry and who is not…because you are somewhat suggesting a type of Theocracy here which I do not think would ever work….because anything that holds too much power becomes corrupt including the church. And you ultimately want to do what is right for the people and for society right?? Not just for the sake of saying….oh goody we’ve got our rights now. The Church is going to handle that not the big bad government…*sigh*. Plus you would have all sorts of fly by night cults springing up to marry people. Ok so here I go on the marriage thing again….but it is really part of the symptoms of what is really wrong with our society….no one wants to own this thing…because like health care it is UGLAY!!! And no one has the guts to say….LOOK THIS IS HOW IT IS PEOPLE>>>> SHUT THE FRAK UP!! 😛 FINALLY>>>>Marriage is a contract that two people decide to enter into. Whether they be two men, two women….or a man and a women whatever….to me that should always be a legal contract that is handled by the courts….which is HELLO….THE GOVERNMENT!! So I do see your point…but I’m sorry there comes a time when people are just too self centered, too self righteous (and maybe I am one of ’em) To do the right thing….or quite frankly they cannot figure out what the right thing is…because they have no moral compass or what have you. SO there has to be laws in place to tell them NO THAT IS WRONG! So then you have to go by the laws….and part of those laws define what a marriage is like any legal contract does…defines terms at the beginning of said contract……so I just think marriage needs to stay in the judicial system….because it ultimately boils down to being a contract between two people….NUFF SAID IMO!! 😛 😛

  6. I don’t know what this reply posted way up there^^^ but it belongs down here so I am reposting this and you can delete the other one up there ^^^ If you want 😛

    OK Apology accepted…but look….I really wasn’t going to post to this anymore…because I don’t know what else to say to help you see my side. First off this IS part of the evil and corruption…I’m sorry but it is. It is contributing to the downward spiral of the moral fiber of our country IMO. Secondly….aren’t the people the government?? I mean really?? This is why I say….bring this before the people and let them decide. I DO NOT WANT To unleash this onto the churches to allow them to decide who is going to marry and who is not…because you are somewhat suggesting a type of Theocracy here which I do not think would ever work….because anything that holds too much power becomes corrupt including the church. And you ultimately want to do what is right for the people and for society right?? Not just for the sake of saying….oh goody we’ve got our rights now. The Church is going to handle that not the big bad government…*sigh*. Plus you would have all sorts of fly by night cults springing up to marry people. Ok so here I go on the marriage thing again….but it is really part of the symptoms of what is really wrong with our society….no one wants to own this thing…because like health care it is UGLAY!!! And no one has the guts to say….LOOK THIS IS HOW IT IS PEOPLE>>>> SHUT THE FRAK UP!! 😛 FINALLY>>>>Marriage is a contract that two people decide to enter into. Whether they be two men, two women….or a man and a women whatever….to me that should always be a legal contract that is handled by the courts….which is HELLO….THE GOVERNMENT!! So I do see your point…but I’m sorry there comes a time when people are just too self centered, too self righteous (and maybe I am one of ’em) To do the right thing….or quite frankly they cannot figure out what the right thing is…because they have no moral compass or what have you. SO there has to be laws in place to tell them NO THAT IS WRONG! So then you have to go by the laws….and part of those laws define what a marriage is like any legal contract does…defines terms at the beginning of said contract……so I just think marriage needs to stay in the judicial system….because it ultimately boils down to being a contract between two people….NUFF SAID IMO!! 😛 😛


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: