Why I Don't Agree with Anyone Politically
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.
My Agreement with Republicans/Conservatives:
-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.
-Democracy-
I also have a strong distrust of Democracy/Republicanism. Both parties claim this to be essential and say their policies defend it, which should tell you it's a bad idea to start with. I get so sick of hearing Bush steal whats-his-faces campaign to 'make the world safe for democracy', and these socialistic union ads proclaiming how such and such is against democracy. Democracy has several things wrong with it.#1: It doesn't make any god damn sense to begin with. Democracy encourages the majority to decide upon things which the majority are ignorant of. I cannot see how letting majorities decide what is right, true and proper (especially considering most things believed by most people have been entirely wrong and the exact converse of fact) would seem like a good idea to any thinking human being.
#2: Egalitarianism. People are not equal. And (by nature of definition) the more competent, moral people will be a minority and thus politics will become a sport of the inferior taking out their jealousy on their betters.
#3: Demagogoury: Political leaders in democracies and republics have shorter terms and thus tend to abuse their powers more, as well as rely on lies, nonsense and trickery to gain their positions. Very few politicians are actual men of character and ability, instead they are base rhetoricians. I think it's funny to see these smear-campaigns talking about how John Kerry was a coward or did this or that, when the greatest indictment against him is his choice of career.
-The Origin of My Political Beliefs-
It is basically economics. Having had the luck to read some very large, logical and consistent economic treatise when I was young - and having a head for logic - I find that Capitalism - totally unregulated, free-market, balls-to-the-wall capitalism - trumps any force intervetionism and that any sort of government intervention outside of protection from coercion is absolutely, unalterably doomed to mishaps, inefficiency, corruption, and most likely will backfire to the exact opposite effect. I think the trust in government and most political beliefs people have are about as logical as your preference of colours and that's why most political debates are just a spiral of nonsensical gibberish where neither side has any point, and its just a meaningless opinion fight.And that is why no one agrees with my politics. Let the flaming begin.
