Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

i guess what i'm trying to express here is that i look at being libertarian as the same as being democrat or republican. if you don't really support their perspectives and ideals, well then don't invoke the term.

people who aren't familiar with the ideals may start to think that YOUR beliefs are representative of this particular political orientation. and frankly, we don't need that type of 'support'.

just my two cents...

- m

This is going to be a total hijack, but since I've seen pictures of Pennywise in this thread already, I don't think any further hijack could do any significant harm

"Democrat" and "Republican" to me do not convey any real political meaning. Nor do "conservative" or "liberal." Many times, in the name of politics, individuals who use those terms to self-describe often take up self-contradictory positions. For example, people are against abortion because life is sacred, but they're for capital punishment.

Another example is that liberals tend to be for public health care and other services which benefit the poor while at the same time supporting measures which open our borders wide to illegal immigration which has a very harmful effect on those already in poverty (illegal immigrants taking jobs which would otherwise probably go to the domestic poor).

One side of the Republican party (social conservatives) would have it be illegal to be in a same-sex relationship, adopt children into a same-sex household, forbid abortion under any circumstances, even forbid certain kinds of consensual sex in many cases... another side of the Republican Party (the libertarian wing) would tell the government to keep its nose out of citizens' bedrooms. Contrarian positions from each wing will invariably make it into the party's platform, so at the end of the day, we're left with some "clear" picture (which is anything but clear) as to what a "Republican" is. We redefine this every four years or so.

Democrats do the same thing essentially.

Due to the above sorts of examples, I think it's pretty ambiguous to represent oneself as a "Republican" or a "Democrat." Unaccompanied by other adjectives, I don't think claiming membership to either party tells us much about you. Or do you want to try to tell me that Republican Ron Paul would agree with much fellow Republican Trent Lott would have to say? Or that Barney Frank would agree with much that Dan Boren would have to say?

I think there are more than one types of libertarian out there. There are those (such as myself) who are influenced by libertarianism but haven't adopted it totally. There are others who are card carrying libertarian party members who adopt the party's view as their own.

The trouble with the term might be that it can on one hand be referring to a particular political movement/ideology while on the other hand, it might be referring to a particular party.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The trouble with the term might be that it can on one hand be referring to a particular political movement/ideology while on the other hand, it might be referring to a particular party.

VERY true. however, i'm just a bit of a purist. say you're liberal, say your conservative. delineate between the two on as many individual issues as ya want. just don't call yourself something if you don't actually hold to it.

- marissa

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

VERY true. however, i'm just a bit of a purist. say you're liberal, say your conservative. delineate between the two on as many individual issues as ya want. just don't call yourself something if you don't actually hold to it.

- marissa

Marissa: I do absolutely hold true to MANY libertarian ideals -- just not all. I consider myself a member of the libertarian wing of the Republican party.

I don't want to be insulting or anything (and this very well may be perceived that way), but in my mind, subscribing 100% to any party agenda is akin to letting someone else think for you.

Since I'm pretty well qualified to do my own thinking, I'm going to fail any political reliability test you put in front of me. As you may have perceived, when it comes to able bodied adults who abuse our welfare system, you'll find me a tad to the right of Atilla the Hun on the political scale... cut off the money, let God sort 'em out... when it comes to impoverished kids, I'm a big pinko commie -- let the state take these kids into custody and spend bazillions of bucks making sure these kids turn out better than their parents.

I view poverty in the long term as America's most important war -- beating, or at least managing poverty is essential to our continued survival and our continued freedom. Throughout history, a wide gap between the poor and the elite (and the lack of a substantial middle class) has always meant social upheaval. As with every war, there are a variety of tactics which can be used... all with differently effective and all with their own political consequences. One thing is for certain though -- if we continue to do what is most politically expedient at this time (i.e., nothing), we'll end up with a much worse problem than we have right now. While this paragraph might look like the preface to some sort of spiel glorifying socialism, it's not.

You might imagine that I think socialism ignores the root of this problem -- that people don't want to work. We have to make them work if they want to eat, have shelter, etc. To me, it's (almost) that simple.