posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:32 PM
Mods if this is the wrong place, please forgive me.
Now, as I have matured my political views have changed. I started off as a right-wing nutcase progressed to a centrist, and now I can proudly consider
myself a moderate Libertarian, but why? Because that is the view that I am comfortable saying that I am a part of it, now I may not be a true
Libertarian but I embrace many of their views.
In terms of sex, it should be this simple. What happens between two adults in privacy in terms of sex is their business not yours. You and the
Government cannot tell them how to have sex, plain and simple. This is not a religious society where some forms of sex are "immoral". Why should I
be bothered if two loving gay men commit homosexual sex in their home? Does it affect me? No. Does it harm society? No. Also here, I believe in legal
prostitution. It is a victimless crime, hurts no one. If it was legal its going to be a legit business and once the creation of brothels start in a
city, the amount of street walkers will decline thus, crime lords are the ones who get hurt. It's going to lower STDs, and the statistics around it
outweigh whatever moral complaint there is.
Guns and drugs. To start, there is nothing wrong with owning a gun. Who's the killer? The gun or the person who pulls the trigger? Who has the idea
and plan to murder? Man or the rifle? Answers obvious. Firearms are a necessity for the people, for two reasons.
1. Home safety
2. To have leverage over the government
As long as people have guns, we can stop the government. Banning guns only helps the government gain more power over the people since, we are going to
have a helluva time overthrowing a tyrannical regime with sticks and stones. Onto drugs. Before I was radically anti-drug, but now I have realized
1. Jailing marijuana users is useless.
2. The War on Drugs is failing
3. Medicinal marijuana is beneficial.
On point one, jailing marijuana users just makes the prison system more clogged. Why jail someone who users marijuana, when we have rapists and
killers running free on our streets? On point two, Americans spend around 100 billion dollars a year getting high, and drugs are in our schools and in
our everyday lives. If this "war" was so great and was executed correctly, then why in the blue hell are people still getting coke, crack, '___',
and heroine? Simple folks, the drug war is full of crap and its just Prohibition all over again. My third point does not really need to be explained
other than that, the drug has helped a lot of people with medical problems, and if we managed to create a system where only people with real problems
needed the drug we can grant to them.
A big thing that bugs me is how our schools are banning, censoring, and even rewriting pieces of literature? In a school one black student was
offended by the use of the word "'n-word'" in Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", so the school banned it. Why? Because of a word.
If these people knew anything Twain was not racist, nor was his book. In fact many famed black men, such as Booker T. Washington applauded Twain on
his presentation of Jim the slave. Another thing is that thatís how people talked back then. It would be anarchronic for a book set in the 1800s, in
the South not to use the word "'n-word'" when referring to a black person. We cannot rewrite history thatís how it was no matter how ugly it was.
Some books are rewritten because the endings are "unhappy" or the kids may get "radical ideas" from the books. Not everything in life is all
happy, with flowing rainbows and not everything is a happy Hollywood ending where the good guys always win. And it is better for kids to get radical
ideas than be forced to accept everything and tolerate it, and be brainwashed. No book or form of literature should EVER be banned or censored. It is
wrong on so many levels. Your average third grader won't be reading A Clockwork Orange or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
I was reading one politcal philosophy and it mentioned force. It's quoted below. It mentions that there are three kinds of force.
"1. INITIAL FORCE: In any group of people, from 2 to 20 billion, there is no use of force until someone uses it first. Initial force is aggression or
2. DEFENSIVE FORCE: Defensive force is the use of force to defend your safety, rights, or property. You have the right to defend yourself, and the
right to authorize others, such as those in government, to use defensive force in your behalf. Defensive force is survival.
3. RETALIATORY FORCE: Retaliatory Force is punishment of someone who has initiated force. If someone assaults you, you have the right to authorize
government to punish those responsible in your behalf. Retaliatory force is justice."
And its right. Initiating force is wrong, its not right to shoot your neighbor or punch your wife. However you should have the right and power to
retaliate against the initiation. If someone punches you, punch back. I don't understand why a school would suspend a student for fighting in
self-defence, it has happened in my school district. If someone punched me in the halls, I'd knock his teeth out. And you have the right to defend
your self. If someone breaks into your house, ready to rape, kill, and thieve from your life and you shoot him your doing a good dead. If some thug
broke into my house, he'd be dead.
In fact this brings us to vigilante justice. I have no problem if someone takes the law into their own hands, to do good. Such as killing drug lords,
rapists, and killers. Now someone is going to say "What thats initation of force", well its not. Vigilante justice against evil, is retaliation
since the evil made the first move already.
The article further makes these statements which I agree with.
"1.Government should not initiate force to seize the property of individuals.
2.Government should not initiate force to compel service to the state.
3.Government should not initiate force to impose lifestyles or moral codes.
4.Government should not even initiate force when "it's for your own good." '
I am very fond of numbers 3 and 4. The government has no right to impose a lifestyle or moral view onto me or society. The government cannot ban porn,
because its an explict form of sex, or make homosexual sex illegal or tell me to lead a moral lifestyle. If I want to drink and watch porn all day I
can damn well do that. And the government doing feel good legislature and "your own good" legislature is wrong. Who is the government to decide what
is for your own good?
In short I believe that a Libertarian philosophy is the best we have out right now. Some say that Libertarians want to "legalize everything and want
anarcy", but what it really is about is, Personal Freedom and removing the government from where it does not belong.
To close I will end it with a Jeffersonian line.
"The government which governs least, is the one that governs best"