On another post, our fellow Alexandrian, JMK has written extensively about what he believes and how he arrived at his current beliefs. Much of his material makes sense. He does, however, once again insist on inserting on an otherwise thoughtful piece, his classification of me as a “leftist.” While I have decided it is of little use to argue with him for reasons stated elsewhere, I think it might be of some value to state some of my personal beliefs for the record.
- I am absolutely opposed to use of torture or any related form of dehumanizing captives whether in war actions or police actions.
- I am opposed to use of capital punishment. Once a violent felon is captured and proven guilty, that person should be housed in a humane manner but without access to society for the remainder of his or her life. For those who committed murder, parole should not be a consideration. The only difference in event of psychosis should be the nature of the confinement and the nature of medical treatment. Permanent incarceration should still be the result of violent life taking, with the exception of self defense.
- I am personally not in favor of abortion. However, I am absolutely opposed to imposing religious based proscriptions on persons of other religions or no religion. Since virtually all anti abortion legislation is religious based, there is no place for such legislation under our Constitutional law. Similarly, there is no place for redefining of when “personhood” begins.
- I am opposed to legislation (or Constitutional amendments) that limit citizens of the US from engaging in contractual relationships. In my view, marriage is a contract. The function of the government is to act as an intermediary and, if needed, adjudicator, of legal repercussions of that contract. This is a legitimate government function. Prohibiting homosexual citizens from personal contracts is no different than prohibiting them from car purchase contracts. For what is worth, in my opinion, that applies absolutely the same in regards to multiple (three or more partners) personal contracts. In order to engage in a contract, a person must be able to give consent and must enter the contract in a consensual manner. Thus, animals, dead persons, minors, and other entities not able to give valid consent should not enter personal contracts. Any laws infringing upon the rights of citizens to engage in contracts should be overturned as they infringe upon the freedoms of all of us.
- Our military forces exist to protect us from foreign threats. This means, quite simply that we should be sufficient powerful to either deter or quickly quell any threat from foreign entities. This does not mean that we should “sacrifice” our soldiers (or sailors, marines, airmen, or coastguard) in wars of offense or to overthrow a government that we perceive to be evil or despotic. I agree fully with those who do not believe our military should be used for internal police actions (i.e., they are for opposition against foreign threats). I should add that, if we decide that military action is needed, that action should be “full bore” so as to be completed as rapidly as possible. While incredibly violent, such full action will lead to the fewest casualties in the long term.
- Our police and related forces exist to protect us from internal threats. They should be prepared to take action necessary to intervene against those who would initiate violence or other force against other citizens. They need to do so within the constraints of our legal system.
- Ours is a republic with some democratic features. Over the past 150 years or so, we have gradually moved toward more democratic rather than republic method of governance. In any event, we have fairly effective means of protecting from both despotism of groups (or individuals) or of the “majority.” For instance, even if 80 percent or so of our citizenry were to be in favor of prohibiting some subgroup of citizens from voting, it is very likely that legislation enacting that would not succeed. As long as we continue to make possible that sort of abrogation of despotism, we have a fair chance of remaining free.
- I do not own a firearm and doubt that I would be able to use one except in extreme exigency. However, I am opposed to legislation limiting your right to own a firearm. I doubt very much the efficacy of firearms in protecting us from despotism but see no reason to engage in debate on the issue. I must admit that I find little to justify private citizens owning assault weapons but am not willing to support legislation prohibiting that.
- Our freedom of speech is our single most important bulwark against despotism. The nuances between my disavowal of your speech and the government disapproving of speech by either of us should be clear. Sadly, that does not often appear to be the case. To make it easy, I can say pretty much anything other than to threaten someone or encourage violence with impunity. You can encourage others to boycott me because I said, “under God” in the pledge of allegiance is an inappropriate insertion. However, if President Obama (or, if he is elected, President Romney) asks the Secret Service (or other entity) to “encourage” me to not make that statement, that is unConstitutional in the extreme.
- I find the historical narrative found in Darkness at Noon, The Gulag Archipelago and in Man is Wolf to Man to be disturbing. Use of confession to “prove” guilt in the absence of significant corroborating evidence should disturb all of us. I believe that much of what led to several of the first ten amendments to the Constitution related to their concern about government either forcing confessions or simply taking property from those the government found to be an irrirtant.
- I find the polemics surrounding the current fiscal crisis and the related Federal deficit to be of no value to the nation or to our economic status and future. Neither side is willing to engage in honest assessment of the situation nor to consider effective and economically sound solutions. The Republicans wish to slash taxes and some domestic spending while increasing DoD spending in excess of those cuts. The Democrats wish to slash DoD budgets, increase taxes on about two percent of the population, decrease taxes on the rest, and continue present domestic spending at about the same levels. The Libertarian party (this year) proposes slashing DoD, cutting domestic spending, cutting taxes, and eliminating a number of imprisonment “victimless” crimes thus cutting prison costs. While the Libertarian party program is the only one making at least some fiscal sense, the chances of it getting enacted even if, by some miracle, Johnson should get elected is about the same as the chances of my winning a Nobel Prize for physics.
- I believe in a public funded education system. The future of a nation depends upon educating its youth (as Diogenes observed a couple millenia ago). While private education is a viable choice for some, it is not a viable choice for many of our citizenry and we as a nation cannot afford to have a significant percentage of our citizenry uneducated. That said, the present public education system is being dismantled and crippled by assaults from the religious fundamentalists on one side and from socialistic pseudoscientific garbage on the other. They also face numerous other threats from funding, poor preparation of educators, nebulous standards, McCarthyesque legislators, and so on.
- I am opposed to sacrifice in any shape or form. When someone asks for a sacrifice, they are asking that you give up something of value for which you will receive nothing of value in return. Traders exchange value for value and do not request that the other trader give more value than is received. Yet, the concept of “sacrifice” permeates our society. Both right and left sides of the political structure encourage us to sacrifice for our nation. As long as the nation provides security for its citizens to engage in honest trading and relationships, there is no need for sacrifice. Sacrifice is needed when it is time to steal from the citizenry.
- I believe that climate change is an imminent threat. Whether anthropogenic or natural in cause really does not matter. We need to be taking steps preparing the nation for those aspects that can be predicted. These include change in location of shore line, rainfall distribution, agricultural challenges, and a number of related changes our children will face. To date, all I see in the public arena is another polemical battle over whether it is real, who is at fault, whether we can afford to plan, etc.
- I see some validity in affirmative action functions. For those wishing to understand my reason for that position, I suggest reading James Farmer’s Autobiography, Lay Bare the Heart.
- For what it is worth, my personal recommendations for addressing the federal deficit would include:
* Increased taxes for ALL taxpayers
* Include some degree of needs testing for determining Social Security payments
* Increase Medicare premium and include some degree of need determination
* Cut the DoD budget significantly. Do this through major cuts in foreign based troops, elimination of Congressionally dictated weapon systems that are not requested or needed, paring down of the size of current strengths, and close a number of domestic bases not needed for training and maintenance of fighting capability.
* Slash tax breaks and government subsidies for established industries. Farming, petroleum, wind, sugar, banking, automobile, and a number of other industries are mature and should either stand on their own or fail and yield the field to competitors. There may be some justification for subsidies intended to help “foster” evolving industries but these should be limited in amount and duration.
- Until such time as the world wide economy begins to recover, it is highly unlikely that the US economy will be robust. In the meantime, we can only hope and pray that neither of our two major parties screw things up so badly that we cannot lead in the world wide recovery.
- For what is worth, I am agnostic. I see no need for a God to explain the cosmos. I also see no need for a God for man to develop and institute an ethics system. I see no reason to insult my religious friends so tend to not argue with them unless they initiate the issue and, even then tend to avoid ridiculing their beliefs. I confess to occasionally teasing them.
There are a whole lot of things on which I have no present opinion. For instance, I see no value to be achieved from the new voter ID laws but fail to see them as a serious threat to our nation. I have not included much on health systems in this rant. For the time being, I find I cannot find strong support for or against the Affordable Care Act. I agree that our system needs some major modification. I just don’t, at this point, see a viable alternative. I do know that those who condemn the US system for its many failures frequently misuse data to support that condemnation. Our nation leads the world in a number of health care areas. Our shorter national life expectancy can be accounted almost entirely through the impact of violent premature deaths. Frankly, it is not the responsibility of the health care system to keep people from killing each other and running their automobiles into fixed or moving objects. I must say that I find it disingenuous for politicians to condemn our short life expectancy versus other nations while doing almost nothing to make life safer.
Since virtually all anti abortion legislation is religious based,…
As is any supposition that human life has any value above that of any other entity. Your argument is the one pushed by pro-abortion activists to prop up their selfish desires.
I, too, place great value on human life and would not ever suggest an abortion for a family member. I am not certain I can fully work through the logic of why I do not support anti abortion legislation. However, I do not believe that government has a role to play in that intensely personal decision. I have known a number of patients and friends who elected abortion for one reason or another. Not a single one of them made that decision lightly. Ideally, contraception used effectively would eliminate need for abortion.
I support abortion on demand (unfettered at least until the 3rd trimester) precisely because it does exactly what Margaret Sanger believed it would do – reduce the dependent populations.
Far more poorer women avail themselves of abortion services than do others.
As an example, non-Latino blacks (a federal designation) are appx 12% of the population, but represent 35% of all abortions in the U.S. If it hadn’t been for some African and Caribbean immigration (both having slowed in recent years) non-Latino blacks would today represent less than 9% of the population.
I have to believe that’s the dependent (poor blacks and NOT the good, hard-working middle class blacks availing themselves of such services. In NYC a recent report noted that a staggering 84% of all black pregnancies in that city end up in abortion.
That portends to LESS project dwellers, lower crime rates and a better, safer NYC down the road!
WHY should a child be consigned to the misery of being born into a dysfunctional, chaotic and unwanted environment?
The data analysis in Freakonomics is quite interesting and certainly makes a good point for abortion for prevention of “undesired” pregnancies. Preferable to abortion as a less expensive and less likely to have morbidity is effective contraception.
Contraception IS “preferable,” so much so, that it probably SHOULD BE mandated to ALL dependent poor, on the grounds that the dependent poor SHOULD BE devoted to straightening out their own lives, rather than looking to bring a child into such chaotic misery.
On that it seems we definitely agree.
Interesting contradictions…
“I am opposed to legislation (or Constitutional amendments) that limit citizens of the US from engaging in contractual relationships.”
versus…
“- I see some validity in affirmative action functions. ”
If you sincerely believe in freedom of “contractual relationships”, then you would say that the government has no control over who businesses hire/fire and choose to do business with.
This one is funny:”There may be some justification for subsidies intended to help “foster” evolving industries but these should be limited in amount and duration.”
There is no such thing as subsidies which are limited in amount and duration. Once you tell the Congress that it’s free to hand out money to their friends – they will do so as they please.
“I believe that climate change is an imminent threat. Whether anthropogenic or natural in cause really does not matter. ”
Do you also believe that zombies are an imminent threat?
” The Republicans wish to slash taxes and some domestic spending while increasing DoD spending in excess of those cuts.”
Right now, our military spending is 879 billion dollars. That’s about 5.9% of the GDP. Please reference one republican who wants to increase this share (5.9%).
“I believe in a public funded education system. The future of a nation depends upon educating its youth ”
I don’t remember anyone of the left trying to explain why he thinks that education can be good ONLY if it is controlled by the government. For example – if the middle class were allowed to keep its money that right now they are forced to pay for the government schools – their kids would be able to afford private schools with much more choice and accountability. Moreover, if we give people vouchers, instead of forcing them to go to same government schools, we could let the parents choose.
“The Democrats wish to slash DoD budgets, increase taxes on about two percent of the population, decrease taxes on the rest, and continue present domestic spending at about the same levels. ”
Obamacare increased taxes on more than just 2% of the population. Secondly, there is no way that DNC wants to keep domestic spending at the same level – they always demand wild increases in all programs except the military. Every attempt of the GOP to slow down the growth of the government results in DNC screaming that bloody capitalists are trying to starve the poor.
In short, Ed, I won’t say that you are necessarily a leftie – I would say that you are poorly informed and you did not think through the ideas that you propose.
I mostly posted this as reference for those who might be interested in what I believe. I am interested in how others view my positions and thank you for your input. A couple points:
– “Mitt Romney feels that USA should hike up military spending to 4% of the country’s GDP. He also believes that the Government should increase the active duty work force by ten thousand.” Direct quote from http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/National-Security.php The GDP is currently a little over 15 trillion dollars and 4 percent comes to about 600 billion dollars. I really don’t want to get into long analysis of what the actual spending is. Gov Romney has clearly stated that he wants to increase it from whatever it currently is. In May, US News reported the following: “Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, took the primary campaign trail this year decrying defense spending cuts proposed by the Obama administration and promoting a plan to increase American troop rolls by 100,000, increase Navy shipbuilding and modernize Air Force crafts. His plan for overall deficit reduction calls for cutting other parts of the budget, not defense. ” (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/24/experts-skeptical-of-romneys-defense-budget-plans) . My very rough estimate is that 100,000 added troops would cost about 5 billion dollars in their salaries alone.
I realize that some equate climate change with zombies. However, the data overwhelmingly document that it is occurring. As to the actual cause, there is room for debate.
1. As I showed, the military spending today is more than 4%. I am curious to know if Romney plans to increase some portions of the military budget, while cutting the unnecessary ones (for example, spending billions of dollars on Obama-cronies friendly fuel).
2. Romney is against cutting hte military – which is not the same as saying he wants the total military spending to go up.
3. It’s quite possible that the military spending numbers used as reference are more likely the ones after all the cuts – not what they are today. The Bush’s victory in Iraq and Obama’s withdrawal from Afghanistant for example will result in lower military spending.
All in all, Romney’s promise to “increase” military spending to 4% of the GDP is less than what we spend today, and there are ample reasons to show how it could happen.
There is no denial that the climate is changing – it is always changing. There is a big difference between saying that the climate is changing, and that the climate is changing, and this change is an imminent threat to humanity. I hope that the discussion would stay on the imminent threat of the climate change – and not whether it is changing.
P.S. I can see that you did not respond to a number of other points that I raised. Maybe later.
“I see some validity in affirmative action functions. For those wishing to understand my reason for that position, I suggest reading James Farmer’s Autobiography, Lay Bare the Heart.” (ETH)
.
.
Bottom-line, those who support preferences (SEGREGATED standards) have gone on record as “supporting segregation period.”
Shall such segregation take a new form down the road, disadvantageous to such self-centered supporters, or IGM (“I’ve got mine”) apathetic folks, they’ve ALREADY supported segregation in principle, it would be too late and far too disingenuous for them to then oppose it on application at that point.
As I said above, James Farmer’s discussion of this in his book is excellent (as is the entire book).
I’ve seen the book and looked over his arguments on preferences, set asides and quotas, and find them lacking in substance.
The idea that “some degree of preference is now needed to remedy the outright discriminations of the past” just doesn’t ring true and doesn’t make much sense, given we’ve done that with no other groups, and many others have suffered mighty discriminations.
It STILL comes down to supporting SEGREGATION, but ONLY when it benefits James Farmer’s ilk. . .N/G. . .IF you support segregation in principle, it’s impossible then to argue over merely how it will be applied.
Ed, I don’t see a SINGLE viewpoint among yours that WOULDN’T be defined as “Left-of-Center.
Ergo, I don’t see your objection to my categorizing them in that way.
My objection is that by referring to an individual as “liberal” or “conservative” or other such label, one begins to create barriers to communication. Argue with ideas not with labels. It is tempting to talk of “increasingly pejorative” political debate however, history of our country shows this to have been a long standing habit. After all, Burr and Hamilton did not shoot at each other out of friendliness but out of political disagreement. Frankly, I find many use pejorative language to avoid the “work” of having to look up data or other material with which to make their argument. After all, why provide data or logic to someone perceived as being “stupid?”
Call me liberal if you so desire. As doing so, realize that I once voted for Senator Goldwater (perhaps balanced by my once having voted for Eugene McCarthy?). Realize also that I have not included all sorts of positions that I hold but did not feel like addressing. I am happy to discuss more of them but that would probably be boring for most persons. Also, it might be of interest to know that my brother considers me a conservative (although not as strictly as he once believed me to be).
Ed, that’s nonsense.
ALL views are labeled, and RIGHTLY so.
Why is that ONLY “liberals” seem to object so much to being labeled.
I’ve accurately labeled myself a “liberal,” simply because of my consistent principles, which result in my being pro-abortion and pro-sexual liberation.
You know that skit that goes, “You might be a redneck IF….”?
I think the same can apply here. For instance;
You might be a Leftist IF you think MSNBC is on the level and FNC is “faux news.”
You might be a Leftist IF you think most criticism of the Obama administration is “racist.”
You might be a Leftist IF you think the Tea Party was AstroTurfed and the Occupy Wall Street protests were organic!
etc., etc.
There ain’t NOTHING wrong with being a “liberal” OR a “Conservative,” so there’s NO NEED for ANYONE to be ashamed to own whatever they are.
I started a blog awhile back called “Workingclass Conservative” as a play on my mixed affiliations – many Conservatives count me a “liberal” because of the pro-abortion, pro-gay thing and most “liberals”/Leftists consider me a “Conservative” because of the pro-gun, pro-free markets thing.
Never bothered me at all.
I can honestly say that I’ve never cared much what ANYONE else thought of me. If I know someone well and they were offended by something I said….maybe that would give me pause. . .considering the source, of course. I wonder about people who won’t own up to what they are. Gets me to thinking that maybe they really don’t believe in what they’re saying.
Online communications are a lot more problematic. (1) You really never know if the person you’re exchanging views with is on the level at all or even is who they purport to be and (2) there is no nuance (no facial expressions, no vocal inflections, etc.) at all – things that make human communication so viable. Emoticons and “LOLs” don’t really convey the actual human humor nor translate the manner (ball-busting, tongue-in-cheek, etc) in which things are said.
It’s a very limiting means of trying to communicate.
Come to think about it, that’s what tipped me off about Lance.
He kept referring to how people would ignore me, as though he just assumed that everyone must care about what others think of them (as he apparently did). . .I really have never given a damn what ANYONE else has thought about me.
I DON’T deliberately try and hurt people’s feelings or anything, but if someone is shocked or appalled by something I say and I mean it and own it…well, then that’s on them. I really couldn’t care less what anyone else might think.
You shouldn’t either.
OK, so you voted for Barry Goldwater. Given your stated views, that sounds like a “youthful indiscretion.” Goldwater was Reagan’s mentor and trailblazer. . .OR maybe your views have evolved over time. Either way, that’s not an issue.
Like I said, there’s nothing at all wrong with being a “liberal” or “Conservative,” just in not having the confidence to be proudly and admittedly so.
“Online communications are a lot more problematic. (1) You really never know if the person you’re exchanging views with is on the level at all or even is who they purport to be and (2) there is no nuance (no facial expressions, no vocal inflections, etc.) at all – things that make human communication so viable. Emoticons and “LOLs” don’t really convey the actual human humor nor translate the manner (ball-busting, tongue-in-cheek, etc) in which things are said.
It’s a very limiting means of trying to communicate.”
In this, we are in complete agreement. Early on during beta testing of a medical information system with email, I was amazed at how “innocent” teasing comments without the usual facial, gesture, and sound inflections led to serious angry interchanges. I do my best to avoid satire on line although I frequently fail to do so. The disclaimers, as you mention help but not completely.
Yes, satire doesn’t work well at all online, but you should try pathos (my specialty), especially coupled with a side order of irony. . .talk about stirring up a hornet’s nest.