"liberal", "conservative", etc

despite my perhaps better intentions, i seem to find that i'm unable to keep away from perusing these "political" threads (a bit, i suppose, like watching a car accident or a public beheading and, for sick fascination, being unable to take one's eyes away)... perhaps, as some have suggested, there is an educational value of sorts to all this business and so, to that end, i'm curious:

i'd like to hear folks' personal understanding of their own political values, affiliation, etc... call it the 2-minute elevator pitch of your own political manifesto. i'm not interested (at all in this thread) in hearing your views, invectives, demonizations, and so forth on "the other" or the views of others as they're posted here—i'd respectfully ask that you please save all that for other threads—nor am i interested in textbook (or wiki) definitions of various political ideologies... so, if you post at all, then kindly post your own salient views that go to your own understanding of your particular political stance.


i'll get the ball rolling:

i don't really feel aligned at all with either "conservative" or "liberal" ideology (as they seem to be characterized in what passes for contemporary american political discourse). rather, if i had to find a label for my own views it would have to probably be something along the lines of "humanist social libertarian". what that means to me: i place personal liberty at the top of my priorities in how i want to see society organized. i see "government" (ie the self regulation of social groups, and the smaller the group the better) as a necessary evil for the protection and preservation of those liberties, but want an absolute minimum of its presence felt and/or exerted and, to the extent that it "must" be felt/exerted, i want it organized and conducted from a purely secular perspective with no intrusion or bias on behalf of any supernatural worldview. i believe that the greatest threat to personal liberty is authoritarianism (in any guise) and the tools of authoritarianism in terms of hegemonistic centralization and control of material wealth, whether by organizations or individuals and so, were this the best of all worlds for me (ever the idealistic pothead), i would advocate the admittedly rather utopian and pre-industrial condition(s) of organization around small decentralized communities that hold land stewardship (obviously to include growing copious amounts of cannabis) as their primary and common enterprise. as for the accumulation of wealth, i'm all for it to the extent that it doesn't intrude on my (or anyone else's) liberty. however, when "too much" becomes stoppered by "too few" then that's when liberty becomes threatened by virtue of the inherent inequality created by the disproportionate aggregate.

all that being said (and toward a perhaps more real-world perspective), i consider myself a patriot (albeit with a "citizen of the world" perspective), am quite comfortable (aside from issue of cannabis prohibition [!]) with the conditions under which i live as a self-employed individual here in these united states, and fortunately/thankfully have been so my entire life no matter the regime in control of the reins of state. i recognize that not all, or even a majority of americans, are so fortunate and so i personally feel that i have a personal social responsibility to do what i can to help enable others in my immediate community to improve the conditions of their own lives. i think our federalism, particularly in the post world war era, reeks of authoritarianism and would love to see the nation move back towards a more decentralized form of organization (states rights, particularly concerning cannabis!) while still maintaining a healthy economy through the prevention of monopolies and other predatory business practices. finally, while contrary to the perspective espoused in the national anthem, i think we have no business being in the business of maintaining and promoting our own "empire of democracy" in the name of "god" and starbucks et al (aka big business)... the peoples of the world need to figure it out for themselves without our intervention!

cheers
-g

Federalism.

The federal government should confine itself strictly to the U.S. Constitution. Let the states do what they may as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

As a Classical Liberal I default to freedom.

Johnnyorganic said:

Federalism.

The federal government should confine itself strictly to the U.S. Constitution. Let the states do what they may as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

As a Classical Liberal I default to freedom.

Click to expand...

thanks for that johnnyorganic. a discussion about federalism in theory and practice would make for another great thread!

could you please though, in the spirit in which i started this thread, outline what being a "classical liberal" means to you? do you mean the 19th century understanding of "liberalism" or the modern-day libertarian usage of the appellation (or do you distinguish between the two)? in essence: what, in your own words, does being a "classical liberal" mean to you?

georgi345 said:

thanks for that johnnyorganic. a discussion about federalism in theory and practice would make for another great thread!

could you please though, in the spirit in which i started this thread, outline what being a "classical liberal" means to you? do you mean the 19th century understanding of "liberalism" or the modern-day libertarian usage of the appellation (or do you distinguish between the two)? in essence: what, in your own words, does being a "classical liberal" mean to you?

Click to expand...

Classical Liberal. Jeffersonian Liberal. Traditional Liberal.

All are roughly equivalent to Libertarianism.

Freedom.

Whatever the question: To me, the answer is the one that leads to more freedom, more liberty, more personal responsibility, rather than less.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Every law should conform to the Constitution. No exceptions.

If the state you reside in is too Progressive for your tastes, or not business friendly, move to a state that more closely conforms to your beliefs, or change your state from within.

The Republic as it was conceived was good enough. Even as good as it was, some key Constitutional concepts were ignored from the beginning, but now those concepts are damn near forgotten.

The Republic is a simple concept which has been degraded mightily over the last 100 years.

any other takers?

Sovereign Voluntaryist.

All "good law" springs from this concept : if a person is not harming you or others, taking your property etc. then no person or group of persons should assert control over another, either through coercion or by monoplistic legal methods.

My version of voluntaryism does not prevent others from collectives or forming their desired government or rules for themselves. It would however prevent "others" from forcing individuals to submit to something that they do not agree with, don't want and don't use.

In essence natural law trumps manmade unnatural law. If you leave others alone, NOBODY has a right to force you to do anything. I believe most problems in the world spring from others having a "good idea" and using force to make people comply with this "good idea" .

I would gladly accept "constituional law" as an improvement versus what we now have, however constitutional law still presumes that people are to be bound by the thoughts or words of another. We know where that can end up don't we?