Tuesday, July 17, 2007
-
My Beliefs
The past four years have been a fantastic intellectual ride. I started out as someone who would make Doug Philips look wild, and I was a proud supporter of the Constitution Party, and wanted to vote against George W. Bush because I felt he wasn't conservative enough. To put it simply, I was extremely conservative both politically and personally.
I've changed drastically since then, mostly to the extent that generic labels are worthless. I'm not conservative. I'm certainly not liberal. I don't want to go to a liberal college because I refuse to remain quiet on certain issues -- the same goes for conservative colleges. I'm still fingering my way around basic, basic, basic philosophy. This is something I should have been doing years ago.
For clarification for discussions and so that you can see where I stand on certain issues, I'll provide a quick list of my opinions regarding political, religious and personal issues. It would probably be helpful for others to do the same. Creating this post certainly cleared my thoughts and organized my mind a bit. :)If you have any questions or disagreements, by all means post them. I probably won't be able to respond to any lengthy critique, but, if you wish to discuss my political beliefs, we can do so in a forum so we can have formatting tools to keep the discussion from being overly messy. =)
Note: I’m no where near done with the list. I’ll be updating this post routinely to reflect new or reformed beliefs.
Political Issues
Philosophy: I believe that the state is but a business of persons organized to unleash force upon others. It can be used for either good or bad -- usually bad. The political business has no moral abilities except those abilities which the individual has, for the political business is, at root, a collection of individuals. Government should not violate the negative rights of the people, and should use all tax monies to the general cause of protecting and securing the negative rights of the people.
Abortion: I think it's foolish to pretend we know when person-hood begins. But it's more foolish to risk being wrong with such stakes. Err on the side of millions of children.
Marriage: I believe that, Biblically, marriage is between men and women. Note the plural. No, I'm not comfortable with that either, nor do I think it is beneficial. However, unless we are willing to accept that polygamy /is/ a legitimate form of marriage, we shouldn't have the government involved at all. The question is a question of income taxes. See also Income Tax.
Income Tax: I support the Fair Tax. An income tax penalizes persons for achievement. It also allows certain individuals (who deal mostly with cash) to completely shirk their tax obligations, meaning that the system also isn't fair. It should certainly be abolished.
Gun Control: I support an immediate end of all gun control measures, except for those dealing with specific governmental buildings, such as the white house. My reasoning here is, well, obvious.I believe that gun control is one of the most important issues that faces America. Millions of lives, thousands of women, hundreds of children and literally billions of dollars are at stake. Gun control violates every foundational natural right, be it the right to life, liberty or property. Gun control also violates the Second Amendment.
Immigration: I believe that every person has the moral obligation to better the condition of them and their family. I also believe that every person has the natural right to travel and natural right to decide where to live (as long as they don't violate the natural rights of others).
Given the above, I would support an immigration policy that respected the natural rights of immigrants, meaning that quotas are certainly out the windows. However, this is not to say that the borders should be completely open -- some restrictions obviously apply, considering murderers and thieves have invalidated certain privileges. Which privileges? I have no clue.
All that to say: I'm not really sure.
Military: A military is of the basic components and purposes of the state. Considering this, a strong military is most certainly justified. A strong military also prevents the likelihood of invasion and preemptively protects the negative rights of the people.I support the US having the largest, strongest and most advanced military on Earth.
Welfare: It is wrong to steal from me to donate to charity. If I forced you at gunpoint to give five bucks to a homeless man, I would be acting in an immoral and dishonorable manner. Welfare is not justified.Religious Issues
Christian Liberty: Most of Christianity is oriented around the individual Christian. There are many vague restrictions, and few brightlines.
Movie Content: You shouldn't watch what causes you to stumble. This sounds vague, and that's because it is. It really depends upon the Christian.
Dating/Courtship: It's a messy debate because of the laziness of people on both sides when it comes to definitions. Dating is not a sin. It can be done well, it can be done poorly.
Premarital Touch: Whatever does not cause one to lust is not a sin. This is much more restrictive than it sounds, though it depends upon the individual.
Music: One genre is not necessarily better than the others. I like classical, rock, techno, country, etc. It is not moral to intentionally listen to music that causes one to stumble.
Selfishness: It's impossible to stop being selfish, for every action, by definition, revolves around the actor. The trick is to get the actor to revolve around God.
-
recommend
- recs 0
- give stars
- votes 0
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to SHAUNPHD's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in SHAUNPHD's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (10)
lol. no, you sound like a conservative paleo-libertarian.
So you want to go to a conservative college where you can preach to the choir?
I think that from an economic standpoint, FairTax has some serious problems, but I'll let it be.
Welfare:
It's wrong to steal. But it's not morally wrong to tax you to donate to charity. Calling it stealing doesn't make it so. If I forced you at gunpoint to buy a missile defense system for my town, I would be acting in an immoral and dishonorable manner, too. If I forced you at gunpoint to give me money so I could build a post office, I would be acting in an immoral and dishonorable manner. There's no logic in your statement on this point.
It's amazing how much we change over the years. :)
I do disagree with your stance on marriage. Just because plural marriages are biblical (i.e. in the Bible), doesn't mean that they are of God.
Anyway, kudos for embracing change : D
1. I've given up on a label. :P I've gone from everything from neoconservative to conservative to libertarian to classical liberal to juris naturalist. Right now I'm just me.
2. David, I said the same about the Conservative colleges. I can't imagine a college that would have a choir I could preach at.
3. It would not be wrong for me to force you at gunpoint to defend others. I did not provide logic because I was summarizing my position, not necessarily creating a case for it.
4. I agree that they weren't of God, however -- aren't they still technically marriage? If so, shouldn't they be acknowledged for what they are?
If we want to get technical, a ceremony wasn't what defined the first marriage. It was "becoming one flesh." So, if we want to define marriage strictly on that basis..well, that's quite a can of worms. All biblical direction does call for "marriage" to be between one man and one woman. Quite honestly, I don't care what my govt calls it, so I guess I agree with you there....I can't ask an unbeliever to do something as God established. That's the Holy Spirit's job. Something like abortion is diff't...if murder is to be illegal, it should be illegal for all ages. Anyway, I think I'd be cautious saying "Biblically." It comes with assumptions that it must then be okay.
Rambling. I'll stop for now
Devil's advocate: By the way, your stance on abortion sounds a lot like the precautionary principle. (Argument: Allowing abortion is dangerous because it risks killing innocent humans. Our brightline is too fuzzy. Therefore, ban abortion.)
But the problem with the precautionary principle's application is that it too may have incredible risks. Mothers can lose their career, happiness, or even lives to an unplanned pregnancy. Another impact would be an increase of crime, as documented in Freakenomics.
Overall, what action should result from uncertainty? On a governmental level, I think that is nothing. Allow abortions or cluster bombs, or whatever the possible level evil may be. Best limit the precautionary principle to an individual level rather than allowing it blossom into a draconion ban.
...
What say ye?
I certainly hope you were kidding in your first post on my xanga. Seriously, I was laughing very, very hard. Otherwise, I will refute that point-by-point. ;)
ALSO, You said: "From a purely risk analysis comparison, the ban most certainly stands. We're literally risking the lives of millions against the known harm of hundreds of thousands."
And I am a little confuzzled here because that's exactly my point.We know that unplanned pregnancies pose a KNOWN harm and the harm of an abortion, from your perspective, is an UNKNOWN harm. But the overall argument was that the government should not act from uncertainty, certainly not in the form of a totalitarian ban.
Is my argument making sense yet?
-Allison
Way to go Shaun