Beef the Independent

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I grew up in a bleeding-heart liberal family, and remained a solid liberal until I was about 21 or 22.  I voted for Clinton in '96, and Feingold in '98.  Several years of life on a liberal college campus, where leftist ideology gets shoved down your throat at every turn, turned me off to the radical left - although I had been pro-life ever since high school.  I voted for Bush in '00, probably will vote for him again in '04, although I plan on voting for Feingold for Senate.

I tend to take liberal views on social issues other than abortion and marriage.  My position on abortion is that it should only be legal in the case of rape, insest, or the life of the mother, and these abortions should be performed as early in term as possible.  We should discourage abortion by making the adoption process easier, and creating a better support system for unintentional mothers.  My position on marriage is that I think people have a right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, but we should not mess around with something so foundational to society as marriage.

We need to end the War on Drugs.  It's not working, and it's criminalizing millions of Americans.  Our taxes should not go towards keeping non-violent offenders behind bars, where they can learn how to be violent offenders.

I believe in a middle economic road.  During times of economic recession, it is ok to run up a budget deficit, and it is ok to use tax breaks to stimulate economic growth.  But this is not a silver bullet, and during times of economic prosperity, we need make sure our budget is balanced so that we can afford the next period of recession.  I do not believe in creating budget surpluses or "rainy day funds," because this takes money out of economy, where it could be put to much better use.  The working poor should not have to pay taxes.  We need to be a nation in which anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and where workers aren't punished for their efforts by oppressive taxation.

I believe that private enterprise is a good thing, and profit motive is a good thing.  Private businesses have an incentive to deliver better goods and services, and to do it in the most efficient way.  Government has no such motive - its only motive is to perpetuate its own existance.  However, government regulation is necessary to insure that corporations don't get too large or too powerful.

I am ambivilent towards socialized health care.  On principle, since medical care is something everyone needs on a basic level, we should all share the cost.  In practice, the lessons of other countries tell us that this can create costly beurocracies, and encourage a lowest-common-denominator level of care.  The rising cost of private health insurance may force this issue in the next several years, however.

I believe that free and open trade may have negative short-term consequences, but over the long haul, will benefit everyone.  Eventually, economic development abroad will raise the Thrid World standard of living up to our own, eliminating the problem of cheap foreign labor undercutting American jobs.  The new markets that global trade open up will create *more* jobs here in the US.  Eventually, everyone wins.

While I sympathize with the cause of correcting past racial injustice, I belive affirmative action is discrimination, plain and simple.  Two wrongs don't make a right, and we should be striving for a colorblind society, not one in which we reward people for the color of their skin.

We should invest in research into alternative fuels, continue the progress we've made in reducing pollution, and strive to make this a cleaner, healthier planet to live in.  This planet's all we've got.

I believe that American might is, overall, a good thing, as we value freedom, democracy, and equality, and these are very positive values.  I believe that some degree of military interventionism will serve the aim of making the world a more free and democratic place - and thus a safer place.  Due to the fact that many around the world resent American might, and will oppose any use of American force on principle alone, sometimes unilateral action is necessary in order to protect American national security.  This should only occur after exhausting all diplomatic attempts at gaining world consensus, and we should attempt to build coaltions to legitimize our actions.

Education (new).  I believe that our natural course as a civilization is leading to a world in which you are going to need to be educated in order to be useful to society.  We need a large, well-educated workforce if our economy is going to continue to grow.  To that end, I support public funding of education.  I think that childern of low-income homes should be able to leave schools that don't work, and have the opportunity to get a quality education, and break the cycle of poverty.  To that end, I support school vouchers.  A child of a poor family is poor through no fault of his or her own, so this is one handout I really don't have a problem with.  Also, I believe the competitive pressure that vouchers generate will force failing public schools to improve.  I think the biggest obstacle to education today is the teacher's unions, who fight only for the interests of teachers, and protect schools that don't work.

[Gustaf]

I think your rationale for not being a Republican is about as bad as mine.

[angus]

I grew up in a bleeding-heart liberal family, and remained a solid liberal until I was about 21 or 22.  I voted for Clinton in '96, and Feingold in '98.  Several years of life on a liberal college campus, where leftist ideology gets shoved down your throat at every turn, turned me off to the radical left - although I had been pro-life ever since high school.  I voted for Bush in '00, probably will vote for him again in '04, although I plan on voting for Feingold for Senate.

I tend to take liberal views on social issues other than abortion and marriage.  My position on abortion is that it should only be legal in the case of rape, insest, or the life of the mother, and these abortions should be performed as early in term as possible.  We should discourage abortion by making the adoption process easier, and creating a better support system for unintentional mothers.  My position on marriage is that I think people have a right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, but we should not mess around with something so foundational to society as marriage.

We need to end the War on Drugs.  It's not working, and it's criminalizing millions of Americans.  Our taxes should not go towards keeping non-violent offenders behind bars, where they can learn how to be violent offenders.

I believe in a middle economic road.  During times of economic recession, it is ok to run up a budget deficit, and it is ok to use tax breaks to stimulate economic growth.  But this is not a silver bullet, and during times of economic prosperity, we need make sure our budget is balanced so that we can afford the next period of recession.  I do not believe in creating budget surpluses or "rainy day funds," because this takes money out of economy, where it could be put to much better use.  The working poor should not have to pay taxes.  We need to be a nation in which anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and where workers aren't punished for their efforts by oppressive taxation.

I believe that private enterprise is a good thing, and profit motive is a good thing.  Private businesses have an incentive to deliver better goods and services, and to do it in the most efficient way.  Government has no such motive - its only motive is to perpetuate its own existance.  However, government regulation is necessary to insure that corporations don't get too large or too powerful.

I am ambivilent towards socialized health care.  On principle, since medical care is something everyone needs on a basic level, we should all share the cost.  In practice, the lessons of other countries tell us that this can create costly beurocracies, and encourage a lowest-common-denominator level of care.  The rising cost of private health insurance may force this issue in the next several years, however.

I believe that free and open trade may have negative short-term consequences, but over the long haul, will benefit everyone.  Eventually, economic development abroad will raise the Thrid World standard of living up to our own, eliminating the problem of cheap foreign labor undercutting American jobs.  The new markets that global trade open up will create *more* jobs here in the US.  Eventually, everyone wins.

While I sympathize with the cause of correcting past racial injustice, I belive affirmative action is discrimination, plain and simple.  Two wrongs don't make a right, and we should be striving for a colorblind society, not one in which we reward people for the color of their skin.

We should invest in research into alternative fuels, continue the progress we've made in reducing pollution, and strive to make this a cleaner, healthier planet to live in.  This planet's all we've got.

I believe that American might is, overall, a good thing, as we value freedom, democracy, and equality, and these are very positive values.  I believe that some degree of military interventionism will serve the aim of making the world a more free and democratic place - and thus a safer place.  Due to the fact that many around the world resent American might, and will oppose any use of American force on principle alone, sometimes unilateral action is necessary in order to protect American national security.  This should only occur after exhausting all diplomatic attempts at gaining world consensus, and we should attempt to build coaltions to legitimize our actions.

Wow, you are far more conservative than I am.  Gustaf is too, I think.  Oh, well.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Several years of life on a liberal college campus, where leftist ideology gets shoved down your throat at every turn, turned me off to the radical left -

I don't know what college this must be, but at the university I attended I got so fed up with right-wing ideology being shoved down my throat at every turn.

[Gustaf]

You think so? Are you really sure you want to find out the truth?

[angus]

should I assume that's for me gustaf?

[Gustaf]

should I assume that's for me gustaf?

I know of only one...OK, yes, for you.

[angus]

Forget everything you ever heard a US national say they think they know about what liberal and conservative means.  Go back to what you and I know that these words mean.  And yes, I am a liberal extremist.  But on any other thread I'll thank you not to use that term with respect to my political philosophy.

[Gustaf]

Forget everything you ever heard a US national say they think they know about what liberal and conservative means.  Go back to what you and I know that these words mean.  And yes, I am a liberal extremist.  But on any other thread I'll thank you not to use that term with respect to my political philosophy.

Ah, I think I'm following you more closely now...in that sense I'm more liberal than I a conservative, but more conservative than you probably, yes.

[angus]

Pro-free trade, no ethical qualms with cocaine use, marijuana, gambling, aborting third-trimester foeti, prostitution, carrying around guns, whatever.  I think I may be opposed to slavery and forced prostitution, though, so I'm not a total liberal on social issues.  I also strongly oppose all capital punishment on moral grounds.

On economic matters, I'm a wee bit more moderate:  I like low taxes and abhore the thought of socialized medicine and redistribution of wealth and racial hiring quotas, but I do seriously believe in maintaining the best university and public schools system.  I'm rabidly opposed to vouchers, which take money away from schools that need it most and give money to schools who need it least.  And I strongly support maintaining a Navy and Army second to none.  And I emphatically (even vehemently) defend intellectual property rights.  

So it's the economic issues that keep me from being a Libertarian, but on the social issues I'm pretty much completely in line with the Libertarians.

[Dave from Michigan]

Pro-free trade, no ethical qualms with cocaine use, marijuana, gambling, aborting third-trimester foeti, prostitution, carrying around guns, whatever.  I think I may be opposed to slavery and forced prostitution, though, so I'm not a total liberal on social issues.  I also strongly oppose all capital punishment on moral grounds.

On economic matters, I'm a wee bit more moderate:  I like low taxes and abhore the thought of socialized medicine and redistribution of wealth and racial hiring quotas, but I do seriously believe in maintaining the best university and public schools system.  I'm rabidly opposed to vouchers, which take money away from schools that need it most and give money to schools who need it least.  And I strongly support maintaining a Navy and Army second to none.  And I emphatically (even vehemently) defend intellectual property rights.  

So it's the economic issues that keep me from being a Libertarian, but on the social issues I'm pretty much completely in line with the Libertarians.

you sure your a republican?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Pro-free trade, no ethical qualms with cocaine use, marijuana, gambling, aborting third-trimester foeti, prostitution, carrying around guns, whatever.  I think I may be opposed to slavery and forced prostitution, though, so I'm not a total liberal on social issues.  I also strongly oppose all capital punishment on moral grounds.

On economic matters, I'm a wee bit more moderate:  I like low taxes and abhore the thought of socialized medicine and redistribution of wealth and racial hiring quotas, but I do seriously believe in maintaining the best university and public schools system.  I'm rabidly opposed to vouchers, which take money away from schools that need it most and give money to schools who need it least.  And I strongly support maintaining a Navy and Army second to none.  And I emphatically (even vehemently) defend intellectual property rights.  

So it's the economic issues that keep me from being a Libertarian, but on the social issues I'm pretty much completely in line with the Libertarians.

you sure your a republican?

Maybe a Western Republican.  The Western Wing tends to be the Libertarian Wing, and the Southern Wing tends to be the Moralist Wing.

However.

Third trimester abortions (shudder), drugs, gambling, opposition to vouchers, and protection of Intellectual Property are all Democrat territory (although in the case of IP, it's only because the entertainment industry currently has bought off more Democrats than Republicans).

[angus]

Yes I am.  Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight.  I have a great big flag and I'm a huge nationalist.  I believe this is the greatest country in the history of nations and seriously hope I'd have the courage to die to defend it if the need arises.  This party held its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856 and was formed as the Nationalistic alternative to the Democrats.  You'll hear lots of nonsense about liberal vs. conservative, or states-rights vs. strong central government, in defining the two parties.  That is a mistake:  the one identifying characteristic that has defined the GOP since its inception is nationalism.  It took me 36 years to figure that out:  I've been a Republican since December 29, 2003.  I am also quite certain that I will vote to re-elect George Bush in November.  I do not consider him a personal hero, but he is clearly the best choice for economic and national security at this time.  A vote against GWB amounts to sanctification of the intolerance of the Democrats.  I am absolutely certain of that, and I will not be goaded into personal attacks on John Kerry, as I have no problem with him personally, but he is not the better man.  And all those who cast their votes for third-party and independent candidates are welcome to do so, I have done so often, but eventually every poster on this forum who votes for an 'other' will outgrow such idealism, and choose either nationalism or its alternative.  

[Gustaf]

I think I may be opposed to slavery and forced prostitution, though, so I'm not a total liberal on social issues.  

Angus,

I'm not sure whether libertarians support slavery or forced prostitution, since it infringes other's rights. I think the old rule of liberalism is that you can do whatever you do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody or infringes on other people's rights.

I disagree with you on vouchers, I support them.

Otherwise, we're not that far apart.

[angus]

I think I may be opposed to slavery and forced prostitution, though, so I'm not a total liberal on social issues.  

Angus,

I'm not sure whether libertarians support slavery or forced prostitution, since it infringes other's rights. I think the old rule of liberalism is that you can do whatever you do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody or infringes on other people's rights.

I disagree with you on vouchers, I support them.

Otherwise, we're not that far apart.

we sometimes say, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

I suspect none of us are that far apart politically.  We simply choose to magnify the differences.  If we all chose to focus on the similarities (of which there are undoubtedly more), then the discussion would be no fun.

[Gustaf]

I think I may be opposed to slavery and forced prostitution, though, so I'm not a total liberal on social issues.  

Angus,

I'm not sure whether libertarians support slavery or forced prostitution, since it infringes other's rights. I think the old rule of liberalism is that you can do whatever you do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody or infringes on other people's rights.

I disagree with you on vouchers, I support them.

Otherwise, we're not that far apart.

we sometimes say, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

I suspect none of us are that far apart politically.  We simply choose to magnify the differences.  If we all chose to focus on the similarities (of which there are undoubtedly more), then the discussion would be no fun.

EXACTLY! I was searching for that, but I wasn't sure how it went n English, or if it went at all, so I didn't write it.

And I agree with the 2nd point as well.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Several years of life on a liberal college campus, where leftist ideology gets shoved down your throat at every turn, turned me off to the radical left -

I don't know what college this must be, but at the university I attended I got so fed up with right-wing ideology being shoved down my throat at every turn.

I studied History at the Universtiy of Wisconsin-Madison.  To be fair, Madison is up there with Berkeley, Ann Arbor, and Harvard as one of the US's most liberal campuses, and not representative of American universities in general.  BUT, Marxist ideology had so permeated the intellectual life of the campus that it was inescapable.  Every History class was taught the same way: study how the privileged classes beat up on the lower classes, how men dominated women, how religion was used as a tool to control the masses, and discuss how that makes us feel today.  With the exception of the natural sciences, pretty much every course I had on campus filtered all knowledge through this singular ideological filter.  The same themes came up again and again, both in class and out:

-Organized religion leads to nothing but hatred and repression
-Big business is out to crush the human spirit
-Our Mother Earth is dying unless we radically tear down society
-Sexual mores are a useless vestige of a repressive society
-Indigenous Peoples are noble savages that we brutally raped by coming here
-White people of today are to blame for the plight of Black slaves in our past.

It was a system designed to churn out Guilty White Liberals, and campuses like Madison are the ideological fuel of the American Left.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

we sometimes say, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Which sums up why I oppose late-term abortion.  It's why I think you can be pro-life and still call yourself a Libertarian.

[Gustaf]

we sometimes say, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Which sums up why I oppose late-term abortion.  It's why I think you can be pro-life and still call yourself a Libertarian.

Of course you can. The ONLY issue when it comes to abortion is when life begins. Once it has, it has to be preserved. Plain and simple. In theory anyway...when you have to tell a girl to keep the child of her own dad it gets harder though...

[angus]

very tricky issue, beef.  I apologize if my earlier post seemed dismissive with regards to your beliefs.  In history class they taught us that there was only one issue in the 1800s with regards to states-rights vs. strong central government which could not be solved by the usual give and take of political debate.  Not sure whether I believe that, but, by analogy, late-term abortions may be today's issue which states' won't be allowed to decide for themselves.  Federalism is/was a fine balancing act, and once again it may be the overreaching arm of the GOP to the rescue.  I do not claim that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just thinking...

[Gustaf]

very tricky issue, beef.  I apologize if my earlier post seemed dismissive with regards to your beliefs.  In history class they taught us that there was only one issue in the 1800s with regards to states-rights vs. strong central government which could not be solved by the usual give and take of political debate.  Not sure whether I believe that, but, by analogy, late-term abortions may be today's issue which states' won't be allowed to decide for themselves.  Federalism is/was a fine balancing act, and once again it may be the overreaching arm of the GOP to the rescue.  I do not claim that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just thinking...

It makes little sense to have the states decided over abortion...on the other hand you already have them decideing over capital punishment...

[angus]

very tricky issue, beef.  I apologize if my earlier post seemed dismissive with regards to your beliefs.  In history class they taught us that there was only one issue in the 1800s with regards to states-rights vs. strong central government which could not be solved by the usual give and take of political debate.  Not sure whether I believe that, but, by analogy, late-term abortions may be today's issue which states' won't be allowed to decide for themselves.  Federalism is/was a fine balancing act, and once again it may be the overreaching arm of the GOP to the rescue.  I do not claim that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just thinking...

It makes little sense to have the states decided over abortion...on the other hand you already have them decideing over capital punishment...

just a bit more hypocrisy than I can sit still over from a man who campaigned rigorously against adoption of the european currency unit (among other enforcements from Brussels).  Clean your own yard before you make suggestions about mine, young man.

[Gustaf]

very tricky issue, beef.  I apologize if my earlier post seemed dismissive with regards to your beliefs.  In history class they taught us that there was only one issue in the 1800s with regards to states-rights vs. strong central government which could not be solved by the usual give and take of political debate.  Not sure whether I believe that, but, by analogy, late-term abortions may be today's issue which states' won't be allowed to decide for themselves.  Federalism is/was a fine balancing act, and once again it may be the overreaching arm of the GOP to the rescue.  I do not claim that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just thinking...

It makes little sense to have the states decided over abortion...on the other hand you already have them decideing over capital punishment...

just a bit more hypocrisy than I can sit still over from a man who campaigned rigorously against adoption of the european currency unit (among other enforcements from Brussels).  Clean your own yard before you make suggestions about mine, young man.

We're a soverign nation, your states aren't, now are they? I find it strange that a political unit can allow some members to kill its citizens, that's all. And I'd say it's slightly worse than allowing them to retain their own currencies...but that's me. If you favour letting the American states break off and be soverighn states then you have a case, but now not.

And, finally, I am trying to clean it, I really am.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

we sometimes say, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Which sums up why I oppose late-term abortion.  It's why I think you can be pro-life and still call yourself a Libertarian.

Of course you can. The ONLY issue when it comes to abortion is when life begins. Once it has, it has to be preserved. Plain and simple. In theory anyway...when you have to tell a girl to keep the child of her own dad it gets harder though...

I'm agree entirely.  The closer you get to the time of conception, and when you throw stuff like rape and incest into the mix, the more of a tangled ethical mess it becomes.  You have a possible human life on one hand, with forcing women to be human baby-incubators on the other.  I'm not going to pretend that's a black-and-white issue.

But I don't think the ethics are anywhere near as messy when dealing with third-trimester abortions for convenience's sake.

[angus]

very tricky issue, beef.  I apologize if my earlier post seemed dismissive with regards to your beliefs.  In history class they taught us that there was only one issue in the 1800s with regards to states-rights vs. strong central government which could not be solved by the usual give and take of political debate.  Not sure whether I believe that, but, by analogy, late-term abortions may be today's issue which states' won't be allowed to decide for themselves.  Federalism is/was a fine balancing act, and once again it may be the overreaching arm of the GOP to the rescue.  I do not claim that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just thinking...

It makes little sense to have the states decided over abortion...on the other hand you already have them decideing over capital punishment...

just a bit more hypocrisy than I can sit still over from a man who campaigned rigorously against adoption of the european currency unit (among other enforcements from Brussels).  Clean your own yard before you make suggestions about mine, young man.

We're a soverign nation, your states aren't, now are they? I find it strange that a political unit can allow some members to kill its citizens, that's all. And I'd say it's slightly worse than allowing them to retain their own currencies...but that's me. If you favour letting the American states break off and be soverighn states then you have a case, but now not.

And, finally, I am trying to clean it, I really am.

you think the united states just appeared overnight?  It was a collection of loosely organized states between 1777 and 1789, much like today's EU, and the "Articles of Confederation" was the working document under which interstate commerce, etc, was regulated.  The specific issues we use for examples aside, it is telling that you do not realize which famous documents are the source of your own Union's constitution.  In fact, it was only under threat of being treated like a foreign power (tariffs and such) that Rhode Island reluctantly became the 13th state to ratify the constitution, and it only did so when its demand for a Bill of Rights was met.  And, in fact, there is no specific sanction in the constitution against leaving the Union, just as there is none in the Treaty of Maastricht against leaving.  As I have stated before, the legislature of South Carolina broke no written law when it decided to seccede, just as Germany, for example, would be breaking no written law if it decided to start printing Deutschmarks and using them.  

Plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose, n'est-ce pas, mon ami?