A friend asked me what I thought about AZ HB 2281, which "bans" ethnic studies. Following is my response! (She told me that if it was too personal that I didn't have to respond, BTW.)
-----
Oh, I don't think that politics is ever too personal. It's our future
that we're discussing! Politics engenders policy, which has an enormous
influence over our future! So, no worries! I'm always up for discussing
politics : D.
I have to admit that I'm not overly familiar with AZ HB 2281. I looked it up,
along with some of the commentary. I had to say that I found it pretty
amusing — the commentary on both sides was so reactionary as to be
bordering on absurd. From my brief exposure to the topic, I'd say that
both sides are wrong, and that's one of the largest problems with
politics today. Both sides are racing to the opposite ends of arguments
so that achieving middle ground is impossible. On the one hand you have
minority groups claiming that the program was intended to prepare
students for college with college level texts, so the law is an obstacle to preparing minorities for college. Haha! Right, because the best way
to prepare minorities for college is to read college level left-wing
ideology. Haha! On the other side, you have people claiming that
minorities are trying to set up the equivalent of a madrasah. Such polarizing rhetoric makes rational discussion impossible.
Ethnic
studies classes make a lot of sense. EVERY historical perspective is
biased. The history told in American schools will be predominately (if
not almost exclusively) white European centric. That's just a fact of
life. It makes sense that minorities would want classes that tell
history from their own perspective. Where the classes went wrong was
allowing teachers with an axe to grind (and an agenda to push), who
would hijack the curriculum and turn it into an equally unfair
retelling. The purpose should be to provide balance, not to espouse
damaging views.
Does it help any of those students to believe
that "Republicans hate Latinos?" NO! That belief is far more damaging to
them than it will be to any white, racist Republican. Latinos who
harbor this belief will mistakenly exclude themselves from a portion of
society, and thereby exclude themselves from "Republican" associations,
careers, opportunities, and successes that they would already have. The
vast majority of Republicans do not hate Latinos. Do some? Sure! But, so
do lots of Democrats! Heck, there are even Latinos who act in racist ways
towards other Latinos! Harboring ill will towards Republicans will
injure Latinos far more than it will ever hurt anyone else. It's similar
to the segregation that African Americans impose on themselves by
despising "white" (which is really just American) culture, and trying to carve out their own distinct
culture. By ostracizing African Americans who act "too white", African
Americans self-segregate — nullifying much of the equality work of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr.. Their peer pressure imposes an environment
where success is looked down on, discouraged, and even punished. How
does that help them? It doesn't. Having and preserving a distinct
culture can be a wonderful thing, as long as it's not done with the
purposes of denigrating another culture, of setting yourselves apart,
and of holding your own selves back. Every culture can have traditions that do us a disservice. We can and should integrate with the society around us without abandoning who we are and our own cultural uniqueness.
So,
does that make the law right? Haha! NO! It's impossible to legislate
correct behavior. Two wrongs do not make a right. No amount of laws will create a "good", and especially
not a law abiding people. You can write BILLIONS of pages of laws, and
you're still going to have improper behavior. Creating more laws
accomplishes the opposite. It makes it harder to actually be in
compliance with the law. (Do any of us know all of the laws, so that we
can actually be law abiding? Yeah, didn't think so.) It decreases
respect for the rule of law and engenders resentment. (Anyone else think
that ridiculous, stupid laws get passed way too often?) If you can view
the law as a type of sword or other type of suffering (I find excessive
laws insufferable), I think that Alma 31:5
applies well. The proper course of action is not to inflict more laws,
it's to teach people (the instructors of the ethnic studies class in
this instance) how their behavior is harmful to themselves and others.
If you don't improve peoples' understanding, then they'll just find a
new way to make the same mistake. We should be engaging in dialogue, not legislating one another.
Fortunately, it looks like the law doesn't have much teeth.
It won't actually ban ethnic studies. And, it's almost impossible to
enforce. Again, that just means that another stupid law was passed that
does a disservice to the respect for the rule of law, and the justice
system. It's more of a threat to clean up their act (or else) than
anything else.
As far as what the Libertarian philosophy would be, Libertarians are VERY PRO immigration. However, they also believe that programs like affirmative action (see Libertarian platform:
2.0 "Economic Liberty", 2.1 "Property and Contract", and 3.5 "Rights
and Discrimination"), while well meaning, only prolong the problems and
divisions. The solution is to just treat everyone as equal under the
law, and leave it at that. Don't give preference to underprivileged
groups, as this just makes them more dependent (and therefore less free)
on government. If they figure out how to induce the market to equalize
their situation (for instance, if handicapped people and all of their friends give
preference to facilities that are handicap accessible, and boycott
those that aren't — rather than getting the ADA passed), then they're empowered. When people believe that they're reliant on the government to establish equality, then they've already given up some of their liberties.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Bringin' back the green (CTR ring)
Well, I didn't intend to include arts and crafts when I started this blog, but I couldn't help myself ; D.
In tribute to this:
I took this:
And created this! (Well, not the crayons. I just added the green tinting of the ring to the lower left ; )
Here's the "How to" that I used for reference.
I learned that cheap crayons don't work as well as Crayola crayons. When the wax of cheap crayons cools, it's sort of porous, instead of being smooth.
Since the face of my ring is smooth (well, other than the recessed area for the wax) instead of being raised like a normal CTR ring, I found it easier to just rub it clean with a paper towel once the wax had cooled; rather than keeping it warm so that I could detail it with the paper towel or q-tip.
I tried a darker green that's closer to the CTR ring green first, but it ended up being too dark so I re-did it with the lighter "yellow-green". It's a little light, so I may end up trying mixing colors next time if I get motivated enough to try again.
Yeah, sort of silly, but I've always wanted my CTR ring to be green, and yet at the same time preferred this ring design. Pretty cool, huh?
In tribute to this:
I took this:
Here's the "How to" that I used for reference.
I learned that cheap crayons don't work as well as Crayola crayons. When the wax of cheap crayons cools, it's sort of porous, instead of being smooth.
Since the face of my ring is smooth (well, other than the recessed area for the wax) instead of being raised like a normal CTR ring, I found it easier to just rub it clean with a paper towel once the wax had cooled; rather than keeping it warm so that I could detail it with the paper towel or q-tip.
I tried a darker green that's closer to the CTR ring green first, but it ended up being too dark so I re-did it with the lighter "yellow-green". It's a little light, so I may end up trying mixing colors next time if I get motivated enough to try again.
Yeah, sort of silly, but I've always wanted my CTR ring to be green, and yet at the same time preferred this ring design. Pretty cool, huh?
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
On foreign policy and intervention (blow back)
[A response to a video online]
If America didn't have nuclear weapons, but China did, would you find it acceptable that China continued to obstruct our ability to obtain nuclear weapons? China spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year spying on us, and trying to influence our political system. Do you resent that, and find it inappropriate? That's what America is doing in the Middle East, and really most of the world.
The position of Libertarian-leaning Republicans (like Governor Gary Johnson and Representative Ron Paul) is that the biggest reason that these groups hate us is because we don't represent liberty and freedom to them. We represent meddling, intrusive, empire-building imperialists. We are invaders to them, trying to IMPOSE a political system on them. Would you stand idly by while another nation imposed anything on us?
Governor Johnson and Representative Paul believe, and I agree, that if we treat these groups like equals, and with respect and dignity, that they will no longer be a threat. They'll spend their money, time, and resources on more constructive things. If we trade with them freely, then democracy will naturally take root and become a part of their culture. On the other hand, if we invade their lands, set up bases, and bomb them, then they'll naturally hate us and our political and economic systems. They'll resist them. Wouldn't you?
Governor Johnson and Representative Paul don't see a need to research these relatively obscure topics, because their political worldview and treatment of the other nations and peoples of the world would eliminate problems like these. Muslims would stop sending money to America to destroy and kill Americans, if America stopped sending money and troops to the Middle East to occupy and destroy them. It's the concept of "blow back" that Representative Paul has pointed out on so many occasions. It's real (the CIA acknowledges it), and yet, somehow, we believe that our actions will not have natural consequences.
Our problem is that we've grown arrogant as a nation. We believe that it's our right to dictate to the rest of the world how it should be. We believe that we're right, so we have the right to make unilateral decisions. That's not true. The rest of the world has every right to their political systems and cultures, regardless of how backward they may seem to us. Once we figure that out and treat them like equals, then they'll stop trying to kill us.
For all of our supposed "Christian values", we as a nation tend to forget the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we treat them like undeserving inferiors, then they'll prove us tragically wrong. If we treat them like friends, then they'll be friends.
If America didn't have nuclear weapons, but China did, would you find it acceptable that China continued to obstruct our ability to obtain nuclear weapons? China spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year spying on us, and trying to influence our political system. Do you resent that, and find it inappropriate? That's what America is doing in the Middle East, and really most of the world.
The position of Libertarian-leaning Republicans (like Governor Gary Johnson and Representative Ron Paul) is that the biggest reason that these groups hate us is because we don't represent liberty and freedom to them. We represent meddling, intrusive, empire-building imperialists. We are invaders to them, trying to IMPOSE a political system on them. Would you stand idly by while another nation imposed anything on us?
Governor Johnson and Representative Paul believe, and I agree, that if we treat these groups like equals, and with respect and dignity, that they will no longer be a threat. They'll spend their money, time, and resources on more constructive things. If we trade with them freely, then democracy will naturally take root and become a part of their culture. On the other hand, if we invade their lands, set up bases, and bomb them, then they'll naturally hate us and our political and economic systems. They'll resist them. Wouldn't you?
Governor Johnson and Representative Paul don't see a need to research these relatively obscure topics, because their political worldview and treatment of the other nations and peoples of the world would eliminate problems like these. Muslims would stop sending money to America to destroy and kill Americans, if America stopped sending money and troops to the Middle East to occupy and destroy them. It's the concept of "blow back" that Representative Paul has pointed out on so many occasions. It's real (the CIA acknowledges it), and yet, somehow, we believe that our actions will not have natural consequences.
Our problem is that we've grown arrogant as a nation. We believe that it's our right to dictate to the rest of the world how it should be. We believe that we're right, so we have the right to make unilateral decisions. That's not true. The rest of the world has every right to their political systems and cultures, regardless of how backward they may seem to us. Once we figure that out and treat them like equals, then they'll stop trying to kill us.
For all of our supposed "Christian values", we as a nation tend to forget the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we treat them like undeserving inferiors, then they'll prove us tragically wrong. If we treat them like friends, then they'll be friends.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The ills of government services — less care for one another
Gary Johnson has promised to not raise taxes for ANYONE, and yet to balance the budget. I, too, feel that the government has grown too much, and has taken on too many unconstitutional responsibilities that could be more efficiently, and less expensively be provided by non-governmental groups, such as non-profits (or even for profits).
Americans have proved to be the most generous people in the world, but as government takes on additional services and responsibilities, the response has changed from "What can I do to help?" to "Why should I help. That's the government's responsibility." That, in my mind, is as equally bad as a person feeling that the government should take care of him or her, instead of that person taking care of himself or herself.
The ever expanding government affects our feelings of responsibilities for one another. In many ways, this is more destructive to our society and our ability to function as a nation. We OUGHT to feel and take responsibility for one another. However, the government should NOT FORCE us to take care of one another by forcibly taking our resources and wasting a large portion of it doing what we could do more efficiently and less expensively for one another. We're no longer a society that knows and cares for our neighbors, and I would argue that government trying to take that responsibility away from us has played a key part in that.
When we voluntarily, of our own free will and choice, take care of one another, our nation will be far stronger than it could ever be if government is taxing us, wasting money, and providing pale imitations of the same acts of goodness and service.
Americans have proved to be the most generous people in the world, but as government takes on additional services and responsibilities, the response has changed from "What can I do to help?" to "Why should I help. That's the government's responsibility." That, in my mind, is as equally bad as a person feeling that the government should take care of him or her, instead of that person taking care of himself or herself.
The ever expanding government affects our feelings of responsibilities for one another. In many ways, this is more destructive to our society and our ability to function as a nation. We OUGHT to feel and take responsibility for one another. However, the government should NOT FORCE us to take care of one another by forcibly taking our resources and wasting a large portion of it doing what we could do more efficiently and less expensively for one another. We're no longer a society that knows and cares for our neighbors, and I would argue that government trying to take that responsibility away from us has played a key part in that.
When we voluntarily, of our own free will and choice, take care of one another, our nation will be far stronger than it could ever be if government is taxing us, wasting money, and providing pale imitations of the same acts of goodness and service.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Some thoughts on immigration
Following is an email response to a woman who expressed her belief that Gary Johnson's open immigration policy runs counter to the libertarian policy:
Following is an excerpt from an email response sent to a friend who was encouraging me to vote for a candidate best known for developing one of the harshest (perhaps the harshest) policy against illegal immigrants in the nation. The "Church" mentioned is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
I also offer for your consideration the explanation of the Libertarian Party of their immigration position calling for open borders with the exception of security risks. The enumerated policy in the platform of the Libertarian Party is number 3.4.
The two reasons that people do not welcome immigrants is that they feel that immigrants steal jobs and "steal" government services (like education, and healthcare). It is my understanding that Libertarians believe that the actual roots of the immigration problems are the existence of the minimum wage and the existence of unconstitutional government services. Libertarians would remove the minimum wage which would mean that immigrants would be taking jobs that Americans don't want to take, and would result in the American economy actually being more competitive as the result of cheap labor. Libertarians would also get rid of those unconstitutional government services so that there would be no government services to "steal". That way immigrants would only be a boon to the economy, and wouldn't be taking anything from existing Americans.
Following is an excerpt from an email response sent to a friend who was encouraging me to vote for a candidate best known for developing one of the harshest (perhaps the harshest) policy against illegal immigrants in the nation. The "Church" mentioned is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
I was wondering if you're aware of the Church's recent statements on
immigration. The Church has taken a lot of flak over the past year for
making a lot of statements pleading for a compassionate solution: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here's the Utah Compact. I signed it!
Last week I actually came up to Utah to volunteer for the Gary Johnson presidential campaign at least until April. Politically, I'm Libertarian-leaning (I don't agree with everything that Libertarians believe). I believe very strongly in free markets, and limited government. I also believe that the Libertarian platform is the best embodiment of Elder Oaks' CES Fireside on truth and tolerance (skip to 15:43 to hear him, although if you're LDS and single then you don't want to miss Sister Oaks' talk which precedes his!) from this past Sunday. Government is a very different body from a church. Churches enforce morals and standards. Government CANNOT impose morals and standards on people (or they just resent and rebel against it and the affront to their dignity), and MUST exercise tolerance for people's choices and give them free will to make those choices except when those choices injure others. I think that Mosiah 29:26-34 explains this concept extremely well. Mosiah was concerned because having a king relieved the people somewhat from the responsibility of making their own choices and governing themselves. The more freedom that people have, the more agency, growth, and self-responsibility is available to them. People today are unfortunately clamoring for a "king". A government to make decisions for them, and to relieve them of their individual responsibilities to provide for themselves. The Libertarian party restores people's responsibilities for themselves.
People dislike immigrants because they believe that immigrants steal jobs and steal services (in other words, that we have to pay for the educations and medical services that they receive). Libertarians believe that the solution to immigration is to eliminate government services (no public education, no public healthcare, no welfare, no unemployment checks, no social security), and to eliminate the minimum wage. Immigrants will therefore only be a boon to our economy and produce no drag — there won't be any services for them to "steal", and they'll only be taking jobs that Americans wouldn't take because the pay was too low, which will make things cheaper for us and help our economy to be more competitive. Immigrants will only stay if they find jobs. Otherwise, they'll naturally leave of their own accord to find better opportunities elsewhere. (See the Libertarian platform here.)
As a Spanish-speaking missionary serving in New Mexico and Texas, it was heart-breaking for me to watch families separated by immigration issues, or to live in squalor because they were illegal and lived in fear, unable to live openly and publicly. Many of the members of our wards worked for the border patrol. They simply asked us as missionaries to never tell them who was illegal, because it was their duty to extradite illegals. They harbored no ill will towards illegals. It was just their job to enforce the border. Many of the border patrol agents openly stated that if it were them and their own families on the other side of the border, that they would likewise do anything that they had to in order to try to bring their families to the United States and the better opportunities here — including crossing the border illegally. I believe that the Church is asking us to see things the same way. To know that it could just as easily be us and our loved ones trapped in Mexico, surrounded by corruption, violence, and murder caused by drug cartels. Those illegal immigrants are our brothers and sisters.
Last week I actually came up to Utah to volunteer for the Gary Johnson presidential campaign at least until April. Politically, I'm Libertarian-leaning (I don't agree with everything that Libertarians believe). I believe very strongly in free markets, and limited government. I also believe that the Libertarian platform is the best embodiment of Elder Oaks' CES Fireside on truth and tolerance (skip to 15:43 to hear him, although if you're LDS and single then you don't want to miss Sister Oaks' talk which precedes his!) from this past Sunday. Government is a very different body from a church. Churches enforce morals and standards. Government CANNOT impose morals and standards on people (or they just resent and rebel against it and the affront to their dignity), and MUST exercise tolerance for people's choices and give them free will to make those choices except when those choices injure others. I think that Mosiah 29:26-34 explains this concept extremely well. Mosiah was concerned because having a king relieved the people somewhat from the responsibility of making their own choices and governing themselves. The more freedom that people have, the more agency, growth, and self-responsibility is available to them. People today are unfortunately clamoring for a "king". A government to make decisions for them, and to relieve them of their individual responsibilities to provide for themselves. The Libertarian party restores people's responsibilities for themselves.
People dislike immigrants because they believe that immigrants steal jobs and steal services (in other words, that we have to pay for the educations and medical services that they receive). Libertarians believe that the solution to immigration is to eliminate government services (no public education, no public healthcare, no welfare, no unemployment checks, no social security), and to eliminate the minimum wage. Immigrants will therefore only be a boon to our economy and produce no drag — there won't be any services for them to "steal", and they'll only be taking jobs that Americans wouldn't take because the pay was too low, which will make things cheaper for us and help our economy to be more competitive. Immigrants will only stay if they find jobs. Otherwise, they'll naturally leave of their own accord to find better opportunities elsewhere. (See the Libertarian platform here.)
As a Spanish-speaking missionary serving in New Mexico and Texas, it was heart-breaking for me to watch families separated by immigration issues, or to live in squalor because they were illegal and lived in fear, unable to live openly and publicly. Many of the members of our wards worked for the border patrol. They simply asked us as missionaries to never tell them who was illegal, because it was their duty to extradite illegals. They harbored no ill will towards illegals. It was just their job to enforce the border. Many of the border patrol agents openly stated that if it were them and their own families on the other side of the border, that they would likewise do anything that they had to in order to try to bring their families to the United States and the better opportunities here — including crossing the border illegally. I believe that the Church is asking us to see things the same way. To know that it could just as easily be us and our loved ones trapped in Mexico, surrounded by corruption, violence, and murder caused by drug cartels. Those illegal immigrants are our brothers and sisters.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Where I stand
I'm starting this blog so that I can express, explore, and discuss my political views and philosophies.
I describe myself as Libertarian-leaning. I most closely identify with the Libertarian Party, but with some key differences. The following explains how my views differ from those of the Libertarian Party.
I don't agree with the position that abortion is acceptable. The rights of a woman shouldn't override the right of her unborn child to live. She still maintains plenty of rights and choice in the absence of abortion. She has the choice to not become pregnant. And when she doesn't (as in the case of rape or incest), then abortion should be allowed. She doesn't lose the right to live (but with abortion, the child does). In the rare case of danger to the life of the mother, then abortion ought to be an option. And, the mother still retains the same choices any parent has once they have a child: to keep the child, or to give the child up for adoption. An unborn child's right to life does not severely impact the rights and choices of a mother any more than any other child's has an effect on a parent. However, abortion severely impacts (as in, does away with) the rights of the unborn child. Abortion, if it's not murder, is so like it that as a civilized society we ought to prohibit it (other than the aforementioned exceptions of rape, incest, and danger to the mother).
I also believe that foreign intervention is not only appropriate in some cases, but an obligation. For instance, when a nation is invaded, then we ought to be willing to assist that nation in restoring its sovereignty. And, I also believe that it was appropriate for the French to assist the American colonists in their revolt against the British. I think that it's a question of whether or not an action has been requested publicly in an internationally recognized forum (such as the U.N.) by the people of that nation, and whether or not it enhances or protects the sovereignty of the people of that nation. If we were invaded, we would expect international military aid. When we rebelled against the British, we expected assistance. However, we initiated the conflict, and the people as a majority were active in it. Obviously, all international actions would need to be passed publicly by Congress (not by the president since that's unconstitutional; and certainly no covert interference — for example choosing a nation's government or leaders infringes on the rights of its people, it cannot enhance nor protect them). The French did not remove our leaders, nor drive them out. We drove out our own king. The French merely aided us in expressing our own sovereignty by helping us to protect our right to do so. However, I don't believe that we should have any permanent foreign bases or forces.
Just as people have the right to abstain from religious activities and to protect their children from being exposed to those expressions (for example, school prayer and religious symbols in government buildings), I believe that people have the right to abstain from being exposed to expressions and depictions of violence, blatant sexuality, profanity, etc., and to protect their children from being exposed. In other words, religion is an idea and an expression. To the same degree that people have the right to be protected from religious expressions, people ought to have the right to not be exposed to ideas and expressions we find offensive and to protect our children from being exposed to those ideas and expressions. Government should not prohibit those ideas nor expressions, but also cannot support them (whether in the arts, or in the media). Individuals must recognize when their ideas and expressions are offensive and then not express them publicly. I have no idea how this would be facilitated, but it seems fair to me and more possible in an age of technology then it was prior. This view is very nascent, so it needs some serious refining, but basically, expressions should be prohibited and protected equally, whether they be religious, or otherwise.
As a practical matter, the federal government probably must recognize same sex civil unions if they provide any rights to any couples. So, either the federal government must cease to provide rights to couples, or it must provide them to all consenting adults. However, marriage ought to be given to the states, with no federal interference whatsoever.
Other than what's mentioned above, I believe that my political philosophies match those of the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/platform ).
The evolving version of this document can be found here.
I describe myself as Libertarian-leaning. I most closely identify with the Libertarian Party, but with some key differences. The following explains how my views differ from those of the Libertarian Party.
I don't agree with the position that abortion is acceptable. The rights of a woman shouldn't override the right of her unborn child to live. She still maintains plenty of rights and choice in the absence of abortion. She has the choice to not become pregnant. And when she doesn't (as in the case of rape or incest), then abortion should be allowed. She doesn't lose the right to live (but with abortion, the child does). In the rare case of danger to the life of the mother, then abortion ought to be an option. And, the mother still retains the same choices any parent has once they have a child: to keep the child, or to give the child up for adoption. An unborn child's right to life does not severely impact the rights and choices of a mother any more than any other child's has an effect on a parent. However, abortion severely impacts (as in, does away with) the rights of the unborn child. Abortion, if it's not murder, is so like it that as a civilized society we ought to prohibit it (other than the aforementioned exceptions of rape, incest, and danger to the mother).
I also believe that foreign intervention is not only appropriate in some cases, but an obligation. For instance, when a nation is invaded, then we ought to be willing to assist that nation in restoring its sovereignty. And, I also believe that it was appropriate for the French to assist the American colonists in their revolt against the British. I think that it's a question of whether or not an action has been requested publicly in an internationally recognized forum (such as the U.N.) by the people of that nation, and whether or not it enhances or protects the sovereignty of the people of that nation. If we were invaded, we would expect international military aid. When we rebelled against the British, we expected assistance. However, we initiated the conflict, and the people as a majority were active in it. Obviously, all international actions would need to be passed publicly by Congress (not by the president since that's unconstitutional; and certainly no covert interference — for example choosing a nation's government or leaders infringes on the rights of its people, it cannot enhance nor protect them). The French did not remove our leaders, nor drive them out. We drove out our own king. The French merely aided us in expressing our own sovereignty by helping us to protect our right to do so. However, I don't believe that we should have any permanent foreign bases or forces.
Just as people have the right to abstain from religious activities and to protect their children from being exposed to those expressions (for example, school prayer and religious symbols in government buildings), I believe that people have the right to abstain from being exposed to expressions and depictions of violence, blatant sexuality, profanity, etc., and to protect their children from being exposed. In other words, religion is an idea and an expression. To the same degree that people have the right to be protected from religious expressions, people ought to have the right to not be exposed to ideas and expressions we find offensive and to protect our children from being exposed to those ideas and expressions. Government should not prohibit those ideas nor expressions, but also cannot support them (whether in the arts, or in the media). Individuals must recognize when their ideas and expressions are offensive and then not express them publicly. I have no idea how this would be facilitated, but it seems fair to me and more possible in an age of technology then it was prior. This view is very nascent, so it needs some serious refining, but basically, expressions should be prohibited and protected equally, whether they be religious, or otherwise.
As a practical matter, the federal government probably must recognize same sex civil unions if they provide any rights to any couples. So, either the federal government must cease to provide rights to couples, or it must provide them to all consenting adults. However, marriage ought to be given to the states, with no federal interference whatsoever.
Other than what's mentioned above, I believe that my political philosophies match those of the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/platform ).
The evolving version of this document can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)