Where I stand

This is the evolving version of my first post, made September 13, 2011.

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 ).