Answer to meme question #1
While I'm waiting to see if my repairs to the stroller tire are going to hold (only took 30 minutes, I can't believe I put it off so long), I might as well answer the first question I received. I don't claim to have all the answers here or to impose my politics on others. These are my opinions on the subject and I don't expect anyone to agree. "Oh no, she's getting up on a soapbox. . . "
I told J-9 I was a Libertarian who votes Republican and that's sort of true, but mostly because I voted for Ron Paul. I like her label of "liberal Republican/conservative Democrat" a little better, but really, I'm finding myself more and more attracted to the Libertarian party, if I was forced to pick a party that is. If only there was hope of getting a Libertarian elected. *sigh* I don't tend to agree with Republicans, but I do agree with the party's views on things like the economy. I don't tend to agree with Democrats, but I do agree with some of the party's views on things like foreign policy. I find things about every politician I'm given the choice to vote for with which I don't agree. The two party system frustrates me because I feel like I'm compromising great huge chunks of my beliefs to choose someone who's "electable". Personally, I'd rather write in a candidate or vote for an independent or fringe candidate who I believe in than compromise. But unfortunately that would be kind of pointless and my vote therefore might as well not count. I feel like the two party system gives us a huge lack of choice essentially. It seems a little insane to me that in my experience with people, most of us reside somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, yet the politicians available to represent us stand at polar opposites. Maybe this is a failure on my part to fully understand politics.
But all parties and labels aside, I really believe that smaller groups of people are much more successfully governed. I feel the states should be given more power to govern within their borders and regulate their own programs and laws. The federal government should shrink back to what it was intended to do as written in the Constitution. Not that I don't feel there's no use for progression and perhaps a change like this would be progression in itself. But, I'm just starting to see that the larger the government gets and the larger the United States as a country gets (population wise), the more it's going to become impossible to govern such a lumbering beast. We have a system in place that could be utilized to better potential. But after listening to two years worth of banter on the Free the Hops bills in Alabama, I'm realizing that most state officials are incompetent idiots, incapable of truly running their states the way they need to. So, I believe the tendency is to run to the federal government for help and suddenly a law or regulation blankets the rest of the country as well. Granted this is Alabama we're talking about. There may be other states in which competent representatives are able to take on this sort of responsibility and actually work for their paychecks instead of showing up for work about two weeks a year and essentially getting nothing done.
Some more specific points on individual topics:
And with that, I think I'll call it quits. Hope it was informative.
I told J-9 I was a Libertarian who votes Republican and that's sort of true, but mostly because I voted for Ron Paul. I like her label of "liberal Republican/conservative Democrat" a little better, but really, I'm finding myself more and more attracted to the Libertarian party, if I was forced to pick a party that is. If only there was hope of getting a Libertarian elected. *sigh* I don't tend to agree with Republicans, but I do agree with the party's views on things like the economy. I don't tend to agree with Democrats, but I do agree with some of the party's views on things like foreign policy. I find things about every politician I'm given the choice to vote for with which I don't agree. The two party system frustrates me because I feel like I'm compromising great huge chunks of my beliefs to choose someone who's "electable". Personally, I'd rather write in a candidate or vote for an independent or fringe candidate who I believe in than compromise. But unfortunately that would be kind of pointless and my vote therefore might as well not count. I feel like the two party system gives us a huge lack of choice essentially. It seems a little insane to me that in my experience with people, most of us reside somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, yet the politicians available to represent us stand at polar opposites. Maybe this is a failure on my part to fully understand politics.
But all parties and labels aside, I really believe that smaller groups of people are much more successfully governed. I feel the states should be given more power to govern within their borders and regulate their own programs and laws. The federal government should shrink back to what it was intended to do as written in the Constitution. Not that I don't feel there's no use for progression and perhaps a change like this would be progression in itself. But, I'm just starting to see that the larger the government gets and the larger the United States as a country gets (population wise), the more it's going to become impossible to govern such a lumbering beast. We have a system in place that could be utilized to better potential. But after listening to two years worth of banter on the Free the Hops bills in Alabama, I'm realizing that most state officials are incompetent idiots, incapable of truly running their states the way they need to. So, I believe the tendency is to run to the federal government for help and suddenly a law or regulation blankets the rest of the country as well. Granted this is Alabama we're talking about. There may be other states in which competent representatives are able to take on this sort of responsibility and actually work for their paychecks instead of showing up for work about two weeks a year and essentially getting nothing done.
Some more specific points on individual topics:
- I feel we need to re-separate Church and State. The government (both federal and state) has way overstepped its bounds as far as poking its nose into matters that should be personal (abortion, marriage, alcohol, drug use, etc. A bit more on each specific topic further down.). I understand that the majority of Americans are also Christians, but does that mean that those of us who aren't are subject to their moral code by law. No, I don't think so and it's what our founding fathers came here to get away from. But, in the interest of furthering their careers and getting elected, politicians pander to the majority of voters and I have to wonder if we'll ever see a change in tides. Now, having said that, I'll say this, I have nothing against Christianity or Christians, I just don't feel religious doctrine from any religion should be used to govern people. By the same token, I fully recognize that not all of the personal freedoms that are now government regulated are religious based. I'm just as against things like gun control as I am things like Creationism in schools.
- We need to reevaluate our taxes. I'm for the fair tax and believe people should be taxed on what they consume, not what they produce (i.e. income). It might even serve two purposes. Not only would it be a more balanced tax system, it might make people think twice about what they spend money on and how much they're consuming. "Hmm, maybe I'll buy this single 1 liter reusable bottle for $5 and refill it with filtered tap water as needed instead of buying a case of bottled water every week for $5 and adding a case of empty plastic bottles to landfills/recycling centers every week."
- Our foreign policies could use some serious revamping, but I don't feel educated enough on what our current policies are to really comment much further. I just see a lot of failure in that department.
- Let's go ahead and call it out by name, the war in Iraq. Not that I don't feel something should have been done to put an end to the unjust power in that country. But let's face it, it was a huge diversion from the real problem we were facing and was executed under false pretenses (WMDs anyone? connections to Al-Qaida anyone?), and with no plan for withdrawal. It's a serious injustice to send our troops over away from their loved ones with seemingly no plan. There again, I'm not fully versed on the issue, nor am I anywhere near an "insider", so maybe there really was a plan and maybe more good than just toppling an "evil" regime has come out of it. But it sure looks like a cluster fuck from my angle. I fear though, that we've knocked down the first domino in a destructive chain.
- I hate the idea of socialized medicine. Not that I don't think our health care couldn't use some serious reevaluation, but I just don't feel that more government regulation is going to solve the problem. Really, I can't say it any better than I did in a comment in J-9's journal the other day"
The health care system in the U.S. is so dysfunctional because of government regulation and the fact that drug companies and insurance companies have more lobbyists than any other industry. Millions of dollars have been paid out to politicians to pass or reject legislation that would create a fair and balanced system. It's a system of checks and balances that insures the drug and insurance companies and politicians who represent them get richer while ALL of America (rich or poor) suffer and die because claims are refused on the basis of increasing their bottom line ("oh, refusing this test or this surgery is going to save the company several thousand dollars, so let's do that, nevermind the patient may die without it"). The system is broken, but it's not the government's fault entirely.
I have a hard time seeing how putting all health care in the hands of the government is going to do anything but make the system that much more broken. All it's going to do is give them greater ability to create laws and regulations that favor the health care providers, drug companies, etc. and in turn increase their bottom line. Maybe it works in other countries, I haven't researched it because, well, it doesn't pertain to me. But maybe those other countries have a better government in place that wouldn't take advantage of such a system (though I have a hard time believing there's a government that exists without corruption, but perhaps I'm just a cynic like that). The only thing I can trust a politician to do is to act in his/her own best interest to further his/her own career and make as much money as possible in the process.
- Our drug policy and so called war on drugs is a complete joke. I believe, and always have, that drug use, addiction and abuse are health issues, not criminal issues. Our prisons are overcrowded with non-violent offenders who committed a victimless crime. Now, if a person starts breaking into houses to pay for their crack habit, that's a criminal problem. Arrest him, lock him up and while he's serving his time for breaking and entering and possible theft charges, provide him with some rehab to ensure he's not going to return to doing crack once he's out (let alone rob people for it). Someone who maybe smokes pot after a long day at work as he's unwinding in front of the television and the kids are put to bed and he still gets up in the morning and is a productive member of society, well, I don't see where that's any different from having a beer after work or any other relaxing leisure activity. Now, if that same person starts smoking so much pot that they're getting up and getting stoned and going to work, maybe even going in late, smokes on his lunch break, smokes as soon as he gets off work and several more times during the evening, now, he's got a problem and needs to seek help. Health help! Just like it's not healthy to smoke that many cigarettes, or drink that much, it wouldn't be healthy for him to continue smoking pot to the point that he's high all the time. But it shouldn't be a criminal issue, it should be a health concern. You don't arrest alcoholics or tobacco addicts do you?
- Speaking of beer, having moved from a state with ridiculous regulations on beer sales to a state with different though still ridiculous regulations on beer, and being a beer lover, I find this one particularly annoys me. I understand the need for regulation, but to the point where you limit the choice of the consumers in your state? In Alabama, you can not purchase a beer over 6% ABV nor can you purchase a beer in a container over 16 oz. However, you can purchase a gallon of 100 proof grain alcohol for dirt cheap. Makes no sense to me. Legislators say it's in the name of controlling underage drinking and drunk driving, but that makes even less sense. Regulate, yes, in the form of taxes and age limits and things of that nature. Limit the choice of the consumer because you think teenagers might find it appealing or people might drink and drive more, no! I've never appreciated the idea of punishing the masses because a few idiots can't make good choices in life.
- Abortion is a short topic for me. I probably wouldn't choose it in my situation. However, I don't have a moral objection to it. I feel it's a woman's choice and should always be an available choice. It falls under that "health issue" label and should never be a government issue.
- As for gay marriage, again, I have no moral objection to it and believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to the legal benefits of marriage. This is one of those laws inflicted on us from a morality stance. I don't feel it in any way cheapens or lessens or damages the institution of marriage for heterosexuals.
- As far as environmental issues, I certainly think we can do better. We are way behind from the rest of the world on getting more energy efficient and less dependent on fossil fuels. Our culture is far too centered on consuming and not enough on producing. Recycling programs should be better (run by communities and regulated by states, not feds). There should be higher standards on American built automobiles to be more fuel efficient and to use alternative fuel sources. There should be incentives for anything we can do to help offset our consumption. Like J-9 said, there are little things that each of us can do that wouldn't change our lives much but would make a huge positive impact on the environment. But at the same time, I fear this is another one of those issues the government could easily overstep its bounds on in making choices for people. If they could somehow make it attractive to be more efficient, people would do it on their own and government regulation wouldn't be necessary.
And with that, I think I'll call it quits. Hope it was informative.