I am an Independent/Libertarian.

So am I.

So am I.

Hey Bruddah Don!!!! 

I think to be a conservative these days you can't be a Republican. I started voting when I turned 18. I voted for Reagan. It is the only presidential election that the person I voted for, actually won. I have voted in every election possible since and have not voted for whoever won. I have been a registered Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and now an Independent. I am also a member of the Tea Party.

Personally, I am trying very hard not to stress any more about what is happening to our country. I am getting too old to think I am going to see it change for the good in my lifetime. I believe that things are going to have to get worse before enough people are going to take off of work to protest. I believe I will see some of the worst before I die. I do believe there will be some civil unrest and major protesting in the next 40 years in regards to the direction our government is going. By that time I will hopefully be retired on the Big Island and away from the craziness I believe will occur. I what I do feel bad for are all my nieces and nephews and their children. They are the ones who are going to have to deal with all this crap. And they may have to do it with out guns. Sad.

I'm not registered anything and I lean heavily Libertarian, as well. At least when I'm not leaning hopeless and disillusioned.

Sad is usually where I wind up when I venture into politics, too. The country and its people have such wonderful ideals and good hearts. I see this when I venture abroad or entertain visitors from abroad, as well: people are surprised at how different Americans are from the way the American government behaves in the world. They drank the same cool-aid that we were fed in grade school that the American government is the Will of the People. If it does things then we must approve of it. Then they confuse "American Government" with the multinational corporations whose interests the government largely serves. Over that accumulated monstrosity the American people have no say. Most of what we all get to fight over are the scraps of policy that the people with the real power don't care about. At all. But it keeps us busy.

And on a bad day I see no way out of it. On a good day I still see no way out of it but wonder if I'm missing something. On a really good day I sometimes wonder if there isn't some way to bridge our apparent differences and find enough common ground to do something about it together.

That usually leads shortly to another bad day.

Hi clshade

While I do not agree with you on a few things, I think you are a very reasonable person, so I'll share some of my point of view....  FYI, I once was a liberal...  I became conservative around the time I became a parent.  I am not a Republican, not a Democrat, maybe a Libertarian or an Independent.

I honestly like Liberals because I believe they are best intentioned in their views and try to be fair towards everyone.   Liberals are idealistic and try to fight against prejudice and try to right the wrong that they see in society.  The best of the liberals tend to be educated, apply logic and reason in things and tend to seek knowledge about things they don't understand.  The utopian society that liberalism envisions is fair to everyone and in a way is politically correct.... So far so good.

[rant on]

The only problem with liberalism... is that this world view is on another reality different from our reality.   Ala Star Trek, it is well-intentioned but is deluded that everyone has the same goals as the ideal, will act fairly in all situations and will sacrifice their own self interest for the best interest of the many.  While nice to hear, this idealistic utopian fantasy is a fairy tale world just like Star Trek. 

The one key thing that liberalism ignores is the fact that humans are fallen in nature and are by nature sinful.  Because this Judeo-Christian belief system does not fit the liberalist world view and self-image, it is reject it and started over with a world-view absent of God.  Some atheistic humanists take this to an extreme in their attempts to remove Judeo-Christian symbols from the public square... protesting the Ground Zero cross, removing "In God We Trust" as the national motto, etc, etc.

If one truly does an honest examination of the Judeo-Christian theology, however, you will find that the Judeo-Christian world view actually explains and represents our world very accurately.  Never mind that philosophers are unable to empirically prove the existence of God.  The fact is... if you view our existence with the lens of the Judeo-Christian world view, reality will start to make sense. "I'll see it when I believe it." instead of "I'll believe it when I see it".  Some examples below ...

The US Constitution was founded with the wisdom that no humans are perfect... that everybody is capable of sinning and that we need to protect the common good by making sure that no one person gets too much power.  All the founding fathers were Christians and knew this basic human flaw very well.  Only God is perfect.... That is why the powers of the king were separated into the executive, legislative and judiciary branch of Government... so that no one entity can get too much power like the monarchs and oligarchs of Europe.  See Isaiah 33:22 states "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us." 

The Bible also gives us our various levels of government (federal, state, city, county).  When Moses was overwhelmed leading the Israelites in the desert, his father in law Jethro gives him sound advice in Exodus 18:21-23: "But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”

Or even just think about the 10 commandments... it is the basis for the code of laws that we have up to the present.  Written more than 2000 years ago, it still applies up to today.  Jesus Christ sums it up in his 2 greatest commandments... "Love God above all else and love your neighbor as yourself."  Until the 2nd coming of Christ, the best that humans can really do is repent, seek God's forgiveness and also forgive each other. 

These are just some examples of common wisdom passed from generation to generation.  Liberalism can ignore these at its own peril.  Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  Instead of recognizing that people are inherently sinful as taught by the Judeo-Christian world view, liberals possibly believe that having the right kind of person in power will solve society's problems.  They want a "superman" or a "super-government" to save them, forgetting that we are all just human beings and are imperfect / sinful by nature.  They don't realize that giving someone (such as the POTUS or any monarch) too much power is a terrible mistake. 

Psalm 146:3 warns "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save."
Isaiah 2:22 states "Stop trusting in man who has but a breath in his nostrils.  Of what account is he?"
My favorite... Proverbs 29:25 "Fearing people is a dangerous trap, but trusting the LORD means safety."

Like the saying goes... "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".  The US constitution was the founding fathers' attempt at protecting the governed from tyranny of its government. 

With all its well intentions, liberalism tries to do good to others by instituting government programs that help those in need.  However, the only way government can fund programs for the "common good" is by taking away from Paul to ay Peter via taxes.  Up to what point is the government doing its job vs. the government crossing the line?  Shouldn't good works be a voluntary individual and civic action as opposed to it being something mandated by the government through taxation and inefficient government spending on social programs?  Elected officials should not be too quick to spend taxpayers' money.  If they have to spend their own money, would they make the same choices?

Anyway, I ramble on so I'm gonna stop here...

[/rant off]

Wow. Thanks for the rambling "rant",  Jl808. Seriously. That really helps me understand some of the differences in perspective between liberals and conservatives. That perspective would not have occurred to me, though I recall my father (who was much more conservative than I) saying similar things.

Most liberals I know would certainly agree that no human being or system is perfect. In fact, their programs are (ideally) intended to protect those who the are casualties of the imperfect system. At least that's how they see it.

In reality, the liberal politicians are likely trying to build bureaucratic jobs in their constituency or for family members and trying to bring program pork home to their State.

Same thing the conservative politicians are doing - they're just trying to land incentives and contracts for the private sector in their State instead of the public sector.

Neither of them, in net effect, have anyone's best interests at heart except their own. Their skill is in spinning it to look like our best interests just long enough to get it passed and then, if anyone notices, blaming someone else when it doesn't materialize as beneficial for all.

That's what I'm saying. Liberalism isn't the disease that is killing us from D.C that you think it is. Nor is it conservatism. Its corruption.

And while the liberals and conservatives loudly hurl ideology at each other and we all dutifully take part in the Big Boxing Match with our neighbors that we have been told is "democracy"... our lunch (and that of our children and grandchildren) is being eaten by the corruption. D.C. is about money and power and nothing else. Individuals on the Hill might not have that perspective but as a whole... money and power. Our naive national squabbles over irrelevant ideological differences have no affect on the corruption except which flavor of it is prominent at any given moment.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoints too, clshade.  Yes, I think corruption undermines good governance, distorts representation and erodes the trust and legitimacy of government over time.

There's a really good book titled "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.  Just read through some excellent excerpt below:


A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Another good excerpt:

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

The full book is a short read at http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html 

Oh yeah... How did I come across this book?  Someone had asked Ron Paul in an interview what 1 book he recommends that people should read and he said it would be this one.

It's amazing that this book was written... back in the 1800s.... when Ron Paul was only in preschool (just kidding!!!)  You'd think it was written for today's time.  Like what King Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:9. "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. "

One misconception that people have is that power is top-down... with the federal government at the top, the state underneath, and all the masses at the bottom.  That's what it used to be with the monarchs in Europe.  That is why the formation of the USA was so different in that it was a "government for the people, by the people, and of the people."  Instead, we are back and trending towards a one world government headed by the UN, where few non-elected bureaucrats make decisions on what is good of everyone.  Unfortunately, what is "good for eveyone" has a socialism, universalism and liberalism bias. 

People forgot that the USA was formed bottom up, not top-down....  the original states agreed to form a federal government and delegated limited and enumerated powers to it.  (See http://constitutionality.us/TheConstitution.html). 

Citizens are supposed to vote for their representatives and when those representatives do not represent their citizens, they are voted out.  Instead, voted representatives bestow power to non-elected government officials or entities, taking away the citizen's ability to vote people out if they are not doing a good job.  (Think about where this applies here in Hawaii.  I'm not going to mention names.)  This weakens future voted representatives by taking their ability to do anything.  It also weakens the voting citizen, to whom government should be accountable to.  It's no wonder that many folks don't take the time to vote since it's sometimes pointless.  By the way, a really good book on this is "The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America" by Daniel Hannan.

What has also been forgotten is the common sense rule that "the federal government should not do what state governments can do for themselves", and "the state government should not do what the city can do for themselves", and that "cities should not do what counties can do for themselves" and "counties should not do what neighborhoods can do for themselves" and lastly, "neighborhoods should not do what individuals can do for themselves". 

In keeping decision-making with smaller groups, everyone wins and limited resources are allocated more wisely for the benefit of the people in the smaller groups.  Instead we have a large federal government making crummy laws and running mediocre programs for everyone that benefits only a few, with through-the-roof budgets.  Large entities are unwieldy and can never make as good of a decision that smaller groups can make.  Being only human, those in the federal government will never be able to do a good job when they try to take on too much.

Anyway, I am rambling on again... must be the early morning quiet.