The weakness of the current two political parties is becoming more and more apparent each year. Each party has its share of good and terrible ideas and positions. It is difficult to support one party or the other because half of each platform sucks.
This has led me to create the Neo-Libertarian platform. To give you an idea of what the Neo-Libertarian movement/party would come from I will give you a run-down of the platform's answer to the most talked about election issues of the day.
The most important thing to Neo-Libertarian's is freedom.
Abortion-The state has no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. The female sex did not choose to be the bearers of children, they were simply born with that gift/curse depending on how you choose to look at it. Men do not have to endure the physical responsibility of pregnancy and all that goes along with it. Also, banning abortion makes criminals of our wives, sisters, and mothers.
Immigration-Secure the borders to keep us safe from terrorism, but also make it easier to legally immigrate to the US. Mexico is a cesspool of corruption and lawlessness. Go with the free-market on this one. Legal immigrants will bring new ideas and culture which will only better serve us in the global economy and they will be able to contribute to the tax base. Illegal immigration burdens state and federal budgets by forcing illegals to be paid in cash.
Economics-Like it or not, the Free-market is the fairest approach for a society. In the global economy capital will go where the least amount of regulation exists. We should stop distorting markets with unnecessary subsidies and crony capitalism. There are simply too many variables involved in the global economy for anyone to comprehend successfully. Central economic planning simply will not work because no one is smart enough to do it.
However, we must also realize that you cannot choose what economic situation you are born into. We should seek to provide education and etc. in order to give everyone a chance to compete in the global economy. Children from poorer income families are at a severe disadvantage in this regard. This distorts the labor and other markets.
Defense-Even the RAND corporation admits that armed conflict/force is increasingly less effective. Stop spending untold billions on defense. We have the largest defense budget in the world by far and that is just the numbers that actually get reported. Who knows how many trillions of dollars we spend on defense.
We need to realize that Western Europe, parts of Eastern Europe and Australia are important allies. We need to work together to promote free societies as opposed to bickering. We should work together with these allies and build a coalition if we hope to survive the rise of the East.
We should protect ourselves and our interests, but not unilaterally. We are behind in education and our infrastructure is crumbling. We should spend at least a few billion on those issues instead if we hope to compete in the global economy.
Gun Control-Prohibition of firearms ensures two things, a dangerous black market for guns and that criminals will have guns and ordinary citizens will not. I'm not suggesting passing out guns like condoms. Criminal background checks and waiting periods are ok to maintain public safety. Not to mention we are guaranteed this right in the 4th amendment.
The Drug War-A huge waste of money and manpower. Our drug problem destabilizes entire countries (ex. Colombia) and the blackmarket drug trade finances our enemies (Taliban). Treat drug use as a medical issue instead of making them criminals. Our prison are severely overcrowded with drug offenders.
The Death Penalty-The state should not have the authority to take a human life. The legal system is unfair to the poor and minorities.
How many innocent people have been vindicated through DNA evidence? How many innocent people were executed before DNA? Being imprisoned for a crime you didn't commit would have to be one of the worst things that could happen to a person.
These are just a few of the pillars of the Neo-Libertarian platform. Stay tuned for more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I disagree on abortion, because I believe in the right of the human life within the woman's body.
But I like your suggestions for economics, the drug war and illegal immigration.
Your thoughts on infrastructure and education -- combined with your stance on economics -- kind of puts you in the Thomas Friedman camp.
I think this is actually a very centrist platform that could appeal to a lot of people. Looking forward to the rest.
But do you really want the state to have the power to force a woman to carry a pregnancy that she doesn't want? Its very easy for males to make that kind of judgment because we are excused from the actual physical and psychological process of being pregnant. Not to mention repealing Roe v Wade would create a blackmarket for abortions that would put more people in danger.
I always find it curious that conservatives are rarely concerned about putting our troops in harm's way in places like Vietnam and Iraq, but then take a more liberal/compassionate stance towards unborn fetuses. I know the comparison isn't exactly one to one, but if human life is so precious it does make one wonder. The topic always viewed too emotionally and never with enough open-mindedness and pragmatism. Anywho, that debate won't end for a century I'm sure.
More will be forthcoming so stay tuned.
The abortion issue is a very emotional issue, yes, but I think we can discuss it with reason and restraint.
First, just because the woman doesn't want to have the baby, I don't think the baby should be killed. It's not the baby's fault that the mother doesn't want him or her. There have been tens of millions of abortions since 1973, and I'd wager that the vast majority of these were because the mother felt inconvenienced by the pregnancy. This is not a compelling reason to kill a child.
Second, on Roe v. Wade, if that case were overturned, state's would be free to regulate abortions as they see fit. Some would have very liberal laws, and some would be more restrictive. Overturning the decision would not outlaw abortion everywhere.
Third, on compassion for fetuses and soldiers,consider the main difference: soldier volunteer to risk their lives to defend their country, while fetuses have no say in being put in harm's way. Conservatives value all human life, and look at history, which is filled with examples where life must be defended by "rough men who stand ready to visit violence upon those that would do us harm."
We also have a very real care for the unborn, who are especially vulnerable and dependent on the decisions of their parents. I don't think that the two positions are mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church, for example, supports both "just wars" and protecting human life at its earliest stage.
My position on this issue is quite progressive and nuanced. I do view abortion as murder. However, I do not feel the STATE should have any say so over a woman's womb. Perhaps if men were the one's responsible for carrying babies then this issue would be viewed very differently. I don't think its fair for men that do not have to bear the actual physical and psychological process of being pregnant to be able to make such decisions. Also, putting a child up for a adoption doesn't always turn out the best. Look at what divorce does to children. Imagine finding out that you were an unwanted child. It would be crushing psychologically for all but the strongest psyche's. I also understand the other side of that argument. The child should at least be given a chance right?
Leave it up the states then, but it will just make things more difficult for the poor to get abortions because they would have to travel to an abortion state.
I of course understand the compassion for unborn fetuses, but my point was that when we send our soldiers to die in places like Iraq we dishonor their sacrifice by having them risk their lives because someone at a thinktank writes a position paper. Sending people to die for nothing in Iraq is murder the same way that aborting an un-born child is. What are the soldiers in Iraq defending us from? They are not protecting my life. What about the 90 Afghan women and children who were recently killed in a botched attack? Aren't they just as innocent as the unborn? Who protects their lives? I suppose they are just viewed as axle grease in the war on terror, how ironic is that. We kill innocent people, but its not considered terror. Sorry, but an "oops my bad" won't bring those families back together. While we're at it we fuel this radical ideology by making these "mistakes", because the brutal truth is that we value American innocent lives as intrinsically more value than others, innocent or not. The true nature of war is to serve itself. We must rise above violence if we ever hope to achieve what we claim we wish to. Sorry to get off topic a bit.
Post a Comment