Introduction

[foxglovehp.livejournal.com]

I'm new here.  I was sent an invite, and I appreciate it.  I like this community's non-flaming, non-trolling all-parties attitude.  I have been avoiding posting on most of the political communities because, since I tend to be in both liberal and conservative, (and am thus libertarian) camps, I'll post to all of them if I have something to say.  Of course somebody somewhere will accuse me of trolling.

Anyway, I am a career soldier, now in the US Army reserve, and a lifelong Wiccan.  I am constitutionally conservative, and socially liberal.  Please drop by my LJ profile for more info.  Feel free to friend me as well if you like.  I have a fairly thick skin about most things and appreciate a good, reasoned argument where folks can disagree and not get their knickers in a twist about things.

Comments

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I'd say I'm a moderate. There is a point of over-compensation for things where you actually do go beyond the reach of the Constitution itself. For example, the right of private businesses to do what they want, as long as they don't put the public at risk. For example, I find that there is no constitutional basis for the Federal Reserve, and our money system doesn't work.

Many people are surprised by this, but a conservative (strict) interpretation of the Constitution typically supports liberal viewpoints. Often, the "Conservative" political talking heads seem to think that the First Amendment freedoms only apply to one religious group, but a strict interpretation treats Southern Baptists, Muslims, Wiccans, and atheists equally under the law, and shouldn't favor any of them. A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment does indeed grant the right to bear arms... in the interest of a standing militia that supports homeland security. Of course, that function is now held by the state-level National Guard, and with rifles not being any serious level of firepower in a military conflict, the entire application of the amendment needs to be rethought in a modern context. Strict interpretation of rights includes the freedom of a citizen to move unchecked throughout the United States without being apprehended UNLESS he/she is caught in the act of doing something illegal. You can't even demand identification unless the person is up to no good.

In other words, there are a LOT of places where the government needs to butt out of people's private lives. That's the "conservative" side. (Ask anyone who was raised in New Hampshire, like me.) However, up to the point where a person's freedom infringes on another person's freedom, the goal is to grant maximum personal freedom. For example, if Bob marries George, it doesn't hurt John and Mary down the street, so there's no reason to outlaw gay marriage. The government has NO business telling any church (First Amendment) that they have to perform weddings for gay couples, but the state has no right or reason to prevent Bob and George from obtaining a legal marriage license and having a private ceremony OR a ceremony at a religious organization that recognizes their union. Maximum personal liberty IS a conservative value... in the traditional sense. I apologize that this has been thoroughly twisted in recent years.

I'm not a Republican't and I'm not a Democrit. I'm not technically a Libertarian either. I believe in state control of certain social institutions, and I believe in maximum personal liberty. I think taxes need to be moderate, and then WELL-SPENT. I'm a balanced-budget person. Debt makes me cringe.

So... I guess it depends on how you use the terms "liberal" and "conservative." I support abortion rights, gay marriage, teaching real science in classrooms, and universal health care. I also believe in low federal taxes, local control of schools, less standardized testing in education, tightly moderated use of public funds for "aid," reduced foreign aid (dude, we run at a deficit, and we're sending money to OTHER countries?!?), and so on.

Would love to talk at length, but I work for a living, and need to get back to that. Coffee break is over.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

That's one long coffee break.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Or ultra-quick typing.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

There is a point of over-compensation for things where you actually do go beyond the reach of the Constitution itself.

Well, some people believe that the right to privacy goes beyond the text of the Constitution. However, many of these people don't realize that the word 'privacy' meant 'toilet' during the Revolutionary era. As a liberal, I consider privacy to be a penumbral right, one that without it the rights enumerated in Constitution could not exist period.

Consider me one of the liberals who does feel that the 2nd Amendment limits itself to those in a militia only. However, the Supreme Court disagrees with me, so I must conform my ideas to fit its ideals.

I really appreciate your in-depth response, and for the most part I agree with you. I believe the only point where I would diverge would be that I believe that government is the protector of rights, and therefore cannot "butt out" of most people's lives to the point often espoused by conservatives, because at that point rights are basically abrogated. See Rand Paul's views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example. (Yes, I know Paul is a libertarian, but most libertarians are quite conservative, so I have no problem describing him as such.)

Thanks for the measured discussion.