so ive been taking alot of heat lately about being a libertarian. for those of you who dont know, libertarians believe in a small, limited government and more individual freedom. these words may sound a bit cliche and hackneyed, but they hold great meaning to me. so enough is enough. i am going to explain who i am, my philosophical beliefs, morals, and principles that i stand by to the death. here is part 1:
sadly, when people find out i am a libertarian, they look away, or with pity, followed by 10 or more seconds of awkward silence, as if they should feel sorry for me. and suddenly i am no longer me. i am the guy that didnt vote for the first african american president. i am the guy who didnt vote for the man who would tax the rich and help the poor. i am the guy who didnt vote for change.
first of all, i am not racist, sexist, or any kind of prejudice. i dont believe a persons race, sex, religion, class, or gender has any effect on their capabilities as a productive member of society whatsoever. i also dont believe that a group should get special advantages because of afore mentioned traits, or any reason for that matter. let me explain this very clearly. if you want special treatment because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual, you have given your power to the system. you have just said, "i cannot do this on my own, i need help." i think people need to reconsider the traits and characteristics that define them as a human being, such as hard working, trustworthy, and dependable, rather than hispanic, female, or homosexual. there is nothing wrong in being proud of these traits, but to define oneself by them shows a lack of self confidence in ones abilities. equality in a society does not include having to feel guilty for being white, or being male, or being heterosexual, because you have no control over your circumstances of birth.
im sorry, and i may sound evil for saying this, but true equality cannot exist in a society. the hard fact is, there are winners and losers in life. proof is everywhere, from economics to education to biological natural selection. proponents of social equality, more commonly known as socialists, must realize that if someone decides to make everyone equal, there is an immediate imbalance of power once again, because they, deciding who gets what and how much, is now in charge and can take as much as they give. socialists do not understand that greed is an inherent quality of humans, it has existed as long as we have been around on earth. it is the peoples choice to give the greed and the power to a handful of people in the government.
and i may be crazy, but doesnt it seem like a paradox that the majority of people who voted for obama were for more social equality? i mean, they obviously dig his universal healthcare plan, and his promises of no new taxes for the lower-middle classes. he was the last hope for america. victory was won, he is now our leader, and is doing the best he can. this is what most obama-voters believe in. however, any social studies professor will tell you that social change does not come from one individual leader. the montgomery bus boycott would never have worked without the effort of millions of organizers and boycotters. the civil rights movement did not only belong to mlk jr and rosa parks, but to the unsung heroes and heroines of the poor, black communities. the civil war was not won by lincoln, but by the millions who died on the battlefield. nearly every social change happens thanks to people, not one person. so why do these people striving for social equality put all their faith in one man, as if he has all the answers? im not saying his policies will or will not work, i dont believe being black makes him more or less capable a president, im not even remarking on any of his political beliefs, im merely asking, doesnt it seem like a paradox to believe one person can bring equality to a nation when social change stems from grassroots?
it seems to me that the more we trust one person, or one government, the more trouble we get into. we trusted bush to do the right thing after 9/11. recall that his approval rating in the months following the tragedy was nearly 90%. the overwhelming majority of americans trusted bush, even elected him to a second term, and who we now call one of the worst presidents in our nations history. those who voted for obama did so for one of two reasons: 1). they did not want another republican in office, a misconception that the members of your party define who you are, or 2). they trusted that obama would bring change to america. so much trust in one person scares me, no matter the person, or the issue. we are adults america, there are no such things as superheroes.
in summary of part 1 of my series on liberty, i have come forward and claimed that there can never be social equality, that americans should redefine how they percieve themselves, and that obama is not the savior of america. i welcome whatever blowback or hate mail i recieve from this blog, note, whatever you want to call it. i will do my best to keep an open mind about your position and defend my own. so there it is, i have stated my beliefs, without criticizing anybody or mentioning politics in any aspect, and i think i have done so honestly and respectfully. thanks for reading.
Matt Perez
VP-SCSU Libertarians Club
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Republicans, Democrats, What?
"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Shakespeare is considered to be one of the greatest writers throughout history, but while his writing ability may have been epic, his(or perhaps his character's) logic was not. In this quote, he is observing the arbitrary meaning of words. While words are arbitrary, the connotations and meanings behind each one is often over-powering. For example, take "snow day." If you come from the upper Midwest like I do, those words probably meant overbearing joy back in grade school.
Here in the real world we have words like "Democrat", "Republican" and "Stimulus".
The ironic thing about the names of the two major parties is that over time they have basically become the opposite of that which their name implies.
A democrat sounds like an advocate of democracy- ultimately meaning power to the people. Based on my understanding of politics throughout American history, I would believe that this is the party that would advocate states rights, focus on the little guy (Joe the Plumber anyone?), and try to hold the system intact.
A republican sounds pretty opposite. A republican would be someone who wants to strengthen the republic as a whole, national, federal; big words with big meanings. These people would probably want the power of the federal government to grow, for the states to be nothing but shadows underneath a large central government. Big wigs come to mind.
Trying to find a modern definition of what either of those parties actually stands for is difficult.
According to democrats.org, the official website of the Democratic Party, "The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, open, honest and accountable government, and securing our nation while protecting our civil rights and liberties."
Reading this definition, I can't help but agree with the statement. Personally, I want safety, I want opportunity, I want economic growth. I wouldn't mind affordable health care. I definitely am interested in open, honest and accountable government, and civil rights and liberties are of course important to me.
Based on this definition, I am 100% a democrat.
Neither gop.org, rnc.org, nor mnrnc.com provide any sort of definition for what they stand for. However, based on whats going on within their party at the present, I'm not sure any of them are clear on what exactly they stand for. Cagop.org does, however.
Maybe the navigability of their websites reflects their ability to get elected?
Anyway, according to cagop.org, "The California Republican Party is working for all Californians by promoting limited government, lower taxes, personal responsibility and a strong national defense. We're proud to be the majority party in many parts of California, including many of our largest counties. Thousands of Republican elected leaders are working hard every day to put Republican ideas into action to benefit all Californians."
I am personally a huge advocate of limited government, I like low taxes, I support personal responsibility, and I would like to be nationally defended.
Based on this definition, I am 100% Republican.
Its not a wonder that America has no idea what is going on in the world today. The biased media aside, it is because of things like this that, on election day, I heard people say, "I won't vote, I just don't care."
Even if a random American were to wake up and try to figure out what exactly they believed, they would be nothing but confused. No strong connotations come up with these words, these vague definitions which are supposed to lead us to a huge decision- voting on who is going to lead what is supposed to be the greatest nation in the world. Civil rights and liberties? That sounds like a history book. What exactly is "personal responsibility"? And why is it so hard for the GOP to give a short run down of their beliefs, even if the politicians behind the Republican shield don't follow them?
Words are arbitrary, this is true. But in today's world, the words Democrat and Republican only hold (in my own mind, anyway) long lists of people who hide behind that shield. Red shield, blue shield, at this point, they all look a little purple to me.
Jackie Silseth
President, SCSU Libertarians Club
Shakespeare is considered to be one of the greatest writers throughout history, but while his writing ability may have been epic, his(or perhaps his character's) logic was not. In this quote, he is observing the arbitrary meaning of words. While words are arbitrary, the connotations and meanings behind each one is often over-powering. For example, take "snow day." If you come from the upper Midwest like I do, those words probably meant overbearing joy back in grade school.
Here in the real world we have words like "Democrat", "Republican" and "Stimulus".
The ironic thing about the names of the two major parties is that over time they have basically become the opposite of that which their name implies.
A democrat sounds like an advocate of democracy- ultimately meaning power to the people. Based on my understanding of politics throughout American history, I would believe that this is the party that would advocate states rights, focus on the little guy (Joe the Plumber anyone?), and try to hold the system intact.
A republican sounds pretty opposite. A republican would be someone who wants to strengthen the republic as a whole, national, federal; big words with big meanings. These people would probably want the power of the federal government to grow, for the states to be nothing but shadows underneath a large central government. Big wigs come to mind.
Trying to find a modern definition of what either of those parties actually stands for is difficult.
According to democrats.org, the official website of the Democratic Party, "The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, open, honest and accountable government, and securing our nation while protecting our civil rights and liberties."
Reading this definition, I can't help but agree with the statement. Personally, I want safety, I want opportunity, I want economic growth. I wouldn't mind affordable health care. I definitely am interested in open, honest and accountable government, and civil rights and liberties are of course important to me.
Based on this definition, I am 100% a democrat.
Neither gop.org, rnc.org, nor mnrnc.com provide any sort of definition for what they stand for. However, based on whats going on within their party at the present, I'm not sure any of them are clear on what exactly they stand for. Cagop.org does, however.
Maybe the navigability of their websites reflects their ability to get elected?
Anyway, according to cagop.org, "The California Republican Party is working for all Californians by promoting limited government, lower taxes, personal responsibility and a strong national defense. We're proud to be the majority party in many parts of California, including many of our largest counties. Thousands of Republican elected leaders are working hard every day to put Republican ideas into action to benefit all Californians."
I am personally a huge advocate of limited government, I like low taxes, I support personal responsibility, and I would like to be nationally defended.
Based on this definition, I am 100% Republican.
Its not a wonder that America has no idea what is going on in the world today. The biased media aside, it is because of things like this that, on election day, I heard people say, "I won't vote, I just don't care."
Even if a random American were to wake up and try to figure out what exactly they believed, they would be nothing but confused. No strong connotations come up with these words, these vague definitions which are supposed to lead us to a huge decision- voting on who is going to lead what is supposed to be the greatest nation in the world. Civil rights and liberties? That sounds like a history book. What exactly is "personal responsibility"? And why is it so hard for the GOP to give a short run down of their beliefs, even if the politicians behind the Republican shield don't follow them?
Words are arbitrary, this is true. But in today's world, the words Democrat and Republican only hold (in my own mind, anyway) long lists of people who hide behind that shield. Red shield, blue shield, at this point, they all look a little purple to me.
Jackie Silseth
President, SCSU Libertarians Club
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)