NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been struggling for a while to decide what my political definition is. Some may say that deciding what your political ideology is only limits what you are politically. However, I think that "choosing" a political ideology, so to speak, organizes your thought so as to better select and define those principles that you analyze problems with.

Anyway, back to the topic. I think that rights are the reason that governments are formed and should be maintained, and that the true rights are non-coercive, those being life, liberty, and property. This is textbook John Locke, Adam Smith, etc., the classic liberals, which is equal to libertarianism. However, I think those rights are best protected by tradition. Martin Luther King helped mobilize the civil rights movement through his religious background, and the Great Awakening moved greatly against the evils of slavery. The Dalai Lama, the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, speaks out against the occupation of Tibet. The incorporation of the classic liberals' ideas in the United States, United Kingdom, and other anglo nations has created a tradition of the protection of rights. The emphasis on tradition and heritage is mostly conservative.

Since the purported difference between conservativism and libertarianism are social issues, I shall give a quick run down on the positions and reasoning I have. Please do not tell me if I'm right or wrong about them, instead, relate them to the topic, that being if it is possible to be libertarian and conservative simultaneously.

I am against almost all abortions, but because I feel that, although it might enhance liberty in one respect, it violates the right of life. The rights of the weak and helpless must be protected, and undue aggression should be prevented. I believe in strong criminal punishments, not primarily because the person should be punished for punishment's sake, but rather because the certainty of the prevention of the convicts' future acts of aggressions protects the rights of would-be victims. Also, damaging the rights of others is a voluntary rescinding of that same right, so balance must be restored by the resolution of the crime and the best attempt to make up for a crime's effect on society, or at least prevent it.

I think prostitution and drugs, along with several other "victimless" crimes, should be legalized but heavily regulated and controlled- the bad effects of the act, not the act itself, should be prevented, and more responsibility should be placed in the hands of the actor, and keep the costs of their actions on themselves instead of the rest of society (i.e. everyone has health investment accounts, so that they don't rely on a public healthcare system that would place a burden on taxpayers for the bad actions of others.

Seatbelt laws, among other "protective" laws, and laws against suicide should be maintained. There is no reason not to do the former, as no pleasure can be gained from not wearing a seatbelt, and one should not be able to legally rescind or abuse one's own rights directly- the deliberate, intentional destruction of rights is a crime and should be prevented. The tobacco tax should be rescinded, since those who want cigarrettes will buy them anyway, and it will just lower their living standards since the tobacco tax is a regressive tax. However, something along the lines of what Canada does with cigarettes, such as an X-Ray of blackened lungs, so that one takes into account the effect on one's life before making the act.

I oppose affirmative action, since the forcing of racial or gender quotas is discrimination, as well as social engineering- the efforts of the government to forcefully change the structure of society unrelated to rights. Government should work with private and religious charities, since they are a part of the culture of a nation. This is working with what the people want instead of opposing it, and attempting to shove aside religious good intentions is social engineering that is unwarranted, as well as impractical and wasteful, and is not a protection of freedom of religion, which is a right. The government should allow for homosexual civil unions, and recognize that a marriage is a religious aspect that is to be decided by each religion. To take control of religious marriage is social engineering, and a violation of religious freedom. To deny homosexual civil unions is a violation of liberty and unwarranted, since it is not coercive for a homosexual couple to wed.

On immigration- borders should be protected, to prevent arms smuggling and drug smuggling, to prevent criminal organizations from gaining power and prevent the damage of people around the world. Again, protections of rights from those who would violate them. However, most immigrants, legal or not, are good people who want to have a better life. A guest-worker program should be established, one that can safely transport them to the new country and which requires them to learn the native language to be able to interact in the culture and talk to police forces if a crime happens against them or they are abused. Their legal immigration allows them to make better wages- increases property rights-, and their ability to interact in society prevents them from being marginalized- increases liberty and, possibly, life rights.

If you respond, please comment on the original topic and not a critique of the legitimacy of my arguments, which I largely skimmed over for the sake of my original question. Thank you for your time.

Your abortion, immigration, and affirmative action positions are consistent with libertarianism. Your position on seatbelt laws, however, is not. As for prostitution; what kind of regulation?

I am more libertarian than conservative.

Seatbelt laws suck. Fewer laws=more freedom.

Conservative/liberal is NOT all about social issues - in fact I would say they are secondary. At one time the conservative party stood for smaller government ala Ronald Government-is-the-problem-not-the-solution Reagan. Libertarians are more true to that form these days.

I do NOT support the death penalty - the ultimate abuse of big government. (They screw up often enough it should scare anybody) Immigration reform is mis-directed. The problem is not the illegal immigrants - it it the bloated beurocracy (big government inefficiency) we force them to go through before they can legally enter this country. If the process were more practical then we would have much higher compliance. THEN we could decide if we need more enforecement.

You can be a centrist....which is walking the middle path.

I would say that you are pretty moderate but i agree that you would be a conservative libertarian. I see traditional conservatism as slow progression to better society, but the traditions of the past must stay with society. If you progress too fast you will loss the very fabric that makes society great as Edmund Burke, the first notable modern conservative, put it when reflecting on the French Revolution of 1789. In the cases where you feel that their is "victimless" crimes and a broad interpretation of liberties and rights you seem to be more of a libertarian.

I wont argue with you on your stance on the issues cause its hard to really understand your ideology as a whole over the internet. I'm a authoritarian religious right on social issue and very moderate socialist on economic issues. I feel that the government should tell us right from wrong (drugs, homosexuality, abortion etc.). I also am a reactionary and view the present societies "progression" over time to be wrong , immoral and going in the wrong direction. I look at the past as a similar and better time. I mean just look at my NS nation it has almost no right or liberties.:)

I suggest that you go to google and take a political test. I would suggest political compass. All of them have their biases but this one seems the best but its long. http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Well, I think I'll change my mind about seatbelt laws. Education for seatbelt laws would be better, I think, than coercion by punishment. Not wearing your seatbelt doesn't necessarily mean you're going to kill yourself. I still hold that suicide should not be legal, since it IS destroying your life intentionally.

As for prostitution? Well, the women should be able to charge their own rates, and be protected from abuse. They should be allowed freedom of movement, as well. They shouldn't be married or have children. Protection should also be provided and be mandatory, and regular venereal disease checkups should be provided regularly at the expense of the house. Johns should be required to be tested for venereal disease and not have a criminal record. The government should also keep a close eye on the activities of the houses. All women should be 21 or older, and Johns should be 21 or older. Psychological and background tests on the house owners and the prostitutes should be mandatory, to further prevent abuse.

I think that the death penalty, among other things, should be a localized, as opposed to a national, issue. We need a diversification of policy and local control to allow competing ideas and methods, instead of forcing blanket, status quo laws down the throats of the people. I agree with you about the problem being the government concerning illegal immigrants, and not the immigrants themselves. Why I propose border protection, however, is a crackdown on criminal trafficking, such as bringing sex slaves, weapons, etc. across the border. It is not truly about immigration. I think that immigrants are a boon to a country, and help strengthen the nation by aiding the marketplace of ideas and culture. If we can protect their rights as well, then the better the marketplace is. Illegal immigration does not assure their rights or the rights of those already in the nation, so it should be legalized so the government can protect the lives of all involved.

Edit: For those 'illicit' activities that I would legalize, there would be those who would try to go around the regulations, most likely for those benefits. I would be for punishing them heavily, in order to prevent a damaging of rights, since my objective is providing a safe background for the 'illicit' activities.

After looking at your nations states i would say that you are a libertarian.

After looking at your nations states i would say that you are a libertarian.

Fair enough. I usually think of myself as extremist, with little middle ground. But recently people, such as you all, have been telling me that I'm more moderate. It might be true- I'd never thought of myself as such, but that might be because I can't have a completely objective view.

After looking at your nations states i would say that you are a libertarian.

Not always the best guide in these things. For example, I'm a Capitalizt in the game while in real life I'm more of a social libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_libertarianism).

i mean you can have a strong opinion and still be in the center. Although most political parties try to make you go one way or another doesnt mean those are the only options. I dont like the economics of modern day republicans but strongly agree with the "right wing extremists" of the republicans on social issues.

short answer: no

even the freemarketeers who decided they would like to be called 'libertarians' have such deep and fundamental differences with conservatives that only stalin could bring them together.

true drunken dove but i was basing that with her issues and the fact that NS nations seem to get more accurate with time and Greill's nation has a pretty high population.

true drunken dove but i was basing that with her issues and the fact that NS nations seem to get more accurate with time and Greill's nation has a pretty high population.

I'm a dude, dude. It's OK, I'm not sure what sex people are a lot of the time with all of the nations' names ending in -ia, but whatever. Anyway, I have to say my nation fairly well represents my IRL political views. Take my nation into consideration, if you wish, when you answer the above question.

Free Soviets in responce there are may forms of conservatism, Traditional Conservatism, Individualist Conservatism, Neoconservatism, Paleo-conservatism and the general religious right conservates. Some of these will have major issues with libertarianism like the religous right and some paleo conservates but others like individualist conservatives won't have many differences.

sorry greill my fault

but ya for better:) or for worse:( you seem like a libertarian to me because of yout high level of rights and freedoms that you feel that people should have and secondly a traditional conservative because you seem like you want to hold onto traditions of society.

Im personally not a fan of your ideas but you wouldnt be a fan of mine either and thats how democracy works.

Free Soviets in responce there are may forms of conservatism, Traditional Conservatism, Individualist Conservatism, Neoconservatism, Paleo-conservatism and the general religious right conservates. Some of these will have major issues with libertarianism like the religous right and some paleo conservates but others like individualist conservatives won't have many differences.

For the record, I am not particularly fond of paleo-conservatives. I find them more like Nazis or Soviets, due to their focus on the restriction of liberty. I do not think that religion is entirely the best focus of a political philosophy, but I respect the good things that religion and its heritage and tradition can unite and energize a people (I am a devout Catholic, BTW). I might find more in common with neo-conservativism, and heretofore have thought of myself more along this line until recently when I started thinking about libertarianism. I've never heard of individualist conservativism before, and do not want to make a bad conjecture- what does it entail?

Also, bubba, it's OK, I've made the same mistake before. ;) Your politics are fine with me, I think it's important to have differing viewpoints in order to help the marketplace of ideas. We may have more common cause than you or I may believe.

Greill, the main thing that seems to distance you from libertarians is your take on suicide. Most libertarians believe in rights, but do not believe in positive rights. In this case this means that while no one has the right to take away your life, you can lose it via your own actions, just the same as with right to property. This is what distances you from libertarians.

Individualist Conservatism basically is Reagan. The society isnt the problem its the goverment its too big and controlling expecially on economics. that would be the view of a Individualist Conservative.

And Im a big fan of paleo conservativism :( and i have been called a nazi and religious facsist on more than one occasion. but its fine to disagree right?:)

As for prostitution? Well, the women should be able to charge their own rates, and be protected from abuse. They should be allowed freedom of movement, as well. They shouldn't be married or have children. Protection should also be provided and be mandatory, and regular venereal disease checkups should be provided regularly at the expense of the house. Johns should be required to be tested for venereal disease and not have a criminal record. The government should also keep a close eye on the activities of the houses. All women should be 21 or older, and Johns should be 21 or older. Psychological and background tests on the house owners and the prostitutes should be mandatory, to further prevent abuse.


Some of those things are consistent with libertarianism, but most are not.

and in all honesty i fall very close to hitler on many online political tests. I dont mind that because i know that the reasons that im near him is that im a nationalist a authoritarian and a moderate economic socialist. Most Political tests skip the do u support the holocaust part? which would have me move away from hitler.

I'm a dude, dude. It's OK, I'm not sure what sex people are a lot of the time with all of the nations' names ending in -ia, but whatever. Anyway, I have to say my nation fairly well represents my IRL political views. Take my nation into consideration, if you wish, when you answer the above question.
Greill-ly man!

Greill, the main thing that seems to distance you from libertarians is your take on suicide. Most libertarians believe in rights, but do not believe in positive rights. In this case this means that while no one has the right to take away your life, you can lose it via your own actions, just the same as with right to property. This is what distances you from libertarians.

Hm. Hadn't thought about that one. But then again, I consider property and liberty to be lesser rights than others. I think it's within freedom to do dangerous things with your life, like smoke, overeat, drive without a seatbelt, etc., but people should be informed about their decisions. I just can't justify letting someone murder themselves, though.

Bubba, I understand. I wasn't trying to make a pejorative statement, I was moreso aiming to qualify the specific ideology shared. I wasn't trying to insinuate you were a mass murderer, just trying to place your ideology. Pope John Paul is also regarded in generally that quarter of the political spectrum, and I have a deep respect for him.

Also, how come my prostitution isn't mostly libertarian? Most countries don't allow prostitution legally, I would think this would be more of a shift towards libertarianism, at least comparatively. I couldn't imagine most libertarians letting prostitution be as unregulated as making silverware or glass.

oh i know that you werent attacking me or anything. I feel that your prostitution stance to be quite "open minded" and libertarian but maybe i just see it that way cause im in the complete opposite camp from your position Im "closemindedly" opposed to any sex other than the one person that you marry after you marry them.

A general rule of tumb I think for some libertarians is the saying your right to swing your fist extends as far as your neighbor's nose. Your stance on suicide isn't very consistent with the libertarian perpective on it since they'd say if you want to end your life fine just don't infringe on any of my rights. Abortion is a tricky one that I guess comes down to your definition of a person. Many libertarians are for the decriminalization of drugs. And less government is a good thing.

Also, how come my prostitution isn't mostly libertarian? Most countries don't allow prostitution legally, I would think this would be more of a shift towards libertarianism, at least comparatively. I couldn't imagine most libertarians letting prostitution be as unregulated as making silverware or glass.


Libertarians don't beleive in any real regulation on anything. Forcing prostitutes to take tests for VD is inconsistent with libertarianism. All you can do is encourage them to take the tests. Although if they lie to their "customers" about it that is fraud which is prosecutable. Also, they can be sued if their "service" hurts anyone as in the case of a VD. It will still be plenty safe for anyone who is even remotely careful. All they have to do is go to a reputable "professional." It is the same with any service; you wouldn't go to some random person on the street in order to get prescription drugs, would you?

Libertarians don't beleive in any real regulation on anything. Forcing prostitutes to take tests for VD is inconsistent with libertarianism. All you can do is encourage them to take the tests. Although if they lie to their "customers" about it that is fraud which is prosecutable. Also, they can be sued if their "service" hurts anyone as in the case of a VD. It will still be plenty safe for anyone who is even remotely careful. All they have to do is go to a reputable "professional." It is the same with any service; you wouldn't go to some random person on the street in order to get prescription drugs, would you?

Well, alright. I suppose you could have licensing, like with a pharmacy. I wouldn't expect my CVS to start lacing my antihistamines with crack cocaine, so I guess I shouldn't expect a reputable place to give people VD.

I suppose that my suicide stance is authoritarian, but I can't be completely libertarian on everything. I think there have to be at least some limits- the government should have a little control over the economy, such as interest rates, so there should be a little control on personal behavior. But both should be about minimal, I think, and I think that the government should promote rights concerning personal behavior.

Well, alright. I suppose you could have licensing, like with a pharmacy. I wouldn't expect my CVS to start lacing my antihistamines with crack cocaine, so I guess I shouldn't expect a reputable place to give people VD.

I suppose that my suicide stance is authoritarian, but I can't be completely libertarian on everything. I think there have to be at least some limits- the government should have a little control over the economy, such as interest rates, so there should be a little control on personal behavior. But both should be about minimal, I think, and I think that the government should promote rights concerning personal behavior.

When it comes to personal freedoms libertarians are very hands off. So long as it does not infringe on the rights of others its fine. Its not up to us to decide how another person should live their lives. If they want to kill themselves then by all means do so. If you want to take drugs be my guest. So long as it doesn't infringe on anothers rights its good.

i wonder what you people would think about my views.......

Ill start with the ones that are most offensive and out of the mainstream first
Death Penalty should be given to all murderers, rapists, pedophiles, organized gang crimes and drug dealers. To minimize the cost to kill these people they will be killed in a centralized US government place, All sentenced to die that month and all will die together in a room that will fill with poisonous gas.

Illegal immigration- They are not US citizens ands should not get the bill of rights including right to bare arms, freedom of speech, privacy, right to a fair trial and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Internationalism- im opposed to all internationalism including the UN and i strongly oppose international laws and rights. I feel that the book of Revelations "New World Order", one government is internationalism and fanatically oppose all internationalism.

Abortion is wrong unless the mother will die in the process or in the case of rape or incest.

Homosexuality in the old testement of the bible states that homosexuality is an abomination against god and thus they can not have the right to marry. They should not get the rights of married couples either(tax benefits, right to visit each other in the hospital when in critical condition).

These are the major issues that people have a problem with.. where do you all think i fall on the political scale? and why? Im already aware that 99% of you will disagree with me. Thx.

Note that on almost all other issues i am a moderate except on prostitution, and violence and sexuality in the media which i strongly oppose.

These are the major issues that people have a problem with.. where do you all think i fall on the political scale? and why? Im already aware that 99% of you will disagree with me. Thx.

You're in and around the Fascist mark.

I also want to curb most freedom of speech or allow absolute freedom of speech either or......

Either ban everyones right to burn symbols in protest or allow the KKK and Neo Nazis to burn Jewish Torahs and Crosses. Id prefer not to allow burning of symbols like the US flag but if you allow burning of one symbol, the US flag, which hold dear anyone should have to suffer the same.

thx for the input drunken dove. i figured that i would fall around there

I believe in conformity and government control. I prefer thick lines drawn in the sand so that courts arnt needed as often. The laws are clear and if you break them you should get penalties.

We are in agreement on most of these issues, with these exceptions--

I think that seatbelt laws are silly but mostly harmless. I don't know about the whole prostitution thing--it seems to me to be sleazy and degrading to women no matter what the conditions are, but as long as there's no abuse or STD transmission I can't really raise any objections. As for suicide, I was not aware that there was a law against it. It would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it? If someone is dead you can't punish them; if they survive their suicide attempt as far as I know they are not punished by law, but instead people try to help them. On these issues I am pretty much neutral, with no strong feelings either way. The only point where I really disagree with you is on drugs. I believe that drugs are harmful to people both mentally and physically, and that the resulting addicts are a drain on society. Making drugs legal will not decrease their harmful effects and may increase the number of people who use them.

I have always considered myself a conservative--not a "neoconservative" but a true conservative who believes in smaller government, local, not federal laws, an end to social engineering, valuing traditions, and giving people the freedom to live their lives without too much government interference (their will always be some of course--taxes if nothing else). I believe that most true conservatives would agree with you on these issues. So I think that you're a conservative and that people who think like you are conservatives whether they call themselves libertarians or not.

Ill start with the ones that are most offensive and out of the mainstream first
Death Penalty should be given to all murderers, rapists, pedophiles, organized gang crimes and drug dealers. To minimize the cost to kill these people they will be killed in a centralized US government place, All sentenced to die that month and all will die together in a room that will fill with poisonous gas.

Horrible. Absolutely horrible. Doubtlessly over half the people would end up being innocent.

Illegal immigration- They are not US citizens ands should not get the bill of rights including right to bare arms, freedom of speech, privacy, right to a fair trial and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Also horrible. A wall would be a much better solution.

Internationalism- im opposed to all internationalism including the UN and i strongly oppose international laws and rights. I feel that the book of Revelations "New World Order", one government is internationalism and fanatically oppose all internationalism.

It is true that nations should retain autonomy, but international agreements of sorts aren't entirely bad.

Abortion is wrong unless the mother will die in the process or in the case of rape or incest.

You make an exception for rape and incest?

Homosexuality in the old testement of the bible states that homosexuality is an abomination against god and thus they can not have the right to marry. They should not get the rights of married couples either(tax benefits, right to visit each other in the hospital when in critical condition).

Or, as I have always proposed, state recognized marriage should be abolished. Christians used to marry in the Church without it, and we can do it again.

These are the major issues that people have a problem with.. where do you all think i fall on the political scale? and why? Im already aware that 99% of you will disagree with me. Thx.

You didn't list any of your economic views, so I can't say.

We are in agreement on most of these issues, with these exceptions--

I think that seatbelt laws are silly but mostly harmless. I don't know about the whole prostitution thing--it seems to me to be sleazy and degrading to women no matter what the conditions are, but as long as there's no abuse or STD transmission I can't really raise any objections. As for suicide, I was not aware that there was a law against it. It would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it? If someone is dead you can't punish them; if they survive their suicide attempt as far as I know they are not punished by law, but instead people try to help them. On these issues I am pretty much neutral, with no strong feelings either way. The only point where I really disagree with you is on drugs. I believe that drugs are harmful to people both mentally and physically, and that the resulting addicts are a drain on society. Making drugs legal will not decrease their harmful effects and may increase the number of people who use them.

I have always considered myself a conservative--not a "neoconservative" but a true conservative who believes in smaller government, local, not federal laws, an end to social engineering, valuing traditions, and giving people the freedom to live their lives without too much government interference (their will always be some of course--taxes if nothing else). I believe that most true conservatives would agree with you on these issues. So I think that you're a conservative and that people who think like you are conservatives whether they call themselves libertarians or not.

Well, suicide is illegal, but the feds won't burst in and shoot you if you fail suicide. You'll have to be detained and helped. I think that you should be detained and helped to prevent yourself from attempting suicide again, or doing something even worse, i.e. going out with a gun and waving it at the cops so they'll shoot you. That could psychologically damage the police officer. I decided to change my mind about seatbelt laws, people should be educated to use them, but until we have everyone in charge of their own healthcare instead of having government dependency I think they should remain in place.

I agree with you about prostitution, and until people are in charge of their own healthcare to make their decisions without effects on society prostitution should not be allowed. I agree with you on drugs, and I think it would be better if we allow some outlet and focus on treating the bad effects and discouraging it through education and regulation. However, the public healthcare drain is bad, and I think the drug trade should be prevented until healthcare is in the hands of the people and not on a government dependency.

Until we can have proper, effective education and private healthcare that poses no drain on the rest of society, I think those 'illicit' activities should be prevented. After that, we should allow it, with regulation to prevent severe problems. It still does not make them right, however, and the people should be free to discourage them, both for traditional reasons and for logical reasons.