It's finally up! I intended to post my official positions last weekend but, unfortunately, it got pushed up to today. From my previous posts you may have gotten some idea as to where I stand and the title ATHEIST LIBERTARIAN CONSERVATIVE gives you somewhat of an idea but, for the most part, the Atheolibcon's views are shrouded in obscurity. What makes him libertarian? What makes him conservative? As a right-leaning atheist, what are his views on the separation of church and state and the references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Well, today's the day to lay it all out for you—give it to you straight. I will also list the presidential candidates and detail what I think about them, including Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and why I am not in support of him.
For a little overview, I am officially a right-leaning libertarian (a.k.a. libertarian conservative) with a live-and-let-live, don't-tread-on-me mentality.
Here's a quick overview:
I support smaller government, reduced spending, reduced entitlements, reduced bureaucracy, dramatically lower taxes, and greater personal freedom for individuals. In the area of education, I supports more parental control, more emphasis on school choice, and increased competition through vouchers. I am a strong supporter of gun rights for the individual. I believe the 2-party system is built on corruption, greed and bribery. I am a fiscal conservative in the mode of my heroes Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul. I am socially tolerant, believing that most social issues should be determined at the state, local, and individual level. I call for the repeal of the income tax and favor replacing it, as well as all other sources of federal tax revenues, with a tax on each state in proportion to its population, with each state deciding for itself how to raise its share of the money. I believe the Iraq War is a disaster. In light of their faulty intel on Iraq, I question Central Intelligence Agency's information on Iran and although I loath Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and everything he stands for, I would support using any diplomatic means in order to avoid another war. Some may even call me Neolibertarian due to my support the War on Terror (for the most part) and because I believe in a bold, independent national defense.
I'll discuss each issue in depth. I got a lot of typing to do, so let's get started.
Abortion - This is a touchy issue for a lot of people. Some people even vote with abortion as their #1 issue, which, in my opinion, is ludicrous. So is the Atheolibcon pro-choice or pro-life? The answer is neither. This is one major issue that I haven't formed a definite position on. Frankly, I could argue for either side. The root of this debate is when you think human life begins—conception, birth, or somewhere in between? And I haven't even formed a position on that (which I deeply regret to say for fear of sounding like I have a deficiency in moral integrity) so how can I make a resolute stance on abortion? LOL hell of a way to start off this post—first issue I put and I don't even have a fixed position. I can tell you one thing though, I have never thought that abortion in all cases should be outlawed. In the past, I have generally supported allowing an abortion for a fetus in cases of mother endangerment, rape, incest, and handicaps. But now, I must admit I am swayed by CAPITALISM.ORG's pro-choice
case for abortion. However, once I become a parent, I'm sure my abortion views will drift more pro-life.
Update: I'm still trying to solidify my stance here. I know what I'm for and I know what I'm against. First of which, part of me thinks abortion is entirely a states' rights issue, but I still hesitate to say I support overturning Roe v. Wade because another part of me says it's an individual issue. Personally, I'm for permitting abortion in cases of rape, incest, mother endangerment, or if the fetus is handicapped in any way. I support the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. I also support permitting and deregulating birth control, including the morning-after pill. I think pharmacists who refuse to refill birth control prescriptions should be reprimanded. I oppose late-term elective abortion. I mean, there's a certain point when it's not just a sperm, an egg, and some cells—it's a baby. I am against abortion out of pure convenience, however I would prefer abortion be fully permitted in all cases rather than fully outlawed in all cases—if I was faced with that decision.
Gay Marriage & Gay Adoption - Feel free to quote me on this — The government (neither federal, nor state, nor local) has NO right to tell consenting adults how to relate to each other. If two people of the same gender want to get married, seriously, who cares? Why should you? If you believe that marriage is sacred, like I do, then that's your belief and you should adhere to your principles but not everybody thinks the same way. Whoa, hold up! How can I believe marriage is sacred and yet support gay rights? It's not a contradiction. Marriage should be held sacred whether you are a marrying someone of the opposite gender or the same gender. It's not something that should be done lightly. At the risk of sounding too cliche, marriage is a sacred institution between two people that should be entered into with the utmost care. Gay marriage doesn't hurt you any way, so to the cultural conservatives out there, pull your stubborn heads out of your asses and get on with your lives! As for adoption by gay couples, for the record, I have always supported the nuclear family that America is so proud of and I always will. Gay adoption is a whole other story from gay marriage. While consenting adults can do what they want with each other, gay adoption involves a third party (the child) who really has no choice who he/she is placed with and statistics show that kids are generally raised better if there is a man and a woman. I happen to agree with that. Not that some gay couples aren't good parents, I know they are, but the traditional nuclear family is what works best and I think we need to stick with that.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms - I am a staunch, radical supporter of gun rights. So radical that I support that abolition of all gun laws as per the Second Amendment: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I interpret this as saying that all laws regulating firearms are unconstitutional. I am a firm supporter of Castle Doctrine as well as unlicensed open & concealed carry, like they do in Vermont and Alaska. I also oppose waiting periods (which are just plain ridiculous) and support instant criminal background checks. If someone is at least 18 and hasn't been convicted of a felony, they should be able to buy, possess, transport, and carry any kind of firearm they want. I also support the gun show loophole. The right to keep and bear arms is an integral part of our constitutional freedoms. It was the next thing our founding fathers thought of after they instituted freedom of speech, religion, petition, assembly, and press. I see school shootings, plane hijackings and such as the result of prohibitions on self-defense. This goes for assault weapons as well. Like Ron Paul said, "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer." The saying 'If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns' is very true. People say if we loosen up on gun laws, the murder rate will skyrocket. Reality begs to differ. Look at places like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. They have the strictest gun laws in the nation (New Jersey even has laws regulating BB guns and sling-shots) and their gun crime rates are the nation's highest. On the other hand, places like Vermont, Arizona, and Texas where the gun laws are quite loose, they have some of the lowest gun crime and murder rates in the U.S. It is true that an armed society makes a polite society. Just look at the 1920s, every wacko and their brother had a gun. Think of it like this: let's say you're a thug and you see a man in a suit carrying a briefcase alone on a street corner, waiting for the bus late at night and you wanted to mug him. Regardless of whether or not you had a gun, you have no idea if he is armed as well—and if he sees you approaching and he pulls a gun, that could be your ass. So, would you go after the guy if he had a 10% chance of being armed or a 50% chance? I also believe that college students without criminal records should be allowed to carry firearms on campus. Take the Virginia Tech massacre, for example. The loudest voices say we should tighten up our gun laws because of incidents like this. However, I think that since they are legal adults, college students should be able to carry firearms on campus. It would be the safer alternative. If, say, one out of every ten students on that campus was armed, there is no way the shooter would have made it to 31 people. There were people who said he just stood there and quickly reloaded his gun while everyone just cowered in the corner. He made people line up against the wall and then he shot them. The amount of casualties could have been prevented had there been armed students around. Some colleges and universities (such as in Utah) have already done away with the 'no guns on campus' rule. Believe me, if I wanted to shoot up a school, a 'Gun-Free Zone' sign would not deter me one bit. Pilots should also have a right to be armed. If pilots had been armed on 9/11, the terrorists' attempted hijackings would have failed miserably.
Capital Punishment - Many libertarians distrust the government's use of the death penalty, but I support it purely from a moral perspective. While I know it is not an effective deterrent and I know now that it is, in fact, more costly than life imprisonment, I just feel that there are people out there who simply need to die. I support execution for cases of terrorism & war crimes, assassination of law enforcement personnel, multiple murder, and child rape. I also have an opinion on the method of execution. Right now, lethal injection is the predominant method of execution in the United States due to the belief that it is the least inhumane. In actuality, it is more costly and can be more inhumane than execution by gunshot. There have been instances where the condemned prisoner suffers a side-effect and is in pain for more than a half-hour before he finally dies. How is that more humane than a bullet to the head? Or a firing squad? People say it's because the shooter can sometimes suffer mentally after killing a man, while when a doctor gives them the lethal injection, it's the poison that kills them. Okay, we got a false dichotomy in logic here. The doctor still administered the shot, didn't he? How about we apply the same logic to shooting the convict: the shooter didn't kill him, the bullet did. Seriously...
Marijuana & the War on Drugs - First, a history lesson: The plant that is used to produce marijuana, cannabis sativa, has been used by humans for thousands of years. The first fabric was believed to have been woven from its fiber (hemp) as far back as 7000 BCE. The easy-to-plant is extremely versatile and has been used to make products ranging from fabrics and paper to foods and medicines. Cannabis sativa was an important agricultural crop in America's early history. As a farmer, George Washington grew marijuana on his farm and supported its growth. He even used it medicinally to treat his chronic toothaches. Even Queen Victoria used it to treat menstrual cramps. The recreational use of marijuana in the early 20th century set into motion a series of events that led to the eventual criminalization of all parts of the cannabis sativa plant. The question of marijuana legalization has been a contentious issue in the U.S. ever since. Beginning in the 1970s, advocates have fought for decriminalization of marijuana for medicinal use. American farmers initiated efforts to change laws to allow the cultivation of industrial hemp in the 1990s. Other groups lobby for the legalization of the cannabis sativa plant for all purposes, including recreational drug use.
The criminalization of possession of marijuana wastes valuable law enforcement resources that would be better allocated to violent crime. Ethan Nadelmann, a recognized proponent of legalization, argues that marijuana has been criminalized for "reasons that are entirely political, not scientific" in his article
The Future of an Illusion. Nadelmann refutes the criminalization argument point-by-point in
An End to Marijuana Prohibition. In the article
Q: Should Conservatives Support the Legalization of Marijuana? author Deroy Murdock argues that "the War on Marijuana assaults individual liberty, weakens families and militarizes cops while burning taxpayer dollars and the Constitution as if it were in a bong." I have a little saying: The Right fears grass like the Left fears gats. It's the same irrational fear and The Future of Freedom Foundation argues that in depth in the article
Conservatives, Guns, and Drugs. Ironically, legalization of marijuana in the Netherlands and decriminalization of medicinal marijuana in some states has
decreased teen drug use in those places, just like loose gun laws correlates with less murder and less gun violence. In
Free Weeds: The Marijuana Debate, conservative commentator William F. Buckley, Jr. argues for legalization. Nobel prize-winning laissez-faire economist Milton Friedman called for legalizing marijuana and outlined its economic benefits in his book,
Free to Choose. Also, 500+ economists have joined together and
called for legalization.
I am in favor of legalizing marijuana but with the same restrictions as alcohol as well as eliminating "sin" taxes. Cannabis is very versatile and has many different uses. I also favor the cultivation of industrial hemp. The word 'hemp' is used for cannabis that is cultivated for non-drug purposes. Some of its uses include paper, textiles, biodegradable plastics, health food, and fuel. It is one of the fastest growing and easiest to grow biomasses as well as one of the earliest domesticated plants. Hemp requires little to no pesticides or herbicides. It also controls erosion of the topsoil and produces oxygen. Furthermore, hemp can be used to replace many potentially harmful products, such as tree paper (the processing of which uses bleaches and other toxic chemicals and contributes to deforestation), cosmetics, and plastics, most of which are petroleum-based and do not decompose easily.
Prohibition doesn't work, it just causes more crime. Drug abuse in general should be treated as a medical problem and not a crime.
States should be allowed to permit farmers to grow industrial hemp, which currently is defined as a controlled substance. This would help North Dakota and other agriculture states, where farmers have requested the ability to farm hemp for years. In 2005 and 2007 he introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act "to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana, and for other purposes"; it currently has eleven cosponsors. This bill would give the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States.
Ron Paul said, "I contend that prohibition of drugs is ineffective and advocate ending the War on Drugs. Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime. I believe that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem. We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime. The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. I believe in personal responsibility, but I also see inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws. Many prisoners are non-violent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimal sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have non-violent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers." The Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics are the unconstitutional actions of Big Brother. President Bush calls himself a "compassionate conservative." Guess what? You’re not being compassionate by taking medical marijuana from someone suffering from a disease whose symptoms it could help treat. People should have freedom of choice. We should respect the law and the law says that states should be able to determine this.
Prostitution & Sex Laws - Same issue as gay marriage—the government has no right to tell consenting adults how to relate to each other. It's not anyone's business if two people want to exchange money for sex behind closed doors. If prostitution were legalized, economic benefits aside, it would mean less street hookers as well as less disease-spreading, as enterprising sex industries would want their workers to be clean. However, I support localities being able to determine whether or not they want a whorehouse in their area. I won't even go into the sodomy laws. It's appalling that cops will actually bust into your home and haul you off in cuffs because you were having butt-sex. In short, I support abolishing all sex laws.
Censorship - I am vehemently opposed to censorship, your so it's very disheartening that multitudes of Republicans and Democrats seem to be for it. Any government censorship is intolerable. Broadcasters should be given the same freedoms of expression as writers and book/magazine publishers. Let them choose how much sex, violence, and crude language they put in. Loathsome social conservative Robert Bork from the conservative American Enterprise Institute said, "We can increase liberty in America by legislatively restraining the direction of our culture." Wow, such a blatant self-contradiction. Any sane person knows it is the parents' job to monitor what their children are watching. Instead of blaming television networks, they should take the responsibility of blocking whatever channels they deem inappropriate.
The War on Terror/War in Iraq - It makes me sick how easily the whole thing could have been prevented if only we were more vigilant. Mainstream America had the predictable, reactionary response and demanded retaliation. This brings me to the War on Terror, which I agree with completely.
They attacked us, killed our citizens, and payback's a bitch.
However, I do think we invaded Iraq under faulty intel and President Bush should have checked with Congress before we invaded—the Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. They only allowed Bush to do what he did because, technically, he did not declare war. Like I said, it was thought of as more of a police action. But now that we are there, we have to finish our mission. We have an obligation to finish what we started.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is almost completely defeated, but if we pull out now, it's not them I would be worried about, it's Iran. Ahmadinejad already said a while ago that Iran is ready to fill a power-vacuum in Iraq if the U.S. withdraws. However, we are focusing a little too much on Iraq while Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are regrouping elsewhere. We cannot forget that they are our primary enemies and they are what this war was all about in the first place. That is why I do not agree with Bush's statement that "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
A literal war on terrorism would be like a war on murder. Even if a nation manages to stamp out all existing terrorists all over the world, more terrorists would arise over radical ideologies. You cannot declare war on an action.
Let me just say that while Iraq needs a well-trained, well-equipped security force to effectively maintain order in the country, we should not embark on a policy of nation-building (something I wholeheartedly oppose). We must completely destroy all traces of al-Qaeda and then leave.
I am repulsed to giving Iraq U.S. military weapons and training because if we do succeed and Iraq builds a stable military force, if you look at history, chances are we will be fighting them later down the line. Hell, we trained, armed, and supplied the Mujahideen Resistance during the Soviet-Afghan War. Now part of it has become the Taliban and many former members joined Al-Qaeda. Same kind of stuff has occurred in Central & South America.
No more giving anyone else U.S. military equipment! Allies can always become enemies. We don't know the future.
To all the war-happy, hot-blooded ultra-nationalists out there, we must not forget that 9/11 is what this war is about. The goal is to kill Bin Laden and destroy al-Qaeda. And to all the sappy, pacifist peaceniks out there: let me say this carefully, these men are murderous fanatics equipped with powerful weapons, manpower, and a psychotic drive that only religion can spawn. They want to kill me and you and will do whatever it takes to accomplish just that. I know war is a terrible thing. It's unfortunate but it is necessary. These are irrational sociopaths and we must kill them before they kill us. Peace through superior firepower. Sometimes it's the only way.
Let us find al-Qaeda and their leader and show them that nobody kills innocent Americans and gets away with it. Nobody...
Miscellaneous Issues -- Lower the legal drinking age to 18. If an 18-year-old can smoke a cigarette and go to war, they should be able to have a beer.
- Abolishing speed limits for rural interstate highways, except for at night.
- Get rid of the police cameras at intersections and photosurveillance vans on roads. Big Brother is already big enough.
- Abolish all 'hate crimes'. They are thought crimes, plain and simple. They tack on greater punishment depending on what the perpetrator was thinking when he committed the crime. Things like murder is murder and assault is assault, regardless of the motive.
