First Principles, Continued.
Please see this post for an explanation of what has gone before.
After my last post, where I began to lay out the principles that define my particular political views, some questions were asked about a few specific issues. Namely, the specific questions of Gay Marriage and Drug Legalization where raised.
While I do consider myself Conservative, I rarely self-label as a Republican. Long term readers of this blog will have seen plenty of instances of me complaining about the Republican Party or the various factions that make up that party. My Conservative voting patterns are mostly a case of compromise in some areas, with what I consider the weightier issues of fiscal freedom and national security reaching primacy in my evaluation of candidates and programs. There are plenty of hairs to split here, and regrettably I have to do that at times.
As I stated in the last post, my Prime Directive can be best summed up in the words of Ayn Rand, again paraphrased as…
I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for me.
Given that, I have little use for the elements of the Republican Party that wish to intervene or meddle in the lives of private citizens. The so-called Religious Right is a blight on the political scene, equal in my view to the Big Government Statists of the Left Wing. Any group of people that wishes to impose their beliefs or ideas through the coercion of legislation are little more than tyrants of another sort.
On the specifics:
1. Gay Marriage – I voted against the Constitutional Amendment here in Michigan. I don’t have a problem with what two or more adults wish to do in their private lives, and I don’t have an issue with Civil Unions, Marriages or anything else. I acknowledge the necessity of a legal mechanism to recognize a union between two people, but I subscribe no religious meaning to it beyond tradition. I was married in a Church, but I really had no allegiance to that particular faith, or any other organized religion for that matter. It is a legal matter, and the composition of the union means nothing to me personally.
Given that, I do recognize the political reality of voting blocks. While I’m sure Bush probably opposes gay marriage, it would be unrealistic for me to withdraw support when he is more aligned with my beliefs in areas of taxation, economic freedom and national security issues. We all have to make compromises from time to time, and while this specific issue is opposed to my fundamental belief, this is a compromise I am forced to embrace. The alternative is not viable, as the opposing party is manifestly opposed to the issues I consider of primal importance.
Political compromise is an unpleasant reality. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Iraqi War, but when she runs in 2008, I’m certain most of her liberal base will forgive her for this. The asinine Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage is a similar political maneuver to pacify a base I wish we didn’t need. There’s little risk of it ever happening, but electoral reality compels such silliness.
2. Drug Legalization. Danny’s question was limited to marijuana, but I’ll up the ante. I believe that ALL drugs should be legal, including marijuana, hash, coke, crack and toad licking.
I despise drugs and I despise drug users. My best friend killed himself, and a lot of it had to do with drugs. But my personal feelings do not accord me the right to infringe upon the lives of other people.
However, I have a necessary caveat to this. With freedom comes responsibility. If I had the power to legalize all drugs, I would make something quite clear to everyone up front. While you have the right to destroy your own life, you do not have the right to endanger, harm or impose upon the lives or productivity of other citizens. There are consequences to actions, and if you chose to engage in destructive behavior, you are on your own when those consequences come home.
If you engage in drug use and operate a vehicle, the penalties must be harsh – as in long prison terms on the first offense. If you harm another person, you go away for life or thereabouts. If you wrap yourself around a telephone pole while coked out of your mind, you’re responsible for the medical care. No insurance? Then you better hope you can find a doctor willing to work for charity. It’s that simple.
Freedom requires responsibility. To impose the price of your poor choices upon an unwilling public is another form of slavery as defined in my earlier post. So legalization requires a serious examination of consequences. If you chose to sit in a crack house all day, you have no recourse to government aid when you find yourself unemployable or in need of rehab. If you can find a private charity to help you, then by all means have at it.
Therefore the War on Drugs is another useless waste of money. But as I said above, it is a matter of compromise when it comes to casting my vote. To me, the greater immediate threat to freedom is the ever increasing nanny state, in the form of trillions of dollars in public policy expenditures. It is a state that expects the young to pay for the retirement of the old, or the wealthy to pay for the housing of the poor, or any man to live for the sake of another. It is educational systems that demand tax money from people without children to educate, or requires parents to pay taxes while sending their kids to private schools. The list goes on and on, and while the War on Drugs or Gay Marriage are not congruent with my beliefs, the opposition party embraces all that I despise even more.
In a perfect world, one could make clear choices in one’s voting patterns. The reality is much more muddled.
Filed under: Politics
Great post!
You are absolutely correct that we must all vote based on the total package of who is running for office. I voted Bush in ’04 because of one issue above any other: We must win the War on Terror. Kerry’s mysterious PLAN certainly was inferior to Bush’s demonstrated actions to end the threat by killing, imprisoning, and otherwise neutralizing those who commit and foster terrorism. While I still would have voted Bush even if both candidates were indistinguishable on the WoT, it is reality that the Democrats are the party that favors losing the war.
You are right that the fundamental danger to our freedom is the growing role of the government, specifically the Federal government, in controlling and supporting our lives. Look at the asinine comments made by Mayor Naglin in New Orleans. The Feds should have done more! Uh, since when is a disaster in your city a matter for the people of Califonia, Michigan, or Georgia? What should I have done, what should I have paid so that you could be absolved of responsibility to care for the people and property of the city you were elected to serve? Why the hell are you mayor if you aren’t responsible for the preperation and response to the disaster?
Anyhow, I basically agree with Todd on the drugs and marraige issues. I did vote for the GA amendment against gay marriage, but it was mainly because I disagree with the gay lobby and their efforts to undermine what I consider a fundamental pillar of society. The issue is complicated, and I can’t divorce my motion from my reasoning in opposing same-sex unions.
The whole problem with the issue is how it is a symptom of the trivialization of marraige and the disintigration of the traditional family. I suppose I am against non-traditional marraige because I favor traditional values. Marraige should be a man and a woman joining together for life in a partnership to raise a family and to complement one another. It may be narrow-minded for me to make vlaue judgments that create a hierarchy of desirable family units, but to not do so would be to ignore all the evidence given to us by thousands of years of experience.
Two women, two men, or one woman or man cannot raise children as well as a man and a woman, on average. This is in part because of the stereotypes enforced by our society, that say a man should do and be one way, and a woman another. When you are faced with the task of nurturing children to exist in society, shouldn’t you seek to help them conform to what will be expected of them?
The terrible problem I and many other freedom-loving yet hopelessly old-fashioned people face is how to reconcile our desire for the status-quo with our principles of freedom. Sine the State grants people the right to the legal state of marraige, this is a matter for the people to decide, and not the courts. And since the States must honor legal contracts made in other States, this seems most liekly to be a matter for Congress. To settle the issue, we may be forced to submit to the fiat of 9 lawyers in black robes (The Supreme Court). The preferred method, that of an amendment to the Constitution defining marraige throught the nation, is highly improbable due to the extraordinary majorities needed to ratify such an amendment. Due to such inaction, the SCOTUS may have to step in to make some sort of ruling defining what is legally marraige. I dread such a decision, because it is the right of the People to determine their laws and not the provence of appointed judges.
Some say that this is a State issue, but the need for uniformity in marraige contracts makes it a Federal issue. Cities, counties, and states granting licenses in any manner they see fit only causes chaos. One consequence may be that they will cause a national consensus through the mechanism of fait accompli. States like Utah may be forced to recognize a same-sex marraige from California for instance. The problem with this method of unification is how it forces the law of one state on all the others. So again I call for a Federal solution, even one so distasteful as a Supreme Court ruling. I would favor any outcome, so long as it is unambiguous and not open to interpretation. Don’t get me started on exceptions like sex changes and such. Stick to the basics.
Drugs
Total agreement with Todd, and for his reasons. However, I would add that any use of an illegal substance remains illegal until such laws are repealed. So though I support a person’s right to snort coke, I will still demand that he be incarcerated for it as long as the law mandates it. What good are laws if they are unenforced? They are worse than no law at all because they undermine any authority of the law.
Living in a country where people have imperfect freedom is one of the realities we all face, and to argue that all people should have perfect freedom is facetious. I gladly surrender some of my freedoms to ensure safety. In the balance, some drugs being illegal and the waste of money that is enforcement is one of those fights that is low priority compared with bigger issues. If it was the only issue on the table, I would vote for the person or party who supports freedom. But as we cannot have freedom without security, I have to vote for the party that restricts the freedom to use some substances but delivers security from terrorism.
Regarding Marriage.
I don’t understand the necessity of government recognized marriage. In recognizing it, we force ourselves to define it. If we must define it, we must each define it according to our own values.
But, in the end, I thing government should not recognize marriage.
C
Mike,
Regarding your comment of
Uh, since when is a disaster in your city a matter for the people of Califonia, Michigan, or Georgia?
I would like to answer your question with another question: Uh, since when is a disaster in New York City a matter for the people of California, Michigan, or Georgia? You support the President’s War on Titling, but a very small percentage of the soldiers fighting overseas are from NYC, Washington, D.C., and the area in Pennsylvania that came under attack. If the disaster of 9-11 didn’t affect them, by your reasoning, no soldier from outside those areas should have to fight in the war. Your response?
Also,
“the Democrats are the party that favors losing the war.”
First, what?
Second, what are you using to gauge whether we are winning the war? Didn’t your beloved president say that this war is something that can’t be won? That’s what I remember hearing… though, to be fair, this was after he said we can win this war.
To paraphrase Shakespeare: Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we don’t know what the fuck we’re doing.