%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |
A blog of articles on opinions, thought, experiences, conquests, losses, and musings. |
| Welcome to my personal blog. This shall be a place for articles on all sorts of opinions, political thought, experiences, grand schemes, great conquests, substantial losses, bright ideas, not so bright ideas, useful, and not so useful musings and writings. |
| There exists in American politics a significant idea that there is a zero sum game in ideas. In other words, your ideas come at the expense of mine. Your political agenda is at the expense of mine. It’s a fallacy and certainly not rooted in reality. Let’s say, for example, that my religion teaches homosexuality is sinful behavior (it actually does). I can find fault with homosexuality, and I can find fault with gay marriage, but that does not mean I can’t support government not being involved in anyone’s personal relationships. Because I support a gay person being able to marry a same sex partner does not mean that I support gay marriage. Now, flip it around. Let’s say a store owner refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it is against his personal religious beliefs. The same logic requires we support the business owner’s right to pass on baking the cake and allowing another shop to bake the cake instead. The baker is not refusing to bake a cake for any particular customer in a non-wedding setting. He just doesn’t want to bake one for the wedding. It is not a zero sum game. Support of true freedom requires supporting both the freedom of the couple seeking a wedding cake (i.e. their right to marry), as well as a business owner’s right to refuse to bake a wedding cake on religious grounds. Support for legalization of marijuana (which I do not completely support) is not the same thing as support for the use of marijuana. Support for legalization of prostitution, or gambling, or any other vice or activity, does not constitute support for the activity itself. Political agendas don’t have to be a zero sum game when the idea behind them is freedom. By supporting freedom (so long as it does not transgress against the freedom of someone else), we essentially all get what we want. How about the idea that I don’t force my ideas on you, and you don’t force your ideas on me. It might sound over simplistic, but it is an effective means to some semblance of political harmony. |
| One of the hot topics in politics these days seems to be legalization of drugs - specifically marijuana. Although not technically a drug, and more of an herb, it’s classification as a drug is probably justified. Now, I am not a doctor and claim no real knowledge of the mechanics of the human body other than strictly a lay person. So, I may not be able to argue a great case for marijuana’s classification as a drug by means of scientific data, but it certainly seems appropriate to me. It is a mind altering substance that artificially raises levels of dopamine in the brain. Although I am a registered Libertarian, my position on this subject is not entirely a libertarian one. Firstly, I am against the recreational use of any drug. Marijuana is typically compared to sugar alcohol by its supporters, which is a perfectly legal substance. However, I believe there is a significant difference. I can drink a couple of beers without becoming intoxicated. I cannot, however, enjoy smoking or ingesting a little bit of marijuana without succumbing to its effects on some level. Either it is affecting my brain by consuming it, or I don’t consume it and it has no effect. I can drink a small amount of alcohol with no real effects whatsoever, but the very use of marijuana is based upon obtaining its effects. People do not use marijuana for only its taste. I simply do not see the benefit of deadening senses and impairing judgement either from being drunk or being stoned in any sort of recreational sense. There are already laws against public drunkenness, so a person partaking in marijuana automatically is impaired and qualifies for the same legal treatment, even if marijuana were to be legalized. That being said, while I would not vote to legalize recreational use of marijuana, I would not be entirely disappointed if it became legal. My objections to it or not as strong as more serious and more addictive substances. I am more interested in its use medicinally. According to most accounts, it is a safer alternative to many pain medications. It is also extremely helpful in the aid and treatment for a host of illnesses that include an inability to have appetite, including those under chemotherapy. My preference would be that there is no such thing as a class one designation of any drug by the FDA. Class one indicates that the drug has no medical use and cannot be prescribed by physicians. It makes no sense that cocaine can be classified as a class two and marijuana remains a class one. Doctors should be able to prescribe any treatment they deem safe and necessary for the treatment of their patients. If a doctor deems it necessary, why not allow marijuana to be prescribed and then dispensed (not by a dispensary) but through a pharmacy where a pharmacist can mention potential interactions and risks to patients. A dispensary does not employ a pharmacist to assist with potential problems for the patient. As a part of the discussion, but also maybe a part of a larger separate topic, I would call into question the need to have a Food and Drug Administration at all. Drug companies take on a risk themselves for any ill effects their drugs may induce. They are already on the hook for liability of problems are caused by taking their drugs. Those liabilities in and of themselves prevent known harmful drugs from coming to market. The FDA only lengthens the time it takes for badly needed (sometimes lifesaving) medications from making it to market efficiently. And, certainly the effects of marijuana and its safety for consumption has long been established. I would argue that those who have the liability are most likely to do the necessary testing on their own. An unconcerned third party is likely to be thorough, and therefore, an unnecessary step. But, perhaps that is all a more lengthy discussion and opinion that I can shelve for a later time. |
| Part of the title of this blog is the word “independent”. Some might think that what I meant by titling this blog that way that I was implying I am a political independent. However, I’m not quiet or shy about my support for the Libertarian Party. That isn’t a true political independent. Rather the title of the blog is intended to infer independent thinking, not just on politics but on everything. I think most libertarians (notice it is the small “l” and not the big “L”) tend to be independent thinkers, because the philosophy sort of attracts it. I was once asked by a high school student where the Libertarian (now I am using the big “L”) Party fits on the Liberal vs. Conservative spectrum. He had drawn out in his notes Liberal on one side of a line and Conservative on the other side, with Republic on one end and Democrat on the other with a handful of brief (three or four) oversimplified explanations. I disagreed with the brief explanations, but that wasn’t his question. He wanted to know where Libertarians fit on there. I don’t know whether my answer helped him, and it probably didn’t fit his teacher’s narrative. My answer was that the Libertarian Party does not exist on that line. The most typical explanation is the Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I hate that explanation. I bristle at it, because it doesn’t really define the philosophy well and therefore can’t properly describe the place in which the party fits. Libertarians are classical liberals, which is a very different things from what we call liberals today. They are, as the the name implies, strongly for individual liberty. It takes a different paradigm to describe libertarianism. Instead of the typical left/right, liberal/conservative way of thinking, on one end of the spectrum you have individual liberty, and on the other end of the spectrum, you have totalitarianism. So, both the Republicans and the Democrats fit somewhere just to the right of the middle, slightly more toward the totalitarian end, but would probably be labeled “authoritarian”. How close each one is to totalitarianism would be based upon one’s perspective and opinion. Libertarians would exists somewhere close to the individual liberty end of the spectrum. So, in a practical example, imagine the US Revolutionary War and the founding fathers of this nation. The founding fathers were classical liberals fighting for their individual freedoms to pursue their natural rights as human beings. They were fighting against a monarchy that wanted to dictate many aspects of their lives - perhaps not completely totalitarian, but certainly close in their way of thinking. Libertarianism is based primarily on what is called the “Non-Agression Principal”, or NAP. The NAP is a very simply stated principal. Do whatever you wish, so long as you are not aggressing upon another person’s liberties. It sounds simple, but its applications can be somewhat complex. The principal is used to apply to government and to foreign policy, as well as to individuals. So, for example, taking another person’s property is theft, whether it be government or an individual. Therefore, in the minds of libertarians, taxation is theft. It’s a matter of how much theft is necessary and can be tolerated. According to the NAP, the concept of eminent domain is a way to take a person’s property away from him by force - another form of theft. So, we would not have publicly funded roads. In the extreme, the NAP can be applied in such a way as to support anarchy. However, the majority of Libertarians are not anarchists but apply the NAP with exceptions. And, as in the case of abortion, the NAP can be applied and create opposing ideas that reached entirely different conclusions. While the majority of Libertarians are pro-choice, many are also pro-life, using the same basic principal top support their ideas. I hope the high school student’s testing was in essay questions, because I doubt my explanation to him would have sufficed for his teacher’s multiple choice questions. But, I felt I needed to answer honestly and more correctly. There are many finer points to the NAP and to libertarianism. In fact Libertarians spend as much time arguing with each other as they do with other political parties. But, they all agree of the same basic direction - a much more limited government with a heavy emphasis on individual liberty. |
| Not all the items in this blog contain political commentary. As the introduction and title suggests, there are many types of musings I hope to include. It is okay to disagree, and it is okay to be wrong. I believe this is all too often forgotten in society. It’s nothing new, though. There are wars, genocides, and all manor of horrors produced for what, in the end, amounts to a simple disagreement that gets so large that it gets out of hand. Now, I am not naive enough to believe that learning to agree to disagree is going to solve all the wars and atrocities. Human history proves it. However, as individuals, we are not nations. At a more micro level, acceptance of disagreement can improve our understanding, can improve are relationships with others, and can even strengthen our own beliefs and arguments. At it’s face, even to me as I write it, it seems like an overly simplistic ideal. But I have noticed such an enrichment in my own life of not being afraid to be wrong, making bold statements, and then accepting that others disagree and embracing it. Imagine a world where everyone agrees on everything. There would be no one to call out what it wrong, therefore, when we are wrong, we would be universally wrong. And, what a boring and terrible place it would be to live. I believe in an absolute truth. I believe that there is always a wrong answer and a right one. It’s just that we don’t always have the truth. We can get it wrong. Truth doesn’t change, but perception of it does. If I am absolutely convinced I have the truth of something, I am a fool if I compromise on that belief unless I have evidence to show me otherwise. In the same way, I am a fool if I refuse convincing evidence that shows I am wrong. I am not afraid to be wrong. I am more afraid to not examine the evidence and make a decision. It is entirely possible for two intelligent people to see the same things and draw different conclusions. One of them is right, and one of them is wrong. Or, I suppose in some cases they may both be wrong or they may both be right, but there is always a correct way of looking at it. One should welcome the disagreement as a test of whether he believes is correct. How can he know if his thinking is not tested? There is so much to be gained from listening to opposing arguments with an open mind, and not only listening but actively trying to find convincing evidence one way or another in what another person has to say. It’s valuable to a person’s well being. Opposing points a view are not the enemy. People who think differently from me are my friends and aids in helping test my thinking. When someone disagrees, it is not a personal attack, and should not be considered offensive. It should be considered a welcome opportunity of open discourse. Perhaps the world’s nations are not capable of such attitudes, but we as individuals can enjoy such opportunities to make bold fearless statements and to politely openly challenge those that disagree, and to welcome their disagreement when they challenge us. It is perfectly okay to disagree and remain friends. It is also okay to be wrong and not fear it. It’s just how we progress as human beings. |
| A couple of articles of mine that were recently published: https://beinglibertarian.com/face-clinton-trump-remember-berlin-wall/ https://beinglibertarian.com/unpaid-tax-collector/ |
| Remember making up games as a kid? We all did it. A group of kids gets together and makes up some sort of game and forms a few rules for the game. After a while, some of the kids recommend more rules to try to make the game more workable and playable. But, after a while longer, even more rules come about from some kids who want to advantage certain people and disadvantage others. Even some of the rules intended to advantage everyone start to be too much, until eventually nobody can remember all the rules, and they're being called "out" without even knowing what they did. The game isn't fun anymore and the hopes and dreams of creating a new sport for the Olympics are just dashed. The US Constitution has somewhere around 7,500 words, about 15 or 16 pages worth on standard paper. Those are the rules set forth that not only established our nation but also established the rules our government should follow. Both the Democrat and Republican parties have party platforms that are almost exactly the same length - around 55 pages. So, these parties have established sets of rules they believe should be used to explain how the original rules should be implemented (or in some cases ignored). So, it takes both Republicans and Democrats nearly 4 times more rules than the Constitution itself to explain how they think government should function. The Libertarian Party platform is only about 3 or 4 pages long. I don't agree with everything that's in it, but it's exceptionally simple and to the point. It doesn't take a whole lot to simply say, "We think you are a smart person and can figure things out for yourself. We just want to leave you alone." If you are curious about what Libertarians believe, it doesn't take much time or effort to read their entire platform. If someone told you to read the other parties' platforms, you wonder why they hated you so much to suggest such incredibly long, tedious, and boring literature. If someone suggested you read the Libertarian platform, you'd still wonder why they hated you, but at least you could be done with the torture much sooner. Check out the included link, if you're curious. https://www.lp.org/platform |
 Log in to Leave Feedback |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
