Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Back just in time to declare my presidential campaign exploration

Even though I have been inactive on this blog for several months due to: parenting, a job change, and a move, the political scene never rests it seems. It is the season to explore the possibility of a presidential candidacy. It's time for the Democrats to pull out socialistic slogans, while trying to get the wealthy to donate to their campaigns. It's time for the Republicans to claim to be different from the "other party", while adhering to most of the same socialistic ideas (usually on a lesser scale though). Meanwhile, it is time for the third parties to be ignored by most the media and certainly the insiders in the political machine that fears a break-up of the monopoly. By the way, I am exploring a presidential run in the near future: A.D. 2020 (since I am not thirty-five yet and that is one of the few parts of the Constitution still followed).

If I sound a little disillusioned with the political state of the United States, it's because I am. Some have called me an idealist, but I guess I just think that we could always strive to be better. When I looked at the 2006 election possibilities in our area I was initially excited. However, as I came to actually look at the policies of the candidates running with the "two parties," I saw that they essentially had the same fundamental axioms. Namely, that government is needed to solve all social ills and should take any action to do so. I am not talking about government properly protecting its citizens from aggression and violence, I am talking about government dictating to the people how to: eat, drive, do business, raise their children, handle their property, express their beliefs, etc. This is Statism. This is Socialism. This is the religion of Socialism. This coercion is unconstitutional since these powers are not granted to the national government, besides the way they violate that First Amendment because Congress has indirectly declared a national religion. This all made me dissatisfied with the donkey and elephant that seemed to be leading us down a similar path at the expense of freedom and liberty. That is when I did more research on the Libertarian Party and started to realized that not everyone is letting the State take over. My disillusionment still exists, but I most admit I am more hopeful due to my new knowledge of this party.

The Libertarian Party was established in 1976 on the basis of being "a party of principles" such as freedom from government, limiting government, and expanding liberty. I agree with 95% of their platform (my main issue is the party's compromised stance on abortion). Libertarians would agree with those from the Constitution Party that the constitution should be followed. Libertarians claim to argue from logic and reason instead of "religion." I think that they are only partially correct here (since I think Christianity is a logical religion and our reason comes from God). Anyway, I would definitely recommend this third party as a fresh alternative to the status quo socialistic tendencies of other parties.

Info: www.lp.org - national website of LP
www.l4l.org - pro-life wing of Libertarian Party

1 comment:

Edric O said...

Hello again,

With regard to your comments on the Libertarian Party and the supposed "socialism" of the two dominant political parties, I would like to once again caution you against using the term "socialism" to refer to any and all government intervention beyond the limits of what you consider reasonable.

Socialists did not invent government. Government has been around for about five thousand years. Socialism is less than two hundred years old (the word "socialism" was coined by the Christian preacher Alexandre Vinet in 1831). Socialism is concerned above all with human equality, but the government, as such, can very well be used to enforce INequality (for example, to enforce the privileges of the aristocracy during the Middle Ages or to give money and special benefits to corporations today). Socialists support actions that promote equality, regardless of whether or not they involve the government. Indeed, the first socialists actually wanted to change the world through moral education and charity; it wasn't until the 1850s that socialists started looking at the government as a possible solution to social problems.

In brief, socialists want to maximize equality and eliminate poverty, and do not care very much HOW this is to be done. If we can do it through charity and moral education, good. If we have to use the government, that's fine too. Whatever gets the job done. We have no special attachment to the government - we just think it can get the job done better than anything else. If we could find an even better way to get the job done, we would throw away the government without a second's hesitation.

Some socialists are statists and some statists are socialists, but the two terms have very distinct meanings. A statist (a person who wants to expand the role of government) is not necessarily a socialist (a person who wants to promote human equality). Likewise, a socialist is not necessarily a statist.

Finally, regarding the Libertarian Party, I invite you to read the following website dedicated to criticisms of their philosophy:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

There are many criticisms of libertarianism from the conservative camp - here is one of the best:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html