Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Update on Blogger's "Philosophy"
I have attempted to make my basic philosophy and biases clearer by expanding the "My Philosophy" section of the blog. I have attempted to clarify my version of "cautious libertarianism." FWIW, scroll down the right side of the opening page to " More About the Author" and then go to "My philosophy." I'd like to hear from posters as to their agreement/disagreement with this philosophy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The issue of religion in government is absent in these pronunciamentios . . . are we being discreet? My motive, of course, is concern over the attempts by the American religious right to move us toward theocracy. I find it alarming.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we share common political ground, "Tenthers" come nearest my own personal values. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenther_movement. That said, I'm not a confederate like my paternal ancestry. As an independent Texan-American voter, I adhere to our country's original federalism wherein specific powers are divided among separate sovereigns as stated in Madison's federalist commentary 45. I agree with Ridgway's concern about mixing religious dogma with public administration. The prior does help guide people's personal morals, but the latter should be driven by ethical standards.
ReplyDelete44: thanks for the comment. I, and I suspect most "libertarians" support the concept of federalism and the Tenth Amendment as these are limits on federal power. Certainly today, the greatest threat to civil liberties overall comes for the feds, not the states.
ReplyDeleteRidgway: Glad you're back. To a certain extent the issue of religion in government is covered by the First Amendment's establishment clause. Freedom of speech would supplement this and forbid mandatory public school prayer and Bible reading. Freedom-limiting legislation supported by anyone, including the religious right must meet principle #2. Bans on drinking, dancing, gambling, abortion, etc. would violate that principle.
Thanks guys. I may make some additions to the piece.
FWIW: I have added some material to "My Philosophy" in response to 44 & Ridgway's comments. I'd like to get more feedback on this.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem any thinking and reasonable person would always use qualifiers in describing their given position or philosophy. It is always good to say where you sit before you say where you stand. To tell the world you are a libertarian or a Democrat or a Republican really says little about who or what someone is except they are often lockstep with an entity outside of themselves. In the context of today's evolving political positions, to use the terminology of "cautious libertarian" advises of a thoughtful presence. That being said, when confronted with an opinion I agree or disagree with, I need to ask myself am I doing so out of a gut reaction and an ad hominem response is about to exit from my mouth, or can I have an appreciation for the elements of a given assertion and respond with intelligence and common sense?
ReplyDeletejr: Thanks for the post. I wish we all could do better in following your advice about reflecting before responding. In this highly polarized political environment, that is sometimes not easy.
ReplyDelete