picture, in your mind, an america where there's suddenly a viable third party for the upcoming 2010 elections. they have some views from the left, and some from the right, but what they base all these views on is the idea that personal freedom trumps every other concern. according to them, the government shouldn't be able to stop you from:

owning a gun

having an abortion

refusing to wear a seatbelt

marrying whatever consenting adult you want

using recreational drugs

choosing assisted suicide

homeschool children

would you vote for them?

i think it's interesting, because while there's some things on that list i don't necessarily agree with, i do like the majority. i like the idea of people being free to do things as a basic tenant of a party's viewpoint.

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

that's the american dream, booth! :)

believe it or not i was hoping this thread would elicit some actual thoughtful responses from forum members with strong political opinions, not just the usual jackassery.

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

I couldn't vote for a party like that based solely on what you have there. One by one :

owning a gun - perfectly fine with that - I'm even okay with some regulation in an effor to keep CRIMINALS from legally owning a gun (is that part of the party platform?)

having an abortion - are we talking at any point in the pregnancy, including late-term? Then no.

refusing to wear a seatbelt - fine with me - your choice, if you're in an accident it's highly doubtful you're going to kill someone else by not wearing a belt. Same with motorcycle helmets.

marrying consenting adults - does this include polygamy and inner-family marriages?

using recreational drugs - see, I have an issue with this one and need to know more information. We talking about all drugs? Marijuana only? What about meth and cocaine and heroin? You wanna legalize weed, then fine, let's tax it out the wazoo like we do cigarettes. Plus no one should complain in 50 years if we find out that weed causes cancer like cigarettes.I don't necessarily like the idea of legalizing recreational drugs but it sure would stop some of the stuff going on down at the border right now! LOL

assisted suicide - that's why we legalize guns 100%, so we don't need to worry about "assisted" suicide.that's why we have bridges, skyscrapers, cars and garages, and grandsons named Billy.

homeschool children - ?? It's legal to do this. you mean not pay educational taxes if you homeschool? not sure i understand this one.

As you have this, i can only agree with maybe half of them as they are. I need to be able see the details before I could jump on board with a 3rd party.

I'll be completely honest -- right now, if i could just have a party that is truly fiscally responsible and believes in less govt, I'd be all over that! I could care less about most of the things you listed in fact.

The idea that personal freedom trumps every other concern I think is a problem right there. You can't have true personal freedom due to human nature and humanity's need for greed, personal fullfillment and over-indulgence. There has to be some restrictions to personal freedom otherwise you are left with chaos and anarchy. I think most would agree with that, but once you admit to that then you ahve to figure out where the line is drawn, and strangely enough, that line is constantly moved as we grow older and times change.

So this wonderful 3rd party would end up just like one of the two we already have, and we're still screwed.

Jordan .

see, i think the ambiguity on those issues is part of the hypothetical-- we never QUITE know what we're getting with our elected officials. still, i think it's interesting you turned it down. and j. it seems like, so far, given my vague outline, i'm more in favor of pushing personal freedoms to their extreme. i suppose i just don't thinm it's possible to successfully legislate morality.

what's an "inner-family marriage"? did you mean inter-family, as in incestual? i don't see anything inherenty wrong with bigamy/polygamy, but incest sure is interesting from a moral standpoint! i think it's pretty close-minded to think of marriage as an institution that "should" result in offspring. given that, as long as an incestual couple isn't producing children with an overwhelming genetic tendancy to be born disabled, there's not really anything wrong with two consenting related adults having a romantic relationship. i guess.

god, someone talk me out of that one, i don't exactly relish the idea of thinking it's ok for a grandmother to fuck her granddaughter with a strapon, ew!

i just wanted to address this point seperately-- i agree 100% (provided we didn't end up throwing all the homos in camps or nuking other countries-- some things aren't QUITE worth a balanced budget). i not-so-secretly hope that the republicans keep imploding not because i want them to fail but because i want them to get back to their roots that way. i flat-out like nixon (from a policy standpoint) better than any president since, and that's pretty fucking sad.
 

Legislating morality isn't easy, but then let's define morality (and I'm not trying to pull a Clinton). Basic morality is do not murder, do not steal, etc and we legislate all that. Morality isn't just no same-sex marriage, no abortion, etc. Morality is just defining what is right and what is wrong.

The reality is that if we want to give true freedom to people through marriage then you need to allow INTER family marriage (and plural marriage). The thought of their offspring shouldn't matter since "abortion is okay" - society has shown we ultimately don't care about fetuses - they can abort that disabled child, can't they? And if they don't, that's their RIGHT TO CHOOSE, correct? That's all that matters, in the end. Right to choose.....we shouldn't care about what is wrong with the child - the parents (sorry mother) can choose what she wants to do - keep or abort. So there should be no issue of morality with inter-family marriages as a result when it comes to offspring either.

It's all about slippery slopes. A little questionable restriction there (spying on terrorists without warrants), a little freedom here (same-sex marriages), and then where does that lead us? Spying on US citizens for political reasons with no warrant? Are ALL OF US okay with polygamy and inter-family marriages? (I'm guessing not -- but remember, it's about "love" and freedom, so why not?)

Legalizing drugs for example. I know there's a debate about whether or not weed is a gateway drug. Fine - I won't get into that, but what does legalizing weed do for us? No longer makes millions of Americans criminals, creates a new business that Marlboro can get into now and US govt gets lots of new tax dollars. But where does that lead us next? If it's okay to sell it, can i grow it legally? Neighbor legally addicted to weed knows neighbor is growing, we have theft perhaps? Now that weed is legal, what drug is next? Cocaine - a potential killer? Heroin - another killer? Meth - could kill several if a house explodes? Opium? Where do we stop? how far do we go? Drugs are often called victim-less crime. And in many cases it is, so is driving drunk, until someone's rights (or life) is disrupted, it's no longer victimless.

Once you give a little, there has to be restrictions on the next step, correct?

Jordan .

you mean pro-abortion movement, right? Sorry, I was probably a bit more pointed than I intended (I try to avoid the abortion debate for the most part becuase it's pointless). Ultimately it pro-choice comes down to 1 thing - CHOICE. So everything aside, the moral concern of bringing forth disabled children through a inter-family relationship should not be a moral or ethical concern at all since abortion is legal. Mothers have a CHOICE to end that pregnancy (or not end it).

Jordan .

hahaha looks like i decided to trump your earlier typo. :)

yeah, i think what it boils down to on some level is not so much the abortion issue in regards to incest, but let's say an adult father and daughter fall for each other, get married, and decide to have babies. should they have the right to produce and raise children that are almost guaranteed to be developmentally disabled? THERE's a sticky wicket.

Are incest laws in place to protect the potential child to be born or because our society deems inter-marriage to be wrong in some way, or both reasons?

Jordan .

 It wasn't illegal in many ancient civilizations like Egypt where royals wed brothers and sisters to maintain their lineage.  But what about the two sisters who plan to wed?  Two brothers?  No worries of procreation there.  Let's not be so judgemental, okay?  Not to mention ageist.   There might also be siblings who choose to wed past the age of childbearing.  And let's not discriminate against the brother with a sister and a brother he'd like to wed since he's a bi-sexual. 

If you only FEEL... and you have no real guide book as to your morality outside of the slippery slope of feelings... then it should only take a generation or so to alter those prejudices.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

well clearly you're being sarcastic, what alternative to actually weighing the harm done to others would you offer?
 

Has anybody read Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides?  A brother and sister, immigrants escaping war in Greece, come to America.  They live as husband and wife, and their child is born with both male and female sexual characteristics. It is an incredible book, and makes real what you are talking about. When one gets in close to the true human experience, it's easier to give up judgement. Real human beings get entangled in all of these issues, and every single one has its own point of view.  When I try to fit together human nature with laws and politics, my brain shorts out.  What a task, considering the level of consciousness most humans exhibit. All I can come up with is living my own life as ethically as possible, intending it to be contagious.  

The Buddha taught five precepts: 1. To refrain from killing 2. To refrain from stealing 3. To refrain from sexual misconduct 4. To refrain from false, harsh, and idle speech 5. To refrain from intoxicants that cloud the mind.  In an ideal world, right?

Nefud - You think Susan is being sarcastic but she raises valid points. If there's no procreation involved (two sisters or two brothers), should it be wrong/illegal (incest)? It hurts no one (no children involved) so there is no harm to others.

There's several reasons I've been going down this road. Few of us ever think about the slipper slope - we just react to THE ISSUE. But if the issue is a "gateway drug" to other things, are we comfortable with going forward? One law builds on another. One ruling allows another ruling to be allowed. Where does it end? And if we're not comfortable with something (like with inter-marriage) should that "freedom" be ok?

You started a conversation about a third party, and I think you offer a really good topic. Could we vote for a valid third party who generally believes in those items (even vague)? Personally, no - not without more information, esp.

Getting back to the slippery slope - let's talk about a recent slippery slope by the Obama admin which has nothing to do with morality or ethics - the president having the power to fire a CEO. And on Drudge, there's a headline that the administration may fire other CEOs of PRVIATE firms. Talk about slippery slopes.

Jordan .

Jordan .