While in a chatroom earlier today, the participants started asking each other where they stood politically ... conservative or liberal. They all agreed that they could not categorize me in either of those.
This is simple to understand. I am neither fully. The closest political parties to whom I can be compared are the Natural Law Party and the Libertarians. I am very conservative when it comes to the role of government in our lives, feeling that the government should return to a state of original intent defined in the U.S. Constitution. At the same time, I am very liberal when it comes to the rights of individuals living their lives in peace (ie without interference from the government or majority of our society) and have equal opportunity when it comes to participation in our society, be that political, economic, or socially.
Unlike ''liberals'' who think this can only come under the authority and control of government (which contributes to our growing, unconstitutional government agencies), I feel these goals can be created by the citizens of the United States and other countries independently of government. For true change to come about within a society, one must first educate the people about why the proposed change is better than maintaining the status quo. And as Benjamin Franklin said, "this is not the work of a single day."
Our problems arise when liberal organizations and foundations fund litigation (lawsuits) to force social change down the throats of mainstream society, or when activist politicians pass ill-conceived laws to curry the favor of the social majority regardless of the negative impacts of such change or legislation.
The over-all impact of the liberal agenda in the United States has, to date, been a dissertation in how to destroy a country. The liberal activism of our politicians and foundations have lead to the near-disaster of the welfare programs, so-called education reforms, and out of control political correctness in our country.
Most liberals have been secretive about their agenda, but on occassion one of them slips up and says something that gives them away. Consider the following quotes and their sources. See if you can pick out which are liberals.
What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.
When only cops have guns, its called a 'police state'
For the record, I am not a gun-toting, card-carrying member of the NRA or any other such organization. Personally, I do not even own a gun and have never liked firing them, even when I was in the military twenty years ago. However, if provoked by invaders or our own government becoming oppressive to the rights of myself or my community, that could easily change.