Quote:
Originally Posted by dog8food
If so, when? Why? And what party did you change to?
|
Yes.
I was a die hard conservative for years and years until I came to the realization that republicans were just as statist as democrats, just statists of a different flavor. I came to this realization because I kept hearing republicans claim they were for smaller government, yet even when they had complete control, the government grew.
Republicans said they were for cutting the budget, deficit and debt, yet even when they had complete control, the budget, deficit and debt grew.
Republicans said they were for simplifying the tax code, yet even when they had complete control, the tax code became more and more complicated and onerous.
Republicans said they were for reducing unneeded regulations, yet even when they had complete control, they created more and more unneeded regulations.
Republicans said they were for law and order and fixing the illegal immigration problem, yet even when they had complete control, they did nothing substantial to stop illegals from coming here and damn little to deport the illegals who were already here. < In that situation they bowed to the special interests that wanted the cheap labor that comes with illegals.
Republicans said they were for fixing this nation's ills that were created and exasperated by government, yet all they did was talk a good game when in actuality what they did was sit on their useless tails as they allowed the status quo destroy this nation day after day, while they did nothing.
That combination of things is was what brought me to become a Libertarian where overall, the political party recognizes the true purpose of government, which is to protect our individual natural rights. The Declaration of Independence makes this crystal clear. The Libertarian party also recognizes that much of what the government currently does is NOT in its purpose nor is it something they have an enumerated authority to do.
When a POS republican claims they will DO things, and their party has all the power yet those things aren't done, that means doing those things were not in the politician's best interests and demonstrates the politician believes they have a better chance of getting reelected with all that "special interest" lobby money that keeps their reelection war chests full if they DON'T do the things they campaigned on.
By the way, something I typically notice is the fact that non-Libertarians will typically come out and make completely false statements like Libertarians are against there being any laws, rules or regulations. That simply isn't the case. They simply want a government that is LIMITED and operates within its LIMITED enumerated authority. If the government genuinely NEEDS a power, our beautifully constructed Constitutions, federal and State, allow a process of amendment so genuine power needs can be met. Instead, what we tend to get is unconstitutional laws, regulations and ordinances from ALL levels of government because politicians go around and pander to people by promising them that they would enact the will of the people (of their party or a particular issue) IF those people elect them. These politicians AND the people generally disregard whether the government has the enumerated authority to act on any specific issue.
A perfect example of why I am no longer a republican... gay rights and gay marriage. Up until very recently no government had the enumerated authority to regulate marriage in ANY manner. My home State recently and foolishly passed an amendment to its Constitution (which I voted AGAINST) defining marriage between a man and a woman.
To begin with, our Constitutions were NEVER intended to limit the rights of the People, rather they were designed to place limits upon the government by saying it can ONLY act in THESE specific areas. The US Constitution still allows NO enumerated authority for government to regulate marriage in ANY manner and no State Constitution granted that authority (which it could not lawfully do because a contract entered into in one State can not be voided by simply crossing State lines see Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution) until nearly 20 years ago when in 1998 Alaska passed an amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. As it is now, UNLESS the power to regulate marriage happens via an amendment to the US Constitution, NO State amendment barring gay marriage, defining marriage or anything of the sort is constitutional per numerous court cases because if a person can get married in any State, every other State must honor that contract per Article IV Section 1... PERIOD.
All that said, I'm against gay marriage even though I voted against my State's constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. How can I hold true to both beliefs? I am against gay marriage and have a natural right to oppose it and oppose being compelled to participate in it in any manner for ME and ME alone. I have ZERO right to impose MY will, beliefs, morality or dictates upon anyone else BUT me. If what another person does or doesn't do does not encroach upon another person's rights or property, I have no say in what they do because THAT is what LIBERTY is all about.
I could rant all day about many issues both the left AND the right have wrong it's not funny. The factual truth is, far too many people think they have a natural right to impose THEIR will, beliefs, morality or dictates upon everyone else, yet they get angry when the opposition does the same to them. Morality (especially religious morality, and YES, I AM a Christian) is what we are suppose to impose upon ourselves as individuals. I have no right to impose MY will, beliefs, morality or dictates upon anyone else, PERIOD. Neither does anyone else, PERIOD.
In order to differentiate actual criminal activity (for the people who demand to impose THEIR will) one must look at the two types of criminal law. There is malum in se which are crimes where the action or inaction of a person encroaches upon the rights or property of another. The other type is malum prohibitum which are crimes simply because some people "don't like" the action or inaction of another, even if that action or inaction does not encroach upon the rights or property of another.
Every single malum prohibitum law is a BS law that NEVER should have been placed upon the books. Every single malum in se law would still be a crime whether or not there was a law against the action or inaction because it involves encroaching upon the rights or property of another.
I wish I could give some brief and pithy comment as to why I changed parties and why I changed ideology but the truth is it isn't a simple answer. It is a very complex issue that I had to work hard to get through over a course of about 10 years. Now it is second nature to me but I can assure you it was a difficult process for me to make that change and apply it to each and every issue because just like everyone else, I had my hot button issues that I was steadfast on, fighting in ignorance for the supposed right to impose MY will, beliefs, morality and dictates upon others when I have no such right.
Sorry for the long post... but you asked.
And as always, that's just MY opinion, fwiw.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
