What I Believe
I believe "freedom" means giving people as many opportunities to make decisions for themselves as practical. I don't think freedom is something that should be a special privilege for Americans.
I believe survival is a necessary prerequisite to living a free life and threats to that must be taken seriously. A "war of necessity" is something that happens when every opportunity to find a better way to deal with the threat has been ignored or fumbled, so having one is a sign of true incompetence in our leadership.
I believe the Islamofascist groups are the biggest threat to our survival currently. While their capabilities are limited their intentions are clear, so we have to take action to stop them before they can get stronger.
I believe the biological nature of humans constrains what political ideas can be successfully put into practice.
I believe human males will always struggle to grab the alpha male role, and the purpose of government is to minimize the collateral damage from those struggles and hopefully extract some value for the rest of us from the aspirants.
I believe reality never offers cost-free options. Making decisions requires weighing the good and bad in each possible choice and taking the one with the highest probability of a better outcome. Insisting on cost-free policies or error-free execution is just a way of demanding that nothing be done.
I believe pacificism is immoral. To see an evil act take place that you can stop and do nothing is immoral. Doing nothing is not a guaranteed way to avoid sin.
I believe the War on Drugs has done more damage to Americans' freedoms than the PATRIOT Act could even if it was as bad as its worst opponents say.
I believe no matter how bad a market or volunteer solution to a problem may be, it is possible for the government solution to be worse. Not that it will always
be worse, but alternatives should be considered carefully.
I believe all corporations, non-profit organizations, and government agencies will always be managed for the benefit of the managers.
I believe most political arguments come from different postulates and goals, and unless the participants are willing to examine where they're coming from no agreement is possible. Having different postulates may make it impossible to agree, but at least you can settle on why you do instead of throwing soundbites at each other.
My old posts are archived here (with some overlap):On the war against IslamofascismOn politics in general Current Mood: determined