|
|
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
| | If the US (through some dreadful series of mistakes) became ruled by a dictatorship, and some country elsewhere in the world wanted to "liberate" us and restore democracy, wouldn't that be a good thing (assuming we had any trust at all in the intentions of the potential invaders)? Furthermore, would it not be ''loyal to the Constitution'' (which does not in any sense allow for totalitarian rule)? | | If the US (through some dreadful series of mistakes) became ruled by a dictatorship, and some country elsewhere in the world wanted to "liberate" us and restore democracy, wouldn't that be a good thing (assuming we had any trust at all in the intentions of the potential invaders)? Furthermore, would it not be ''loyal to the Constitution'' (which does not in any sense allow for totalitarian rule)? |
| | | | |
| − | ==Judgement & Religion== | + | ==Judgement |
| − | I believe that making one's own judgements is an important part of being human (in the best sense of the word). I don't mean that you should never say "well, I'll defer to your judgement on this"; you're still making the final judgement call about whether to trust the other person's opinion, on a case-by-case basis. The problem arises when a person (a "[[authoritarian follower|follower]]") accepts the judgement of another (a "[[authoritarian leader|leader]]") as supreme on all matters, and only allows their own judgement to prevail when the "leader" has no opinion or specifically gives the "follower" permission to decide on his/her own.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Organized religion worries me, in large part because of this very tendency to centralize ultimate moral authority.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Anyone who says that everything good in their life has come from their religion obviously hasn't read enough good science fiction. (Recommendations to follow, when I get around to it.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Gender/Sexual Issues==
| |
| − | I see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, cross-dressing (transvestitism), transsexuality, or any other form of sexual/gender oddity, as long as nobody is getting hurt. I think our definition of what consitutes a family unit is far too limiting (see [[htwiki:Hyperfamily]] for an alternative concept).
| |
| − | | |
| − | Apparently there is a huge amount of disagreement about whether gender roles are learned or innate. It seems quite plain to me that there is a good deal of variation: some people are wired such that they are perfectly comfortable in their assigned gender roles but would not behave in the prescribed way if society didn't encourage it, while others gravitate naturally towards the behaviors society prefers (or even views as "stereotypical"). Still others are wired to prefer behaviors prescribed to the ''other'' gender, which is at least circumstantial evidence that gender can be "hard-wired" and that it varies from person to person.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I also don't see what's so terrible about prostitution; it doesn't seem to me any worse than any other situation in which one endangers one's health for money. It should be legalized and regulated like any other risky profession (as it is in some countries, most notably The Netherlands).
| |
| − | ==Life Issues==
| |
| − | As far as life being sacred... I think if anything is sacred, it is the ''spirit'', not the "life" of the spirit's container (body). I would propose the following:
| |
| − | * Every spirit deserves a vessel (body) worthy of it. (The spirit (soul/mind) deserves a body which is physically able to support the spirit, without chronic pain or excessive maintenance, and carry out the spirit's wishes within reason)
| |
| − | * A new spirit deserves to be born into a community that wants it and has the ability to care for it adequately until it is able to care for itself
| |
| − | * Every spirit has the right to choose to end itself
| |
| − | * If the spirit is too new to be able to make or express its life decisions, then the parents (or the community) must make those decisions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This leaves open a lot of issues which need to be addressed, such as when do parents abandon their right of choice, when is a parental decision out of bounds, etc.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Illegal Drugs==
| |
| − | I worry more about the dangers posed by laws (e.g. [[wikipedia:RICO (law)|RICO]]) which attempt to prevent usage of certain [[Psychoactive Drugs|psychoactive substances]] than I do about the danger posed by the substances themselves. (I do not, however, personally indulge in any such substances other than caffeine.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Politics==
| |
| − | I was very disheartened by the 2004 election results; it seemed clear that Mr. Bush was bent on advancing an agenda of using foreign aggression as an opportunity to spend huge amounts of government money on "reconstruction" contracts which could then be used to increase his power via favoritism (i.e. giving contracts in exchange for favors and personal support) while doing very little towards increasing "security", despite that being the nominal justification for the majority of his actions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Since then, I have seen very little to change that opinion, but I continue to be baffled by the fact that most of the country still seems to think he's doing the right thing and doing it well. I started Issuepedia partly as an attempt to untangle the complex web of assumptions and beliefs behind the various opinions (pro and con) on the matter.
| |
| − | ==Wacky Liberalism==
| |
| − | Normally I tend to fall on the so-called liberal side of things, but below I will be collecting examples of instances where liberalism has clearly gone too far:
| |
| − | *[http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110007364 The Sex-Offender Lobby]
| |
This is my Position Statement regarding various things.
Patriotism
I believe that loyalty to the ideals of democracy is more important than loyalty to any particular nation, including loyalty to the United States. However, the United States is one of the few countries founded upon those ideals; as such, defending the United States against foreign invaders or against being taken over by forces inimical to democracy (whether those forces originate from within or without the US) is equivalent to, and thus just as important as, loyalty to those ideals.
In other words, defending the core values of the United States, as represented (perhaps imperfectly) by the Constitution, is important because of those core values, not because of loyalty to the United States as a country. (The latter being represented by the "My country, right or wrong" mentality.)
If the US (through some dreadful series of mistakes) became ruled by a dictatorship, and some country elsewhere in the world wanted to "liberate" us and restore democracy, wouldn't that be a good thing (assuming we had any trust at all in the intentions of the potential invaders)? Furthermore, would it not be loyal to the Constitution (which does not in any sense allow for totalitarian rule)?
==Judgement