Is there a particular side of the political spectrum that you feel more comfortable with, or a label you attach to yourself? Are there are any politicians or public intellectuals you feel represent your views? Obama? Rand Paul? Any Rand? Chomsky? Sam Harris? Someone else? And particular philosophy from which you derive/ground your beliefs?

I haven't exactly drifted all over the map but have certainly moved over the course of my adult life. I was a small "l" libertarian when I was younger but have moved further to the left and to the right, depending on the issue. Not sure what to call myself now - maybe liberltarian, although I'm still not comfortable with that. Anyone else want to share?

If religious people want to share how they've evolved politically, too, they can. I just don't want a "The Bible says this" thread.

Labels are tough. . . they all carry some baggage. By the standard of this board, I'm definitely on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I'm definitely not comfortable with a lot of the baggage and whatnot that comes with the label as its used today. I think I have a fairly conservative viewpoint on a number of issues. Its a hard question to answer without writing a book to back up why/what I believe. It would almost be easier to a questionnaire about certain issues. .

libertarian

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Libertarians put logic over emotions

---

FIFY

Quote:

---

I'm not libertarian since I think we should probably protect the environment in many cases.

---

Funny. I'm libertarian and I think we should protect the environment as well.

I used to be very conservative. Now I'm socially very liberal and economically a mixed bag. I like the philosophy of libertarianism and generally consider myself a left libertarian, but I don't trust people enough to think it would work well.

I'm fine with government action when threat of damage is proven.

Libertarians are still the children of politics.

The world is force. You are the children on the playground yelling and creating rules to protect the sanctity of a childhood game that will never be fair. And everyone on the playground is letting you think the game is fair so they can exploit you. No one else on the playground cares about fairness.

And you still believe in the fairy tale.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I'm fine with government action when threat of damage is proven.

---

Define proven. In a lot of cases, what folks demand for proof would mean that a response is a little too late.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Libertarians are still the children of politics.

The world is force. You are the children on the playground yelling and creating rules to protect the sanctity of a childhood game that will never be fair. And everyone on the playground is letting you think the game is fair so they can exploit you. No one else on the playground cares about fairness.

And you still believe in the fairy tale.

---

The bolded is a self-fulfilling prophecy used by despots for millennia to justify their brutality. At least libertarians use logic and reason to try and do better.

Never mind. I'll let you be the one to derail this thread.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I'm fine with government action when threat of damage is proven.

---

Define proven. In a lot of cases, what folks demand for proof would mean that a response is a little too late.

---

The level of proof should be decided by state and city governments.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I'm fine with government action when threat of damage is proven.

---

Define proven. In a lot of cases, what folks demand for proof would mean that a response is a little too late.

---

The level of proof should be decided by state and city governments.

---

Environmental damage doesn't stop at state and city lines.

Quote:

---

Well said hitler

---

From anonymous texags poster to hitler?

If another state can prove damage to their environment by action of other states then the federal gov can get involved.

The EPA as it is is far more detrimental to the country than a benefit.

Things such as less pollution by cars is far more a result of fuel efficiency required by the competition of free market and demand of fuel than any government policy.

Lawsuits are valid actions of the judicial system to prevent companies from being dumb.

Companies are run by people. People don't want to live in trash.

The government oversells to you it's worth in changing these things and is happy to strangle our economy and pocketbooks to do it.

Despots

JayAggie said:

---

Quote:

---

Well said hitler

---

From anonymous texags poster to hitler?

---

Hitler is obviously far too much. The poster he said that to has spent 2 threads advocating the use of government force to make nonbelievers act more "Christian". But the Hitler charge is far too much.

It's simply pointing out that hitler would say the same thing. I'm not literally saying the poster is as bad as hitler.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

It's simply pointing out that hitler would say the same thing. I'm not literally saying the poster is as bad as hitler.

---

Oh I know. I got that.

Um, Doc, I wasn't exactly looking for name calling on this thread, just conversation.

I would say that one of the reasons I drifted away from libertarianism is because it's too idealistic, followed by a further drifting due to a more general (and more radical, depending on your point of view) change in my beliefs. I do think government action is necessary for a lot of things. It's difficult to know where to draw the line, but the main thing I still hold from my libertarian days is a strong "belief" in rights.

"Belief" is in quotation marks there because I don't believe in the existence of natural rights, but I do think they make society better. To me, that's a good enough reason to fight for them.

As far as the welfare state goes, I'm for it, though I don't think I could give a good synopsis of what exactly I'm for.

I'm not trying to offend just zing a lil. I pity libers because they are trying to make utpiaand that's commendable. It's just a not realistic view of the world.

The main reason I asked atheists and agnostics this question was because I wanted to know how y'alls (lack of) religious belief informed your politics. Since we don't have a book that we can consult for every decision, it can be tough.

Woody or any of the other libertarians, how did you come to libertarianism? My parents are conservatives, but I started to have issues with some of the positions the Republican Party (yes, I know conservative does not necessarily equal Republican, but go with me here) held while I was in high school. My switch to libertarianism happened at basically the same time as I became an atheist, my freshman/sophomore years at A&M.

Carl Underguard said:

---

The main reason I asked atheists and agnostics this question was because I wanted to know how y'alls (lack of) religious belief informed your politics. Since we don't have a book that we can consult for every decision, it can be tough.

Woody or any of the other libertarians, how did you come to libertarianism? My parents are conservatives, but I started to have issues with some of the positions the Republican Party (yes, I know conservative does not necessarily equal Republican, but go with me here) held while I was in high school. My switch to libertarianism happened at basically the same time as I became an atheist, my freshman/sophomore years at A&M.

---

I was a good little Republican when I was a Christian. A lot of my philosophies changed when I became a non-believer. Freedom became more important to me than it used to be.

Basically, I no longer could justify injustices in my head by thinking "God will sort this all out in the end". Allowing people to do whatever they want with their lives as long as they don't harm others is the only thing that makes sense to me now.

I do not go so far as big L Libertarian where I support an almost governmentless society. I support the rights of states, as formed by the USC to form their society as they see fit so long as natural rights are respected.

However, I became a little l libertarian long before I ever really questioned my Christianity. My religious beliefs never had an effect on my political ones. Basic timeline would be:

Teen - Liberal
Early 20's - Conservative/Republican
Late 20's - libertarian/constitutional conservative
early 30's - became agnostic.

I'm in my late 30's and have yet to see any arguments to change my recognition of natural rights that do not rest on anything but logic and reason.

I used to hate it when conservative Christians would sling the accusation of "If you don't believe in God, you can't believe in morality." I still don't think that's true - the only thing we can do is try to reason our way to morality. The one thing I think they were right about was about there being no natural rights without God. If they don't come from God, where do they come from? Evolution? It doesn't have a will, so clearly that's not possible. The people who formulated them believed in God and thought they came from him.

I had drifted away from libertarianism long before I gave up the belief in natural rights. It wasn't until I started reading a lot more philosophy books that I realized it wasn't tenable. At this point, I'm not too far off from a postmodernist, I think, although I know that's probably a dirty word around here.

If this sounds like a thread of me psychoanalyzing myself, it's probably because it is. I was just curious how y'all formed y'all's beliefs, with or without the help of God.

but on topic my views line up closest with libertarian. AS a young christian i too was "staunchly" republican but mostly because i didn't know any better. then i realized that a lot of how the republican party treats people, especially marginalized and oppressed ones, didn't line up at all with how my faith taught me to view people. i however couldn't get behind the fiscal policy of the democratic party (aka, wanton disregard for all concepts of math and economics) and found myself arriving at believing in a small/limited federal government.