Politricks

When it comes to American politics, we all know "the rules":

Rule #1 - The fake choice.  You must chose between one of two political parties, Democrats or Republicans--otherwise, as the big fraud claims, you are simply "throwing your vote away".

Rule #2 - Your assigned beliefs.  Once you choose a party, ALL of your beliefs are decided for you.  Regardless of your personal beliefs on the individual issues, your party politicians will vote on your behalf as follows:

So, if you feel really, extremely, ridiculously strongly about one of these issues (or simply agree with one side slightly more than you do the other) you can vote that way and have all the other issues decided for you.  Or, if you are split pretty evenly, you can flip a coin--what's the difference?  You can either go with the democrats where most decisions revolve around feelings, sensitivities, and the government ensuring fairness, or you can go with the republicans where most decisions revolve around religious beliefs, moralities, and the government knowing what's best.

The problem with a two party system such as ours extends beyond merely having to choose between the better of two evils.  Neither party gives you the opportunity to hold a consistent set of beliefs.  This is because neither party derives its belief structure from a consistent source.  Democrats largely rely on feelings, Republicans generally rely on morality, and both parties claim to rely on the Constitution (when it happens to agree with the democrat's feelings or the republican's morals).  Both parties use a mixture of feeling, philosophy, and agenda to define their policies and both are forced to hold conflicting stances.  You can not adhere to all the beliefs generally held within either party without being a hypocrite.

If you are a democrat, how does it make any sense to be ok with killing unborn babies, but against killing mass murderers?  How can you truly support fairness and equality for all, while you expect one class of people to be completely supported by the work of another?  How can you claim to support free expression, but also support laws against "hate speech"?

If you are a republican, how can you support the rights of people to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, but fight tooth and nail against marijuana?  How can you frame so many arguments around morality and values, but then fight against health care and bomb poor people in foreign countries into oblivion?  How can you refuse to allow illegals in because they take our jobs, but then be ok with sending our jobs out to them?

Consistency.  It simply cannot exist in a system such as ours.  Enter Libertarianism.  Libertarians try to derive all of their opinions from one source--support for individual liberty.  This happens to be the same source that was relied on when our founding fathers framed our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  The belief structure is simple:  Government should be small and limited, and people should be able to do whatever they want as long as their actions don't hinder anyone else's ability to do the same.  People have the right to decide their own morality, and are responsible for the consequences of their decisions.  This results in far more consistency across the typical issues.  Let's re-examine the list above in a purely Constitutional / small government / individual liberty approach:

*Abortion and the death penalty, are very unlikely to have a unified stance within ANY party--because they rely on personal beliefs about when someone becomes human and when someone can no longer be considered human.  Even these complex issues, where there appears to be no stance, remain completely consistent in their adherence to the Constitution (which clearly says that some issues are better left to individual states).

This is why I always implore people to re-examine their political views, and try to adjust them around a singular unified source--Personal Liberty.  Instead of framing all issues in terms of conservative vs liberal, democrat vs republican, or moral vs immoral--try framing them in terms of individual liberty vs government control.  This exercise is not easy.  Sometimes it's very difficult to do--particularly where personal moral and/or religious beliefs are involved.  You must realize that leaving your own moral and political beliefs out of politics does not mean that you are leaving them out of your life.  You can remain true to your beliefs by choosing to live your own life according to them.  You are simply making a decision not to impose your beliefs or lifestyle on other people, because you wouldn't want them to impose their beliefs or lifestyles on you.  Furthermore, if you must choose between a democrat and a republican, try to remain as true as you can to liberty--pick the candidate who does the most to increase individual liberty (and/or decrease government intervention).

It's all about consistency.  If you support individual liberty you will never be a hypocrite.