Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Why I dont care

Now, in my circles at least, when we lose we more often than not take it in the chin and realize defeat. Very few times do we go galavanting around talking about "stolen" elections, appointed positions, how stupid the other side is...We simply bow out gracefully and realize we lost. We go back to our corner to and figure out how to win next time. The other side seems to cry louder ever single year.

I wasn't politically inclined in the early 90's. I got my start into politics around 95. Mostly national and local national (senate and house). I was well into politics when Bob Dole ran in 96. I remember staying up on election night to watch the returns. I wasn't quite formed in my opinions other than I didn't like Clinton. I found out soon after that I had reason to dislike him.

My perception changed starting shortly after that and i began to critically look at politics. I identified several things that were important to me. First of which was truth. I am a skeptic. Though I may believe that there are things, I want proof before I put faith in them. For example. I believe that there is life on other planets. Mathmatically it should be possible. But until I see an alien or some conclusive proof I would say there is no life on other planets even though I believe differently. Truth is no perceptive. The world cannot be black if it is white. It is wrong to say that it is gray if it is black. This is the first principle that I clung to. I was in public school at that point. There were numerous things that I looked at and thought "How the hell does this work?" For instance, I intentionally didn't do my homework because I could just do it in bulk once a month. Now, I didnt study for tests either because I could simply retake them as many times as I wanted to so I could get the score I wanted. The teachers got really made at me for milking their system but did nothing to stop it. They would not say no. They would not tell me that what I was doing was wrong. Because what I was doing was "right" to me. It was right to me but wrong to the teachers, this made 2 totally opposite truths to the same thing. This I could not accept.

The second principle I formed was that government should not play a larger part in a persons life than the person themselves. This came out of numerous things....Stupid warning labels, people who killed themselves in stupid stunts, stupid regulations....It was solidified by things like the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, the tobacco lawsuits, fast food lawsuits, ad nausem. People are generally self sufficent and there is no reason for government to walk into someones house and tell them what they can and cannot do. Now there is a limit to this. Extreme things (murder, highly dangerous explosives, drugs, suicide, and alike) should be stopped. This is where I part with libertarians. I see no positives to illegal drugs and no benefits to society from them. Now, there is a line between illict drugs and smokers. Smoking is not a mentally alerting drug, it is a chemical altering drug but nothing that is going to make you crash a car. Now people push me even further to call alcohol a mentally alerting drug, but there is a BENEFIT to alcohol. Red wine has been shown to be good for your heart. Alcohol also has medicinal purposes. Certain alcohols will reduce certain risk factors for some diseases. As far as I am aware cocaine has never been good for anything in the body.

The third principal is fiscal responsibility. This is much broader than just government fiscal responsibility and thats how I felt at first. Jesse Ventura although he was a good governor from a fiscal standpoint and I learned some good lessons from him. This was one of them. I was a reckless youth and was fiscally irresponsible as most youths are and a few years ago I caught myself and firmly planted myself in reality. There is a point in which one has to stop and realize that they cannot live beyond their means. Now, I am very well aware (having been there myself) that people need help. There is however a limit to what should be done. The most government help I have ever used is 2 weeks. Out of 7 working years that's pretty damn good. That was 2 weeks of unemployment from a very sudden and dissapointing job loss. Other than that I have stayed out of public assistance. The reasons are 2 fold. First, I don't want the temptation of having work free money dangling in front of me tempting me to just take that and live as a welfare junkie. Second, I don't want a hand out. I understand that everyone needs a hand, but a hand out is not the way to build it. I needed a hand up. I fell flat on my ass and someone extended their hand to pull me to my feet and I was fine again. They didn't just cater to my needs and say "You stay there flat on your ass while I take care of you." I cannot see a point in which government subsidies should go on longer than a few months. I personally know I have responsibilites and I am not going to let them get in the way. If you are a rocket scientist and lose your job and cant find a job as a rocket scientist then you find another job. It may be a temporary job change until you find a rocket scientist job again but at least you are working and making a living.

So the question rounds back up. How does this change winners and losers? I think these 3 beliefs support the actions surrounding ones self. Liberals tend to think that there are 2 truths to every answer. They tend to believe that no one should be allowed to self destruct and that the state should be everyones personal nanny. So it comes as little surprise to me that when they lose they throw a hissy fit claiming unfairness because "their truth" is right when it is quite wrong.
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com