Jul 31, 2005

grand opening

Welcome to my new home for all things political.
I am a nationalist libertarian. I do not vote for anything or anyone by party; I vote for issues or candidates individually. I believe in ultimate individual rights, up to the point where they interfere with national security. That is not to say that the nation is more important than the individual; but if the republic is not preserved, individual rights will soon follow.
This journal will be a forum for reflection on these ideas and other current social, political, and economic issues separate from my personal website (URL available upon request).

In case you're wondering, the quotes at the top of the page are randomly selected from a list of (currently) 27 quips by persons as disparate as Bill Hicks, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, and Rush Limbaugh. The list will undoubtedly grow throughout the lifespan of this blog, so reload often to get the most out of the experience. If you keep an eye on those quotes as well as the ongoing discussions on this site, you will begin to understand how parts of such seemingly incongruous philosophies can come together to create a functioning whole, all supporting or explaining tenets of my political alignment: nationalist libertarianism.

One issue that may come up is the term "nationalist libertarian". I have recently learned that the Nazi party invokes both those terms in its full title. This obviously has ZERO to do with my term. In fact, nearly everything that the Nazi party stands for, I violently oppose. And the only reason I qualify that with "nearly" is that I am not intimately familiar with the Nazi party platform. I think I missed the nominating convention last year.
"Nationalist libertarian" has also been used by some to describe someone who has no concern for the liberty of those outside of the "nation"; an exclusively nationalist libertarian. Those who use this definition conceive of the "internationalist libertarian" as the alternative, one who supports liberty for everyone, regardless of nation of residence. While I support global freedom and liberty, I am wary of the term "internationalist". It has a connotation of concern for those in other countries above those in this country, and that is an idea I just cannot support, whether that is the actual idea of those "internationalist libertarians" or not. I would rather not be associated with the term at all.
Therefore unless someone has an alternative for my political nomenclature, it remains, possible confusion accepted.


Paul R. said...

>Individual rights are not subject to a public vote. A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority.<

Odd that you'd feel this way, after claiming that the Texas SC overturing the state's sodomy laws in John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v. Texas wasn't a legitimate victory. I suppose it was ok that a majority had voted away the rights of a minority, behind legislative doors?

Cynicus Prime said...

Actually, the US Supreme Court overturned all state sodomy laws, not the Texas Supreme Court and not just Texas' sodomy laws.
While I feel that the sodomy laws as written were plainly absurd and against everything I believe in, they were not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn laws based on quotes by Ayn Rand. I may oppose laws based on similar ideas, but it was not legitimate for the court to overturn the law, since the law was not actually contrary to anything specifically in the Constitution.

Cynicus Prime said...

Funny, nothing you said contradicted my statements.
I agree that laws banning sodomy are bad. But they're not unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that says "Congress shall make no law restricting the free distribution of bodiliy fluids." While I think there probably should be, there isn't. The sodomy laws in question were not written to discriminate against homosexuals, as heterosexuals can engage in sodomy just as easily. Though it may have been enforced more frequently against homosexuals, that is an entirely different question.
I understand what the Supreme Court ruled, how they ruled, and why they ruled. I read the decision. They were wrong. Consensual sexual conduct has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. "Equal protection" doesn't mean that something can't be made illegal that lots of people do.
The right to bear arms is an enumerated right of the people. The 2nd amendment doesn't say "the right to bear muskets or other cumbersome muzzle-loaded arms." So in my view, the people have the right to own and bear anything classified as "arms". Yes, anything. "Privacy" and "consensual sexual activity" are not in the constitution.

Cynicus Prime said...

Um... Ok, your comment disappeared. No idea how that happened. Sorry.