I kind of had a paradox, you know... where everything just makes sense to you. Honest, I'm not drunk or high, but I just realized what each party is about, and where they mean well, and their flaws.
I'll start with the Libertarians, because that's what I consider myself to be.
Pro's: They believe that people should be free to make their own decisions, whether constructive, or destructive to themselves. When they agress against another individual, that's when they should be stopped. People should be free to run their business as they choose without a government stamp of approval or intervention.
Cons: Party division will become majorly apparent. Those that choose to live constructive lives free from distractions such as drugs, alchohol, free s*x, etc... will become more materially affluent, while those that choose the former pleasures will quickly become impoverished.
Democrats: Believe that people should be free to live their lives as they choose, but that society as a whole should pitch in and help the person that has fallen because of their bad decisions (drug use, alcholism, Aids, poor health because of any of those). The only problem is that their "help" system is enforced by taxes, and at the end of a gun if the taxpayer can't pay them, or doesn't feel that it's fair and isn't willing to go to a jail cell.
Basically, they believe that society should coddle those that make bad decisions rather than go with a "survival of the fittest" mentality.
Republicans: believe that society should remain free from government control, but in order to live in their higher stratus (mainly because of their own personal lifestyle choices) free of guilt they must "help" those that choose to live less than constructive lifestyles (again, alchoholics, those that have s*x with multple partners, or those of the same s*x, drug users, etc) they must make these things ILLEGAL. The only problem is that it's enforced at the tip of the gun. Those that choose to do drugs, or live alternate moral lifestyles and get caught, are held accountable at the tip of the gun, either they desist, or go to jail. If they don't want to go, they get shot.
It seems that both major sides, as well meaning as they are seem to use force as the answer rather than persuasion.
Doesn't persuasion make more sense? After all, if you put someone in jail because of something that you disagree with (whether that they should give their hard earned money to the poor, or whether they cease and desist using drugs) you are not really changing their minds. They might not do it again, but they are still teaching their children that red or blue is bad because they did that to them. They still believe that they are in the right, and are complying just because of fear of force.
Even with the whole division of class problem... Don't you think those that choose to live higher lifestyles would VOLUNTARILY choose to help those children that couldn't help themselves because of their parents lifestyles charitably?
Shouldn't persuasion and logic be the only tools of government?
I don't like this whole force thing?
Tags: