Change Your Image
Some_Dude
Social Issues: Hard Left and militant.
Economic Issues: Centrist leaning right...is what I'd say in a sane world.
Foreign Policy: unapologetically hawkish.
Political Philosophy:
I abhor hypocrisy and inconsistency of values. My philosophy is to have a small number of core values and to extrapolate the proper positions to hold from these using rationality and objectivity. In my philosophy, you can legitimately disagree with me based on my facts being in error (example: you disagree with me about abortion because you believe that personhood starts at a different point than I do), because I made a jusgement call you disagree with (example: exactly how much firearm regulation is necesary/desireable ?), or because you do not accept the central tennants of my values, but using different sorts or reasoning ("X is wrong because Great Lord Xenu says so!") is not legitimate.
My central values are these: life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Consistent with liberty (the presumption that everything is permitted unless it violates the rights of another) and PoH (you are supposed to be gauranteed a fair shot; what you do with it is your own business), my policy is that the burden of proof (for want of a better term) is on the side arguing against a certain action/behavior's legality to show that banning it is a net gain for liberty and human dignity. (For example, murder is illegal because it's less obstructive to freedom to violate a murderer's "right" to murder people than it is to violate a potential victim's right to not be murdered. furthermore, we presumably want society to function, as otherwise it would be mighty hard to enforce anyone's freedom to do anything.)
Where judgement calls come in, whether than just having the right or wrong facts, is when it comes to public liberty vs. public safety. The goal is the maximum amount of liberty, but you can't garauntee liberty if there's anarchy in the streets. The goal of course is to have the maximum level of safety for the minimum expendature of liberty, but liberty and "safety" scale inversely with no real unit of measure, so exactly were these two lines cross each other on the graph is a bit fuzzy.
The thing to remember is that my position on everything relates back to the central values listed here. Econimic issues? Some sort of regulation is necesary, because (1) it's a demonstrated fact that monopolies are bad for capitalism and (2) filling our environment with poison is a basic Darwinian error, but the regulations need to be consistent, enforcable (duh), and as minimal as they can be to get the job done. Social issues? Unless you can give me an argument based in rationality why gay marriage limits freedom, this is rather a no-brainer. Foreign policy? When you have values, you have a moral duty to protect and spread those values via the most efficient method you can think of.
This principle is what I call consistency of values. The final principle, lack of hypocrisy, means the values and principles here listed are inviolate. The fact that I have at best a tenuous grasp of what transgenderism even is and am saddened whenever a person changes their body in order to conform with the gender they think they are does not change the fact that liberty and persuit of happiness means they have the god-given right to do whatever the hell to their body that they want to and it ain't nobody else's business, particularly mine.
If the facts at my disposal change, my opinions will change accordingly (in ways consistent with the aforementioned values and principles); otherwise, this is where I stand. I can do no other.
(Selected) Specific Positions:
Hopefully, the logic and cinsistency with the principles and values I have listed are clear to everyone who reads this:
Gun control: Some regulation is necesary, of course. For instance, allowing convicted fellons to buy guns is probably not a good idea. My position on any sort of regulation, when I decide it's a necesary evil, is to be as minimalistic as possible to keep whatever it is from blowing up in our faces (and for the love of god, there's no point in having laws on the books you don't have the power to enforce). Some of the gun regulations I've heard proposed are just plain f''king stupid, however.
Corporate Regulations: See what I just said about gun control, essentially. Find the least-intrusive way possible to keep businesses from building walkways over vats of acid, becoming monopolies, and poisoning our environment and run with it. Everything else is bull.
Abortion: Anything that's a person must be saved and anything that's not can be killed with impunity; anything that cannot think is not a human being. If you could be a human being without the power of thought, then taking braindead people off life support would be murder--and not donating organs would be suicide. And don't give me any crap about unique DNA, either, because by that logic killing only one of a set of identical twins would not be murder.
Gay Marriage: Do. You. Even. Have. To. Ask?