Being a self-proclaimed news-junkie, I look at and listen to a lot of different news sources on a variety of issues. In most cases I tend to agree more with the Conservative wing of the argument more than I do the Liberal wing. Back before Obama came around, I used to agree more with Liberals, but of course, back then, they were still called Democrats and Republicans. Whatever name you want to give them, I find it interesting how whenever one group is in power, the opposing side seems to make more sense. Some people might call this flip-flopping, others will say that I am just looking to oppose everything, so anything that’s against the status-quot is my cup of tea. Those people probably wouldn’t be surprised that I disagree with that point of view too.
Analyzing different opinions on news stories and trying to come up with my own ideas, it’s almost impossible not to look at myself in the same way. When I think about what I believe in and why, I often find myself noticing this trend of opposition to everything. What I’ve come to realize is that it’s not so much my desire to be the anti-whatever, it’s more about the overall deception coming from both parties. One thing I’ve noticed about either side is that although their reasoning makes sense, their solutions are usually crap. Every time I want to agree with a mainstream point of view on why something is wrong, they always seem to screw it up whenever they provide an alternative idea. If it’s not the same old jargon, reworded and repackaged, it’s usually worse than the previous thought.
One very good example of this is marriage equality. This was an issue that I used to agree on more with Democrats than Republicans. When I hear the words “marriage equality” my instant reaction is to agree with those folks. It’s clear to me that a person should be able to make a commitment to another person, no matter what their sex. I don’t agree with Republicans that marriage has to be between a man and a woman, even though I agree with the idea that you can’t force someone to preform the ceremony or bake the cake. What bothers me about both sides of the argument is that no-one is asking the real question, what role, if any, should government have in marriage? I wrote a whole piece on this during the Kim Davis fiasco, but that idea seemed to be pushed aside. As far as I can tell, both sides are wrong with this argument because it’s one we shouldn’t even be having in the first place.
Another thing I find it hard to follow is the issue of taxes. When I was younger, I fell for the idea that we needed to tax the rich. My first activist event was Occupy Wallstreet and a friend and I held up a sign that said, “Human need not corporate greed”. I still agree with that statement, but at the time, I had the diluted idea that just because you had a lot of money, somehow that made you a bad person. I think I justified that in thinking that no-one could obtain that amount of wealth without being corrupt. I still see an argument for that way of thinking, but I also see a better argument for treating everyone the same, regardless of wealth. What turned me around was coming to the realization that I too wanted to be rich one day and if I were in their shoes, I’d want to be treated fairly. You might think that I’m leaning more towards Republican thinking on this too, but you’d be wrong.
Not a single Republican candidate has talked about the illegitimacy of the Federal Reserve or the IRS. No candidate, on either side, has mentioned the fact that the Constitution originally called for Congress to coin money. Rand Paul is right claiming we are running up our date at an alarming rate, but he fails to call it out for what it is. There are some out there who understand what I’m saying, but then will say that it’s too dangerous to talk about that. They will point to Kennedy and other vocal activists who’ve spoken out against the FED. No matter what the reasoning, it’s all illogical when you consider the fact that the income tax is illegal, unconstitutional and illegitimate.
Final Thoughts
There’s an anonymous quote out there I like that says, “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.” Some have attributed that to Winston Churchill, others claim it’s not his, both arguments are irrelevant. The point is that our thinking changes all the time. I understand the liberal argument and still consider myself to be liberal on many social issues. At the same time, I also consider myself to be somewhat conservative. The question there is, what is it that you are trying to conserve? For me, it’s sovereignty. The Constitution is great, but it’s just there to constrain government and tell them what they can’t do. The Bill of Rights is also great, but it only affirms what should be inherent. Sovereignty is the source of authority from which all laws and governments arise. We, the People, have the power to institute governments and the duty to abolish them when they become oppressive. The ultimate freedom is the right to say no.
At the end of the day, I don’t care what your sexual preference is or what religion you practice. I don’t care what your idea for a sound tax policy is because I think it’s all illegitimate. I don’t expect government to save me or provide for my well-being. I also don’t want them encroaching on my life, in any way. At the end of the day I just want to live my life the way that I see fit. I believe that anyone should be able to do anything they want, so long as they aren’t infringing on the rights of others. I don’t believe in anarchy because I do believe you need laws, if for nothing else than to simply help define what’s right and what’s wrong. Some would say I’m a libertarian in that respect, which is hard for me to dispute at the moment, but surprise, surprise… I don’t see it that way either.
I am sovereign. Not a sovereign citizen because that implies that I am a subject. Sovereign. An individual with my own thoughts and ideas, not beholden to anyone or anything else. I am no-ones subject and a slave to nothing. As a human being there is no-one who holds authority over me without my consent. Being that they require my consent, I can revoke it at any time, for any reason, and live freely. So long as I am not infringing on the sovereignty of others, I am free to live my life as I see fit. If you can’t understand or agree with that, then that’s just too bad.