What is/are the foundation(s) of your political beliefs?

[Jerry-B-WI]

So repeal all wanton waste laws? Everyone draws the line at a different place.

I wouldn't advocate for such a thing, but thinking about where we draw that line, and why is important. In this case, the wild animals are part of the commons and thus open to some regulation. I just try to err on the side of individual freedom as much as possible.

Are we actually regulating the commons or are we trying to regulate ourselves so we don't destroy the commons?

We don't need to tell the fish to keep the water clean or to tell the birds to keep the air clean. But we do need to tell each other not to destroy our environment.

 

[Jerry-B-WI]

Government the way it has become is the one thing out founding fathers missed on. I believe we were never meant to be governed by these career politician hacks. What the founding fathers envisioned was guys like them, guys who had the countries best interest in mind, not their own. Guys who were doing it to help guide the country to greater heights. What we have become is a joke, we are governed by people who do not give a shit about us, or the country (both sides). This is why I believe Trump and guys like him scare the holy hell out them, and also why I respect the hell out of guys like him. They do it because right or wrong they are trying to do what they believe is best for the country.
I believe that is what the fathers envisioned.
As far as how or why I became a conservative, I was many many moons ago a very strong Democrat supporter. I believed the Dems were the party of the working class (that's what we were taught in school) and the Republicans were the party of the rich. Then the Clinton's happened. I started seeing how crooked and dishonest that side was and is. When Crooked Bill got his rocks off in the oval office and he wasn't run out of office that was the tipping point for me. He made a mockery of the presidency and the party and media helped him do it. That's when I started looking at what I believe in and when I changed into an independent. I will never again be nailed to one party, I will always go with what I believe is best for the country.

Bill, you wouldn't believe how much of your post I agree with. But I don't believe that anyone in the oval office gives two shits about you or me or our families. And that goes back generations. Because of my age I don't know allot about the presidents backgrounds before the Kennedy's. The Kennedy's, Bush's, Clinton's and Trump all come from big, old money dynasties. Even Reagan had warts, can anyone say Iran Contra? I don't think they or the multibillionaires that fund them care about us, they do it for personal or corporate gain.

I don't think Bush Jr. fought a war to get rid of WMD, he did it to avenge the death threat his father had and to keep the dollar as the universal currency. He didn't finish the mission like he claimed, and used the return of an aircraft carrier as a media opportunity while holding it up from it's return to the sailors families. And I damn sure don't like or think we need the DHS. Uncle Sam has enough ways of peaking in my windows without that agency.

Bubba Clinton didn't make a mockery of the office, he perpetuated it, there was plenty of mockery before him. If I was still working I'd bet a paycheck he wasn't the first president to leave stains on the carpet of the oval office.

Every one of them has lied to us for no good reasons and everyone of them has made military blunders, some more severe than others.

These are some of the reasons I consider myself to be purple.

 

[Skeeter]

Are we actually regulating the commons or are we trying to regulate ourselves so we don't destroy the commons?

We don't need to tell the fish to keep the water clean or to tell the birds to keep the air clean. But we do need to tell each other not to destroy our environment.

I think people like to paint a rosy picture of nature in perfect harmony. I don't believe that to be the case. While a degree of balance happens, it's through fighting, disease, destruction, death and consumption most of the time. The most suited, and sometimes the luckiest, persist.
There is a lake south of Dassel, Minnesota called Pigeon Lake that has a great example of what I would say is animals destroying environment. From highway 15 you can see an island that is almost barren. There's even a scenic overlook spot where you can stop to get a better view of the destruction. 30 or more years ago the island had tall trees and plenty of ground level vegetation. Then the cormorants took over the island. There were no predators and people weren't allowed to shoot them. They crapped on everything to the point that everything died. So maybe those critters should have been told to stop shitting all over everything.

Now, given enough time, something else will figure out how to exist there, but I would never say that it's this elegant balance that nature maintains. It's just life figuring out how to survive and perpetuate in any way that it can. Not really much different than people. We just have higher thought to our advantage, well, most of us.

 

[TreeDaddy]

This isn't exactly in line with the course this thread has taken, but the question was rather open ended.

I'm a "Bootstraps" guy. I don't buy into the idea that ANY American can't make him or herself a success if they simply make good choices and do the right thing consistently over time. I'm not rich. I didn't come from money. My Dad was a cop and my mom a teacher's aid, in a high cost of living part of the country. We didn't have a lot, but always had enough to eat and a roof over our head. I worked a paper route as a young boy then had two jobs through high school. Somehow I also managed to have some fun.

So, at 19 years old without any real prospects in life, I joined the USAF and did that for 9 years. After that I worked as a paramedic (thank you Uncle Sugar for the Paramedic certification) and went to school full-time using the GI bill. I'd pull a 24 or 48 hour EMS shift then head straight to class. Some days were easier than others. Then, I'd head to my Spartan efficiency apartment in a bad part of town to eat, study and sleep on my second hand couch. I did this for years. Work, eat, sleep study; rinse and repeat.

I didn't do drugs. I didn't do crime. I didn't knock up a girl. It was nose to the grindstone. After that it was work, work work in a career I liked at first but hated for the last few. By then, I had a wife, kids a mortgage and all that. So, I did it. I kept doing it even when I hated it so much it made me want to "take all the pills at once". I'm still not rich. But we'll be OK. We own a little property and a home with no mortgage. Now, I live in the country in South Dakota and haul milk on the night shift until I decide I don't want to anymore and I'll retire to kill deer and catch fish.

If this mediocre man can do it, anybody can. You can't convince me otherwise. So, for me, the question is this. "Which political party aligns best with my lived experience?"

The one whose leader we just elected to the white house

bill

 

[Skeeter]

Are we actually regulating the commons or are we trying to regulate ourselves so we don't destroy the commons?

We don't need to tell the fish to keep the water clean or to tell the birds to keep the air clean. But we do need to tell each other not to destroy our environment.

But to answer your question more directly, yes, when we regulate the commons we are putting restrictions on people. Mainly because the fish can't read despite spending so much time in schools. Just like kids these days.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

But to answer your question more directly, yes, when we regulate the commons we are putting restrictions on people. Mainly because the fish can't read despite spending so much time in schools. Just like kids these days.

Skeeter, trying to figure out where you're coming from. So are you suggesting that natural resources need no protection from humanity?

To me, if the strong conservation movement in America we have today was not born from the ideas of men like John Muir, Aldo Leupold, Theodore Roosevelt, etc...this country would just be an absolute ecological disaster sans any regulatory bodies governing what people can and can not do.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

 

[Bszweda]

My foundation for my political beliefs.... "Prepare to die you commie bastards!" - Ronald Reagan

 

[Skeeter]

Skeeter, trying to figure out where you're coming from. So are you suggesting that natural resources need no protection from humanity?

To me, if the strong conservation movement in America we have today was not born from the ideas of men like John Muir, Aldo Leupold, Theodore Roosevelt, etc...this country would just be an absolute ecological disaster sans any regulatory bodies governing what people can and can not do.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

Quite the opposite. Under a true rights based model, the commons are an area open to regulation. However, those regulations are weighed against the rights of the individual. Also, what falls under the commons as natural resources is probably more limited than most would like to assume.
For example, wild animals fall under the commons since they cannot be owned and wholly controlled by an individual. Therefore they are open to some level of regulation. My argument is that some current regulations violate the property rights of the individual. Such as, here in Minnesota, people are not allowed to be wandering their own property with most firearms within a certain number of days of the firearm deer season, with some exceptions. I understand the intent behind the law, but in no way should that supersede my rights.
Again, I cannot stress enough that when I speak of rights, I am only referring to negative rights. Positive rights, which are what many try to bring up when arguing rights, are not true rights. They are more accurately labeled as authorities because they require an action or a transfer of a goods from another. Examples of these are things like healthcare, safe work places, food, housing, etc.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

Quite the opposite. Under a true rights based model, the commons are an area open to regulation. However, those regulations are weighed against the rights of the individual. Also, what falls under the commons as natural resources is probably more limited than most would like to assume.
For example, wild animals fall under the commons since they cannot be owned and wholly controlled by an individual. Therefore they are open to some level of regulation. My argument is that some current regulations violate the property rights of the individual. Such as, here in Minnesota, people are not allowed to be wandering their own property with most firearms within a certain number of days of the firearm deer season, with some exceptions. I understand the intent behind the law, but in no way should that supersede my rights.
Again, I cannot stress enough that when I speak of rights, I am only referring to negative rights. Positive rights, which are what many try to bring up when arguing rights, are not true rights. They are more accurately labeled as authorities because they require an action or a transfer of a goods from another. Examples of these are things like healthcare, safe work places, food, housing, etc.

Ah, got it. Thanks. Yes, I was reading you wrong.

Did not know that about property owners in Wisconsin.