Political Philosophy

Recently a new acquaintance in the local Tea Party asked me my opinions on the following topics:

"economy, federal reserve, military, abortion, proper role of state/federal power, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment"

So then, some tidbits of my opinions:

Economics: I haven't studied economics much.  I understand there are various schools of economics that advise varying governmental strategies on managing national finances.  I believe in capitalism, but I support strong regulations on business to protect public health and safety.  I'm undecided on a consumption-based tax, as opposed to an income tax, but it's worth looking into.  From what I read the wealthy are gathering up a greater and greater share of the national wealth, which I find very disturbing.  I support higher taxe rates on wealthier individuals.  I don't know enough to support or reject "free trade agreements".  I support proposals that would encourage buying American-made goods.  It seems highly unlikely that the U.S. can make headway against its deficit and debt without substantially higher revenues, most likely in the form of taxes.  I disagree with those who are rabidly anti-tax -- it constrains their policy choices unreasonably.

Federal Reserve:  Don't know enough to have a reasonable opinion.  I know this is one of Ron Paul's pet issues.  I also know Carter Glass, a Senator from Lynchburg, helped create the Fed.

Military: The military is too large, and too expensive, and used to fight useless wars.  The military should be used only for defense of United States land.  No one on the planet could invade us, so really we probably don't even need much of a military.

Abortion:  Pro-choice. It doesn't concern me what another woman does with her fetus.  I couldn't stop her from doing whatever she wanted anyway.  I believe there are serious problems with considering a fetus the same as a born human being. I believe a woman does have the right to determine her own life and that of her fetus, but I don't support encouraging abortion, and I think it is a very serious decision not to be taken lightly.

Federal Vs. State Authority/Power: This is a tricky area, and somewhat abstract.  In both cases, we are talking about governments being able to coerce people.  I don't believe in "states' rights" -- in my opinion, only individuals have rights; states, nations, and other organizations have authority from people, but no "rights".  I joke that the U.S. is too large to govern effectively, and that it should be broken into regional or state-based nations, but I am halfway serious.  I believe the most local solution is often the best, but of course we must temper that with a recognition that local decisions should never violate someone's rights, and the federal government has a role in defending our rights.  I believe the federal government has a particular role to play in public health (e.g. EPA), because pollution knows no boundaries.

2nd Amendment: The latest Supreme Court interpretation of this is that it protects an individual's right to bear arms.  It also reaffirmed that restrictions on that right are constitutional.  My take on guns and public safety is highly colored by my time in Spain (and other parts of Europe), where handguns are essentially nonexistent.  I felt extremely safe everywhere I went, no matter what time of day or what part of the city, knowing virtually no one had a gun.  Most Spaniards (and Europeans) find the American fixation with guns baffling; Spain was under a dictator until 1975 and yet they don't fear their government now; note that Europe has been home to the major totalitarian regimes, World Wars, etc.  I don't agree with the idea that more guns makes a safer society, and there is mixed data on that.  Personally I would be satisfied with fewer guns in society, with stringent regulations and licensing requirements.

4th Amendment: This seems pretty straightforward.  Most of what I consider violations of this are a result of the War on Drugs, and now the War on Terror.

I may expand on these in further posts.