Alan Sexton/Green Mountain Scribes
My positions on issues are often chastised and praised in equal measure by people holding various extreme left and right views. I sometimes wonder whether my sociopolitical philosophy makes me a societal and political outcast., or perhaps a subscriber to an emergent, mainstream sociopolitical philosophy.
I do not weigh in on issues seeking praise, nor am I above chastisement and challenge. I do, however, seek to inspire others to consider, perhaps even reconsider whether certain agendas, beliefs, and points of view are foundationally legitimate. I am, if nothing else, an instigator.
With that, I ask you to consider and compare to your own the following highlights of my sociopolitical philosophy and weigh in. Do these points resonate well with, or agitate you?:
Life is a self-evident and unalienable right endowed by Nature and Natures God, and life begins at conception. Abortion is not an acceptable form of birth-control. The only, and certainly wholly legitimate exceptions being circumstances such as rape, or real danger posed to the mothers well-being and life, a situation of private consideration and decision only by the mother and those she chooses to take counsel with.
Being pro-life naturally also encompasses the issue of capital punishment. Kill, no. Punish yes. Pamper no. If one commits and is found guilty of a crime so severe as to call for such punishment, imprison the convict for life. Food, water, concrete and bars, no frills, no perks.
Individual liberty is also a self-evident and unalienable right endowed by Nature and Natures God. Also, a plurality acknowledge free will and understand that free will is a gift endowed exclusively by our Creator, and our personal exercise of this gift is judged by Him. Morally, indeed legally the free exercise of unalienable rights and free will can only justifiably be regulated by government to prevent one’s exercise of these from violating the same unalienable rights and exercise of free will of another. Also true is liberty does not allow being forced by government or public entities to lend any support or advocacy of any kind, publicly or privately, to that which one finds morally objectionable.
Sovereignty. The Founders, and Framers of the Constitution sought, and painstakingly established a sovereign constitutional republic. Our Republic is founded upon, given authorities by, and is strictly for the performance of, constitutionally limited and enumerated functions of common interest to co-sovereign states and the citizens. Our Republic has national boundaries to be strictly observed and constantly, diligently monitored and guarded to prevent any and all illegal breach. Foreigners wishing to enter the Republic can do so, but must meet security requirements and comply with laws regarding visitors, and immigration and naturalization laws for people desiring citizenship. No “open borders”.
Common defense/national security. I favor always having far and away the best supported, most powerful, and technologically advanced military capabilities of any nation. The biggest “big stick”. This does not mean that we have to use it, or in most cases even should use it. However, until the realities of the world around us change, being the big kid on the block will offer a most effective, peaceful deterrent to hostilities. This also extends to the concept of being friends with all nations, but having entangling alliances with none. Fine, we are good, friendly people. But, as we would (or at least should) in our personal lives stand with and defend our friends against unjust attacks, so too should we show such courage and honor on this larger scale. While there do exist just causes for military actions, we must not act as a global police force. Military engagement also mandates Congressional authorization. No more unilaterally acting loose cannons in the Oval Office.
Considered subjectively or objectively, these related highlights of my sociopolitical philosophy are not exclusively conservative, Classical Republican, libertarian, or Classical Liberal. However, considered objectively, these positions are indisputably significantly comprised from all among these philosophies, which interestingly, in their pure forms are far more similar than different.
Are these highlighted views perhaps a harbinger of an emergent, genuinely American sociopolitical philosophy reflecting mainstream America, or is this the philosophy of outcasts? Have your say and I guess we’ll soon find out.
In general and philosophically I agree with you. However, the devil is in the details; it’s the definition of the terms that causes problems and ends up dividing us. For example, identifying that point at which government preventing me from infringing on your rights has become unfairly onerous to me in an effort to be fair to you. Or, what constitutes “real danger to the mother’s well being” in the case of abortion. (It is, after all, the psychological well-being of the mother that helps justify abortion at any stage of pregnancy.) My one major disagreement: I am not prepared to rule out capital punishment. The biblical injunction on killing is properly read, “Thou shalt not unjustly kill,” that is, murder. And the life of a murderer is forfeit because to unjustly kill is to steal a life from the Giver of Life, God. For the ancient Israelites, restoration to God of what had been taken from God could only be accomplished by the just killing of the murderer. In addition, to not justly take the life of one who had unjustly taken a life is to dismiss and dishonor the innocent whose life was unjustly snuffed out. I’m inclined to agree with that old line of thinking.
Thoughtful points. Admittedly, I’m not clear about what may be difficult to define.
The definition of unalienable rights (“among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (property)) is naturally straightforward, as is the humanly created governments (the laws) limited role of protecting these. Any restrictive or regulatory efforts by government beyond this limited role are wholly unconstitutional and typically inspired by partisan and/or social agendas.
Life being among our intrinsic, unalienable rights (excepting for self-defense/common defense) is therefore not ours to otherwise take from another, rather, it is our mandate to defend it.