Ask a Tea Party Conservative Anything

Hello Sythe,

I am a Tea Party conservative I know most people on this forum lean a little bit to the left and most are not really familiar with politics so I decided I would like to educate people on my beliefs.


General Description :

I believe in Capitalism with unrestrained free markets & very limited government I do not support Republicans (all modern Republicans are moderates) and I absolutely oppose democrats I am against handouts, bailouts & corporate welfare.

I cannot stand collectivism/socialism it has been proven to be inefficient and has never once worked and it never will.



In 2012 I supported Ron Paul & Herman Cain until he dropped out I refused to vote for Romney as he was the lesser of two evils.

In 2016 I support Rand Paul & Gary Johnson (If he gets more votes this time)

I did support Marco Rubio until he started flipping on a few major issues then sold out his beliefs especially his beliefs on granting amnesty to illegal immigrants which he did just to gain votes.



Ask me anything I will answer.

 

Alright I'm a democratic republican. I believe in the republican view of economics and the democratic view towards people (such as recognizing gay marriage.)

You said you hate bailouts. My question is do you have a loan of any sort? And if you dont mind me asking, is it with a big corporation bank?

 

I do not have a loan but I have bank accounts. And I do not mine loans or if a private company offers bailouts to companies I do mind when my tax dollars go to big corporations. Liberals love to give giant corporations tax breaks for "environmental safety" when those things are just loopholes that help no one. Funny how Exxon gets billions in tax breaks for their environmental policy. Or how GE pays negative taxes for their green policies.


Democratic Republican I assume you actually more like a classic liberal (not to be confused with Liberal). You cannot really be both of those combined you could be a classic liberal or a libertarian though. (Libertarian is generally right wing)

You cannot be fiscally right and socially left its an oxymoron the left is about the greater good and collectivism while the right is about preserving everything for those who earned it.

You can be authoritarian or libertarian and you can be right wing or left wing I reject the notion that one could be a libertarian democrat as I believe collectivism is inherently authoritarian.


I do not approve of any federal funds spent to loans. I don't really believe in federal funds spent on most things we spend them on. I do approve of private companies able to offer loans.


Private companies own their money they are free to do with it as they please they can run their business as they please.


Private sector always manages its money better then the government because its actually their money they have incentives to succeed & improve the government does not.




Lets get on the topic of gay marriage.


I believe everyone should be allowed to get married but I also believe government should have no involvement in marriage whatsoever marriage is between 2 people who love each other not between 2 people & a bureaucrat.

I do not vote in favor of gay marriage because we don't bundle laws properly when we vote to legalize gay marriage we create problems. You know in states where gay marriage is legal it is against the law for a church to decline to marry a gay couple. This is a huge violation of the first amendment. No private organization should ever be forced/coerced by the government to change its beliefs.

I don't want government involved in marriage at all for saying its legal or illegal.



Republicans vote against gay marriage

Democrats vote for gay marriage churches are forced to marry gays

Conservatives vote for no government interference in marriage and churches are not forced to marry gays



Another issue is abortion.


I believe abortion is morally wrong & disgusting and I would never be in a relationship with anyone who has had an abortion for any reason.

I do think abortion should stay legal for multiple reasons.

1) When its illegal it just creates back alley abortions, its safer regulated.
2) There is no objective way to decide when the fetus is living it is my opinion when its heart beats its alive but this is all subjective.
3) Because I believe its wrong doesn't mean I should force my opinion on you.




My values are pretty similar to Tammy Bruce (lesbian, feminist, pro life conservative)

 

I was just wondering, because my father says he is a tea party conservative and follows all the views you see on TV. You obviously don't as the abortion view is different.

Because i know if you don't bailout major banks when their investments go belly up, people end up losing homes and cars not to mention other items taken out on loans. But what about government spending to keep student loan debt low? Also want to hear your views on marijuana, and if you say to stay illegal why allow alcohol?

And to give you a better idea of my views I'm more of a Thomas Jefferson stand point. I believe in personal liberties that we have, I take the side of liberals when it comes to social issues (Besides Immigration) but I take after the economic stand point of republicans (such as free markets) I only think we should have a few laws like monopoly laws standing on our economy, even those obviously arent working with the 1% of nation hold majority of our wealth. But I could guess Libertarian could suit me.

 

By all appearances, you seem to be a minarchist. Or, very close to one. If you acknowledge the toxic nature of the state. The immoral interventions in social matters, victimless crimes for example. As well as the economic shortcomings of government intervention, government spending and taxation for example.

Why are you a minarchist and not an anarchist? Why are you willing to abolish the 99% of government, but not the last vestige of it?

A corollary question is: is security an unhampered free market commodity? The existence of police officers answer this question in the negative. If the answer is no (which will be implied if there are police officers), why? Is the free market incapable of providing security?

I think both our views are pretty similar. I'm just curious as to your response to the more finer details of the ideologies in this sphere of political philosophy.

 

Government is a necessary evil I believe government needs to protect property rights, and protect us from foreign and domestic threats. I support having a military.

Police officers could exist in a society without a government in free markets you already see many places hire security guards & private detectives. I do like the idea of a government involvement in the justice system but I believe our justice system is a bit flawed.

In a free society with no government we could have courts, jails and police officers I would just prefer government involvement in this.

Pretty similar I am an individualist for the most part I believe all actions should be legal as long as all participating parties give consent. But I do believe government has a slight role in these.

Many republicans claim to be conservatives.

George Bush is a Moderate
Clinton is a moderate republican
Reagan was closest to conservative we had in recent times

The banks failed due to the 1996 community reinvestment act changes which were government interfering and making problems in a free market the banks never would have failed.

I believe in decriminalization of eery drug on the federal level and I believe states should be allowed to decide on complete legalization/ban

Government subsidies to keep student loan debt low is actually not true while it does fund part of the debt it does artificially create a boom in demand while not increasing supply it does increase prices but then offers to cover part of the prices if we reduced the government subsidies we would see cheaper prices as demand would drop a bit and people would only want to go to college if it is necessary for them then it will be cheaper and more can afford it.

The 1% that possibly holds all the wealth is only holding the wealth because our government creates them as monopolies they set quotas against competition & they give subsidization & tax breaks to keep them on top.

1% holding 40% of the wealth also does not mean they earn all the money.

If you earn 50,000 and you spend 49k and save 1k you are not in the top 1% for wealth but if you earn 25k and spend 5k you would be. Wealth is implying how much money they have saved not how much they earn.

 

Practically speaking, do you ever expect any of your candidates to win a major election, then? Aside from running for a Republican primary ticket (be it for a presidential or congressional election), how would a Tea Party candidate be elected at all?

 

So, you believe the very thing that violates property rights, must be entrusted to protect property rights? How can this be? Is it not like saying we need to mafia to protect us from crime?

I suppose the most fundamental question is, what makes it so necessary? Can all these things not be supplied via the free market?

By police officers I meant public police. Why do you like the idea that government should be involved in the justice system?

Why?

 

I agree with you fully on this point. Gays are already unofficially married in so many places, but the government has a tricky little things called marriage licences. At that point it becomes a legal thing, when marriage is a sacrament, and has nothing to do with the government.

I find it appalling that churches in those states can't decline to marry a gay couple. There can be any number of objections (not just religious) for a church to deny a marriage ceremony for a couple, gay or straight.

 

But you believe abortion should remain legal? Do you consider the emerging life to be a "participating party"?

 

Herman Cain was going to win until a woman accused him of sexual harassment (btw she works for Obama's administration now what a coincidence)

That is where we get into the problem when is the fetus considered a human.

The current law is like 2 months or something.
My belief is when it has a heartbeat.

There is no objective way to determine when it is considered alive its all subjective unless there were a way to determine when its considered a human we cannot completely ban it.

Well I will start by saying I would prefer most crime done at smallest level possible like county then state then federal. But what I do like about federal is some crimes such as murder would always be considered illegal & lengthy sentences and the state/countries cannot break the federal law but I don't believe federal government should have very much influence in small harmless crimes such as drug use.

I know government often abuses its power but I believe it to be a necessary evil.

 

So, let's give an analogy I've heard from someone. Imagine you have a tumor. This tumor is malignant. It will grow if not stopped. It will grow, and grow, until you die. You obviously want to stop it. You go to a doctor, and he suggests that how about you take 99% of the tumor out. Leaving that 1%. He justifies it saying that it is a necessary evil, even though we all know that leaving it in will cause it to grow, and grow again. Absurd right? Why not just take it all out? This is very similar to government. We know that a very restricted government just grows, and grows. We know that it is bad for us.

You say it is a necessary evil. What makes it so necessary. You haven't answered this yet. We could substitute government for mafia, but that surely doesn't make the mafia necessary. Why then is government truly necessary?

 

Private corperations cannot be monopolies in a free market they need to earn a profit some things should not be for profit. Things like Military & police should be run by the government in my opinion even if they are turning a loss instead of a profit I would rather not a military starting to get over aggressive and just turning into mercs for hire just due to a bad economy.

 

So your argument is market failure.

There is an economic calculation problem with regards to government intervention into the military/police. How does the govenment now where, and how much resources to allocate? How does the government know that this neighbourhood needs x police here, and y armour here, and that neighbourhood needs less? As you'll see with how the government intervenes with police nowaday, it's pretty poor. It's inflated the price of securtiy, so private security costs too much. No doubt this will happen in a minarchist government. Additionally, I see no security in my neighbourhood. Where is my security? The only security I get is having to call the police, and private guns in a minarchist society. But that is all.

You say this: "I would rather not a military starting to get over aggressive and just turning into mercs for hire just due to a bad economy." How will this happen? Is this not already happening with Americas military, unless you classify stationing troops in every corner of the globe, and firing missiles onto innocent civilian populations as not overly aggressive. How will this happen in a true free market economy?

 

One thing I related to this was when not too long ago, firefighting was a private industry. You would buy what was essentially insurance that a firefighting company would come to your house and attempt to quench the fire. If you had not paid for that insurance, the firefighting company would drive past your house even if it were engulfed in an inferno.

Some things are better for the majority of people if they are run as 'not for profits'.

 

Well, in the event that you chose not to insure yourself against fire, or something to that effect. You could simply call one of many firefighting companies to put out the fire. No one is obligated to help you in these circumstances. If you choose not to pay for services, you should not expect those services be rendered to you for free. If a lawn mowing company drives past your house and sees the grass is overgrown, you cannot expect it to come and mow it for you.

Remember though, in a freemarket, quality is high and competition is fierce. It would be good business practice for the firefighting company to stop and try to help you, you are far more likely to then sign up with them. Even if they don't stop, they are not obligated to help. In any event, if there is a fire, insurance or not, you need to alert a firebrigade. If you don't have insurance, the fire brigade will still come and put the fire out for you (it may take a little longer, but that's your fault initially), but you may have to pay more. It's not hard for the market to provide for a firebrigade.

Besides, a lot of firefighters are volunteer, so your case really is a non-issue. The entire context needs to be divulged as to why a firetruck would drive past a house on fire and not stop in your scenario. Only then can the reasoning for the firetrucks nonchalance be ascertained. Merely saying what if firetrucks drive past, or even if firetrucks did drive past is not a sufficient objection, nor validation the necessity of government but mere cherry picking.

 

I am all for having a free market but...

Without any bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis, how do you think the US and UK banking sector would have coped?

 

Guilty as charged for cherry picking, but I think you obscured my main point with specifics about firefighting, I don't feel like derailing on this tangent.

Failing banks should be allowed to do just that- FAIL. Markets thrive after corrections, giving hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up organizations who have already proven adept at losing billions seems like a ridiculous idea on the surface. However, handing out that money postpones problems for another generation, so it doesn't matter as long as those who stay in power get reelected right?

 

I agree 100%.

There should have been a nationwide vote resembling what happened in Iceland.

basically the public told the private banks to fuck off.

 

Does Bigfoot Exist?..please reference MK Davis' "patty" research if you're not familiar with the subject