Am I Really Just a Liberal or Conservative?

I have seen plenty of liberals telling libertarians that they are really just trying to force their conservative beliefs on others by labeling themselves as something else. I have also seen a few conservatives saying the same thing about libertarians being liberal. So am I really just trying to disguise my true beliefs in a middle-ground, freedom loving mask? Well obviously I'm going to tell you no, but how can I justify this claim? Well, considering my last post, I have a feeling that most liberals who look at this are going to think that I'm just another conservative, and most conservatives will probably agree with me. The reason for this though is in my earlier posts. If you'll notice, the last post was about money. In one of my earlier posts where I listed the general beliefs of liberals conservatives and moderates, I explained that generally conservatives promote freedom in fiscal areas, and liberals promote freedom in social areas. Since the last post dealt with the fiscal side of things, and Juris Naturalists always promote freedom, I would naturally agree with conservatives in this area. So while in the last post I sounded like a conservative, in later posts I may sound like a liberal, but truly I am something completely different.
Before I end this post, I would like to go back to my claim about conservatives making the fiscal side of things free. This is obviously not always true. If you go back to any conservative, or liberal president within the last 100 years, they have increased restrictions on all of the peoples freedoms, not just the social side. The reason for this is political power. Conservatives tend to argue with this and often make the claim that they are the party that promotes small government and freedom, but if you look at their beliefs on issues, they simply don't agree with that claim. I recently saw a summary on liberal vs. conservative beliefs (obviously done by a conservative) that stated at the beginning that the conservatives were for small government, and complete freedom and liberals were for large government to help the people, but as I went down the list of issues of conservatives vs. liberals, I noticed that not one of the issues on either side promoted freedom in the least, but instead took more away from the people. Both liberals and conservatives restrict freedom not promote it, and that is why I am a Juris Naturalist.

Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, and The State of the Union

Dear readers,

In this post I will compare the Juris Naturalis viewpoint to the most common viewpoints in America and also discuss some of the current events around the world and how they relate with Juris Naturalism.

Most people view the parties as being like this:

I would like to propose this view instead:

Now I will explain all of these world-views which will show why I arranged them like this. First I will talk about the differences between conservatives and liberals. Generally speaking, conservatives believe in freedom of the fiscal or monetary side for people, but believe that it is necessary to restrict people from doing socially, or morally incorrect things. Liberals, generally believe that people have a right to do whatever they want when it comes to social and moral issues, but believe that they cannot ruin the economy by using their money unwisely. Keep in mind that you will very rarely ever find someone who believes that there should be complete freedom in one area and total restriction in the other, but this is just a general idea of the parties. I would also like to state another part of my bias, which is that in my personal life, I am very conservative, but I believe that the government should not be conservative for reasons which I will explain throughout my posts.

The next topic of discussion is the middle ground. By my diagram of the parties, you can see that there are really two middle grounds. How is this possible? Well like I said, conservatives and liberals both restrict one side of liberty and support the other. So moderates take the route that there should be some restrictions on both sides, while Juris Naturalists believe that there should be liberty on both sides. Just consider the red in the diagram liberty, and the blue restriction. A libertarian can be a Juris Naturalist, but most libertarians are not, so I have separated them.

Now that we have a basic understanding of Juris Naturalism, you can clearly see that Juris Naturalists are for the smallest government possible which I wrote about in my last post. Now that we know this, I can talk about current events in the world, and what a Juris Naturalist would say about them.

The most current thing that has happened is the president's state of the union address. Unfortunately I wasn't able to watch the entire speech, but I saw a large portion of it. I have to say that comparing this speech, and every other state of the union address in this country's recent history to the founder's beliefs was absolutely appalling. Every single point that was made was either about increasing government, or spending money. The only thing in the speech that I could agree with, was that our country's debt is not entirely Obama's fault. While he has certainly contributed to the debt, and raised the budget by hundreds of billions of dollars in the name of saving money, all of the presidents before him for the last hundred years have done basically the same thing. Yes conservatives; this even includes Ronald Reagan. Reagan raised the budget during his term just like so many presidents before him. Now during the Clinton years, you often hear that we balanced the budget and had a surplus. This is true if you consider a surplus as being trillions of dollars in debt. You see, when they say that the country had a surplus, they mean that they spent less that what their budget called for. They truly had no money what soever. In fact they owed trillions of dollars, but it was still considered a major feat, and then the next few years, they went on raising the budget again.

The word that I probably heard the most in the state of the union last night was afford. From our government's current position, this word means nothing. President Obama said that people question if we can afford certain programs and then went on to try to explain why we could. What does afford mean to our government. We can't afford anything. We have no money and owe trillions of dollars. Think of an individual person with hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit card debt. He may still be able to spend money, but eventually he will have to pay it off or declare bankruptcy. Now think of that same situation times one billion dollars. That's the trouble that our government is in, but instead of trying to find a way to pay this debt off like any individual would have to do, they continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The reason we spend so much money is that we have so many programs that are supposed to help the American people, but you would never want to get rid of those right? Well I will explain why I believe we should get rid of the vast majority of government programs and how it would still help the people who benefit from those programs in my next post.