They will assume the same for you - one day you may embrace a sophisticated multi-party, truely representative democracy, just like us*.

* of course, we voted for it in a referendum and within 5 years regretted it :D

fint:

I agree that labels are meaningless. If so, why are they so popular?

"Tis a puzzlement"...

I am happy with the way our founders designed things....I just wish the Supreme court would quit trying to change it.

Because labels are easier to brandish than ideas.

On both sides, my friend..on both sides...

I wonder if that is symptomatic of the divide between liberals and conservatives?

Liberals are happy to contemplate (desire?) change. Conservatives do not.

My view (pretty liberal) - no magic in what your founding fathers did. It can be (and has been) changed, and if necessary it should continue to be so.

Interestingly I hold the conflicting view with respect to my (Catholic) faith. I'm happy with the inflexible rules of the Church, although I occasionally run across specific interpretational issues. The difference is obvious, in that I consider the Church's position to be that of, or revealed by, God.

Thats not libertarian. Libertarian ideals are not American in concept or origin, although believing so would often seem to be.


Libertarian:
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.

Our national party pretty much advocates isolationism.

Maybe we just need a society with no government, no taxes, no restrictions on individual rights, no rules.

Isn't that a partial definition of anarchy? Actually, Libertarians come in two flavors: Minarchists (minimum govt) and Anarchists (no government).

Definition generally accepted: "A person who, in general, supports government policies that favor individual liberty in all matters, whether economic, personal, or social.

Libertarians support:

Legalization of drugs

Legalization of all consensual sexual acts including sodomy and prostitution

Abolition of all government censorship including pornography

Abolition of rent control

Abolition of minimum wage

Abolition of farm and business subsidies

Abolition of arts subsidies

Privitization of Social Security

Abolition of welfare

Drastic reduction of taxes


www.csun.edu

North became famous due to his participation in the Iran-Contra Affair, in which he was the chief coordinator of the illegal sale of weapons via intermediaries to Iran, with the profits being channeled to the Contra rebel group in Nicaragua. He was responsible for the establishment of a covert network used for the purposes of aiding the Contras.

In November 1986, North was fired by President Reagan, and in July 1987 he was summoned to testify before televised hearings of a joint Congressional committee formed to investigate Iran-Contra. During the hearings, he admitted that he had lied to Congress, for which he was later charged. He defended his actions by stating that he believed in the goal of aiding the Contras, whom he saw as "freedom fighters," and said that he viewed the illegal Iran-Contra scheme as a "neat idea."

North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.
However, on July 20, 1990, a three-judge appeals panel overturned North's conviction in advance of further proceedings on the grounds that his public testimony may have prejudiced his right to a fair trial. [1] The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Judge Gesell dismissed the charges on September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel.

Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, and this testimony was deemed to have influenced witnesses at his trial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North

I guess those are pretty close to my views in most areas...minimum govt.