INTRODUCTION:
When I was younger I was primarily a Democrat in my political orientation.  I voted for Bill Clinton in both elections because he seemed, get this, "cooler" than his opponents.  At some point in time though, I began to feel foolish when conversations about politics arose.  I didn't know what the issues were, who stood for which side of them, or even where I stood on them.  A co-worker of mine would have political discussions with my boss, and I wanted to either join them or initiate the discussions myself, as my boss was very interested in politics. The problem was that I had little or nothing to say.  I had no clue how to participate or contribute to these dialogues.

I didn't know where to begin learning, so I began listening to talk shows on AM radio, and slowly developed an understanding of the parties and their platforms, even if it was a little bit of a bias (conservative) opinion.  Since I was/am a Christian, the more conservative side of things definitely was more appealing to me, and it seemed like of the two primary parties, Republicans more closely represented the conservative side of issues, so I was naturally more drawn toward them than the Democratic party.  The more I learned about Libertarians though, primarily through a talk show host by the name of Neal Boortz, the more I appreciated their philosophy over both of the primary parties.  I occasionally find that most Libertarians are too extreme in there philosophy of limited government for my tastes, as I have found exceptions with several issues.  So for quite a while now, I have considered myself to be maybe 75% Libertarian and 25% Republican.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT:
I generally agree with the Libertarian philosophy of government that the role of it should almost solely be to do two things 1) protect our borders and our country's security through use of the military and various associated departments (CIA, Department of Defense, etc) and 2) to make and enforce laws that prevent one person or group of people from intruding on another person's right to life, liberty, and property through force or fraud.  Other than that, I believe that people should be free to make their own decisions about their personal lives and their businesses.  Similarly, people should be free to prosper or fail in their life as a result of those decisions.

The above philosophy also holds true for many things that I am morally opposed to, such as sexually immoral acts (homosexuality, prostitution, swinging), drugs, and suicide.  In other words, just because I don't agree with it or choose not to do these things myself, doesn't mean that I think there should be a law against it that the government can use to take away these individual's own freedom and liberties at gunpoint.  I simply do not believe the government should have a right to decide and enforce what we should do to ourselves or with another consenting adult, no matter how strongly I am against the actions that those individuals are taking.  As long as they are not interfering with my life or anyone else's who is not willingly participating, then it should be their own business.

Similarly, I do not believe that it should be the role of government to "take care" of its citizens using taxpayer funds for programs such as retirement (social security), medical care (socialized medicine), welfare, etc.  Not only is this because the founders of our country did not intend for it to be this way, but also because of reasons outlined on the next page about politics, entitled "The Government in General".