Name of page stolen from the epic song in the musical Les Miserables.[1] Sadly the answer is not "24601". This is just a vanity page that also serves as a disclosure of interests for if and when I am accused of non-neutrality in my edits.
I am a social liberal and an economic conservative. Like all demographic pigeon holes, the models don't fit perfectly. For example, I still think "social justice" is just class envy and disguise, and I accept that the wealthy should pay higher taxes than the less well off.
I am a green, but I dislike militant tree-hugger types who cannot see the wider picture.
I firmly believe in the rule of law, and the rights of man, but I dislike people who dress up left wing causes as human rights issues (the right not to be tortured is a basic human right; the right to 25 days' paid leave a year is not).
I believe in democracy only because it is the only system of government that has really worked well in practice so far (yes, I know Churchill said it better[2]). I suspect democracy will hit the wall in 20 or 30 years in the Western world when aging populations (who are the only ones who really vote) continue to demand high pensions and social welfare and the young (who usually do not vote en masse) become increasingly unwilling and unable to pay for it.
I don't think you can define a person using Userboxes, but I do think they provide a very useful insight into people's values.
I am religious, but not dogmatic. On a purely practical level, I disapprove of much that the established church does. I also believe that all governments should be secular, as religion is too often used as a mask for an agenda.
No right thinking person would accept discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, ancestry or religious preference. But we continue to discriminate widely against people on the basis of which country they happen to be born in through immigration rules. I find that curious.
I believe in legalisation and regulation rather than prohibition. I favour legalising and regulating drugs, prostitution and sale of human organs, amongst other things (even though I don't use and hope never to use any of them).
I accept that verifiability is important, but I hate citation nazis who insist that even notorious facts and uncontroversial facts should have footnotes attached to them.
I think qualifications are important; I assume good faith when people claim to have qualifications and weigh their opinions on controversial subjects accordingly. But I intrinsically distrust people who shout loudly about their qualifications in arguments (a sin which I admit that I have myself been guilty of).
"Be bold" is all very well, but know your limitations, and remember it is a team effort.
For Legis' superb contributions to many legal articles, particularly in the difficult subjects. Wikidea 12:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
For supplying that image that I just couldn't find. Cheers! RexxS (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Excellent summary of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd. Not the easiest case to nail down with the different judgments. WakelessGrub (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
