| richardhutnik said: If you were to look at classic conservatism, which is what Hobbes and others wrote on way back in the day, where you had a collective community that enforced values in it, and tried to preserve that which is. Such individuals believe that the preserving of values they believe makes a country great. Such individuals will have laws punishing violation of morality and so on. Well, what happened to what has been is that classic liberalism won out a lot of the debate, and the modern secular society came into being. Along the way, Marxism gained a foothold in economic debate, and the government then because viewed by individuals with a liberal perspective as the means of progress for all individuals. In Europe, socialistic leanings developed, and I believe you will see individuals who are conservative party there, advocating more government programs and supporting the welfare state. This is not true in America, where conservatism now is mostly classic liberalism, outside of the area of morals. In regards to disappearing in a puff of illogic, Libertarians would argue that conservatives do that. They don't go far enough in their views of smaller government. They have selective belief that some government meddling is bad, while others are good. Like Coulter would support the drug war, and throw people in prison, and feel it is a good thing. But then say the welfare state corrupts people. What do prison do for people? This is not logical: |
I don't think it's such a great idea to throw otherwise non-criminal drug users in jail myself, but her argument is remarkably consistent, and I agree with it. A lot of libertarian-minded folks want smaller government at every turn no matter what, but I think you have to go about it in the right order: until the welfare state is abolished, legalizing drugs would be folly. People have to choose between being free and having state-provided economic security. If Citizen A wants to shoot heroin directly into his eyeball all day long, I can't really give a fuck as long as he's paying for it. And if Citizen B chooses to be a ward of the state, that's fine, but he should be treated like one. So if the state tells him he can't eat this, or smoke that, or inject this, and that he has to exercise X number of minutes a day, that's the price he'll have to pay for not being his own man.
The only truly inconsistent argument I see being made is by liberals when they argue about the economic and moral case for universal health care and then turn around and say the government can't tell them what to do with their bodies.
