What I do not understand about the conservative ideology

[HighStakesPro]

I know that conservatives have, throughout this country's history, generally advocated "limited government", supporting such ideas as limited taxation, limits on gun control, more power to the states/weaker central government, free trade, stronger property rights, opposition to affirmative action, etc.

So why do they often oppose the side that would seem to support "limited government" on other issues, like legalization of marijuana, lower legal age for drinking/gambling, assisted/attempted suicide, censorship, abortion, gay marriage, and sodomy, among othes?

I know that there are different arguments for each of these issues that go beyond how much the government should control one's actions, but it seems to me like in all of these cases, the usual conservative propensity for limited government is superceded by a strict adherance to the Christian ethos. This worried me because it violates the separation of church and state that is supposed to prevail in all branches of government.

Mondern conservative positions on some issues in particular seem counterproductive and anachronistic, and are based on lawmakers' insistence on forcing people to do what they think is good for them. Many of these positions relate to so-called "victimless crimes." For instance, why should somebody be punished for not wearing a seatbelt, underage drinking and gambling, smoking marijuana, or attempting/assisting another with suicide? The only potential victim is the perpetrator (in the case of assisted suicide I will presume mutual consent.) Wouldn't someone who supports limited government oppose the criminality of such actions? In the case of underage activities, why not at the very least take decisionmaking authority away from legislators and grant it to a parent or guardian? A parent or guardian must be present for someone under 17 to see a rated R movie, so why should it be any different for drinking or gambling?

I know that there will be some contrasting opinions on this subject so I would appreciate it if all who respond would please be civil and refrain from describing me or others as "liberals", "leftists", or other uncomplimentary characterizations. Hope this turns into an interesting discussion thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Dead]

Libertarians are the true conservatives.

Today's "Conservatives" are really fascist authoritarians.

[lehighguy]

What dead said.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So why do they often oppose the side that would seem to support "limited government" on other issues, like legalization of marijuana, lower legal age for drinking/gambling, assisted/attempted suicide, censorship, abortion, gay marriage, and sodomy, among othes?

[/ QUOTE ]
Lots of different reasons for different issues. It's worth noting that not every conservative agrees with every other conservative on all issues. For instance, I agree that the gov't(at least the Federal gov't) shouldn't be involved in some of those issues.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Hope this turns into an interesting discussion thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people are optimistic by nature. I put you in that category /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[[censored]]

put yourself in the position of someone who believes that abortion is the mass murder of unborn children. Do you really expect them to care whether this in consistent with wanting to pay lower taxes?

these things are not black and white dude.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
So why do they often oppose the side that would seem to support "limited government" on other issues, like legalization of marijuana, lower legal age for drinking/gambling, assisted/attempted suicide, censorship, abortion, gay marriage, and sodomy, among othes?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you prefer the liberal/Democratic Party position on those issues? Give me some examples of prominent Democrats who advocate gay marriage, legalizing drugs, lowering the drinking age etc...

If Conservatives are hypocrits for advocating more governmental powers on certain issues, while criticizing governmental intervention on other issues, then why aren't liberals hypocrits for taking the exact opposite positions on those issues?

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarians are the true conservatives.

Today's "Conservatives" are really fascist authoritarians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please define "fascist authoritarians," then give me a few examples so I know what you are referring to. Thanks.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
So why do they often oppose the side that would seem to support "limited government" on other issues, like legalization of marijuana, lower legal age for drinking/gambling, assisted/attempted suicide, censorship, abortion, gay marriage, and sodomy, among othes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because today's "conservatives" have no true principles, they only have talking points and arguments of convenience.

In short: they have propaganda.

Bear that in mind and their spiels will suddenly make a lot more sense to you.


q/q

[ptmusic]

You hit the nail on the head. Except that, like another poster said, liberals can be hypocritical too, so it's a bit unfair to say conservatives corner the market.

It's incredible when a party/ideology keeps backing one side of an issue when all reality and reason points the other way. People get caught up in the rhetoric of charismatic speakers and well-planned publicity campaigns, and all of a sudden huge numbers of people are backing something simply because their team chose that side of the issue.

That's why moderates are where it's at. Take each issue, and each politician, on a case by case basis.

-ptmusic

[HighStakesPro]

[ QUOTE ]
put yourself in the position of someone who believes that abortion is the mass murder of unborn children. Do you really expect them to care whether this in consistent with wanting to pay lower taxes?

these things are not black and white dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I understand that abortion and limited taxation are not really comparable issues, but while I can completely understand how someone could view abortion on a personal level as "mass murder and unborn children", the idea of allowing allowing people the freedom to spend money as they choose is consistent with the idea of allowing women decide if they want to abort. The main thing that the issue of abortion has in common with the other issues I listed with it is that lawmakers are making deciding what people should do, not the people themselves, and like the other issues the debate between government authority vs personal authority is eclipsed by the debate between religion-based morality vs real-world practicality.

[HighStakesPro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why do they often oppose the side that would seem to support "limited government" on other issues, like legalization of marijuana, lower legal age for drinking/gambling, assisted/attempted suicide, censorship, abortion, gay marriage, and sodomy, among othes?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you prefer the liberal/Democratic Party position on those issues? Give me some examples of prominent Democrats who advocate gay marriage, legalizing drugs, lowering the drinking age etc...

If Conservatives are hypocrits for advocating more governmental powers on certain issues, while criticizing governmental intervention on other issues, then why aren't liberals hypocrits for taking the exact opposite positions on those issues?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to position this as one party or ideology against another. Nor do I subscribe to any one party's platform. My personal view is that government's purpose should be to improve the populace's general quality of life, not to tell them how to go about their lives. That is why I support the idea of more progressive income taxes which are weighted more towards the wealthiest of Americans, but this is another topic for debate in a separate thread.

[RickyG]

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarians are the true conservatives

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually misinformation. Liberarians are true Liberals in the original sense of the word. What we call liberals (or progressives I guess) now are closer to democratic socialists.


What is called conservative today would fall closer to fascism or authoritarianism.

EDIT: I guess that line was redundant as you already said it. Oh well.

[RickyG]

[ QUOTE ]
My personal view is that government's purpose should be to improve the populace's general quality of life, not to tell them how to go about their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original purpose of this government was indeed that improvement of the general populace's life, but in the very specific manner of protecting my rights from being infringed from you, not in protectin me from myself. The change began when we the people forgot that this was a republic where the representatives of the people did not have the power to take away the rights of a person who was not infringing on the rights of other (ie drug users, people who wish to commit suicide, homosexuals, prostitutes, etc.) All of these things may be "bad" or "wrong" in your world view, but theoretically, there should be nothing you can do about it.

If you are concerned about increased violence from drug users, the crime is still violence, not the use of drugs.

The other problem is that people have a tendency to like to vote to give away other people's property. This goes back to the beginning of the republic. There is a great speech given by Congressman Davey Crocket that talks about this exact thing. http://www.greaterthings.com/supplemental/davey_crocket.htm

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Libertarians are the true conservatives

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually misinformation. Liberarians are true Liberals in the original sense of the word. What we call liberals (or progressives I guess) now are closer to democratic socialists.


What is called conservative today would fall closer to fascism or authoritarianism.

EDIT: I guess that line was redundant as you already said it. Oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Ricky Ricky, you're wrong. Don't get involved in this if you don't know what you are talking about.

Conservatism is about restricting the power of government in all areas. The modern day Libertarian Party best fits that description, especially considering the fact that government spending has grown faster under Bush than his recent Democratic predecessors.

[HighStakesPro]

Wow, I read that story in the link you posted, and it's truly amazing. Growing up in the generation of media sensationalism and political posturing and badmouthing really inoculated me to politicins' attempts to fraternize and mingle with common citizens. I was shocked that a dialogue like this could be so enlightening and effective in deepening Crockett's understanding of the constitution and garnering such ardent support for his reelection - all because of Bunce's immaculate reputation, as Crockett described: [ QUOTE ]
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words, but in act. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintances."

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly suggest that anyone reading this thread read the speech:
http://www.greaterthings.com/supplemental/davey_crocket.htm

One other thing I was wondering about Ricky: The main point about not arbitrarily spending the people's money in exclusion of the budget does seem somewhat unconstitutional (though I am by no means an expert on the Constitution), but there are some situations, like in the case of natural disasters or terrorist attacks, where the damage is so devastating and far-reaching that it halts local and national economies and even disrupts the administration of government. In addition, there are unforseeable international events (like septempber 11th and the war in Afghanistan, and the Thailand tsunami) that require swift actio and the expenditure of funds to maintain international economic interests, productive foreign relations, and national security and integrity. In principle it seems like the same thing that Crockett described as unconstitutional, yet in practice it seems like at the very least a necessary breach of the constitution, or is there something in the constitution that provides for expenditures like these? How would Crockett view spending revenue like this? Or is there something obvious that I'm missing that differentiates these scenarios from the one Crockett was referring to?

Thanks again for posting the link to that speech.

[lehighguy]

Telling someone that believes life begins at conception that the government shouldn't be involved in abortion cases would be equivilant to telling them the government shouldn't be involved in prosecuting murderers. We all agree the government is allowed to prosecute murderers right.

[MMMMMM]

I fail to understand why libertarians should be considered the "true conservatives". Libertarians are essentially laissez-faire both in economics AND in social matters. If anything, that strikes me as being the "true liberals" rather than the "true conservatives". Liberal = "to allow", and libertarians generally favor allowing the widest choice in both social and economic matters.

[lehighguy]

I think its how words used to be used. A long time ago conservatives had views much closer to libraterians. That is on an idealogical level.

On a governance level repubs have no principles at all. Thier current budgetary shinanigans is proof of that.

[HighStakesPro]

Yes, but the reason the government prosecutes murderes (and perpetrators of any other legitimate crime) is because they are a threat to the general society and have proven themselves to be a threat to society and the well-being of others. This is why I stated that the issue of abortion is a debate between religion-based morality and real-world practicality. Women who abort are not violent or a danger to society, and other than the fetus nobody is directly or indirectly victimized. If you murder someone, you victimize not only that person, but their family members, coworkers, friends, their neighboorhood, community, and society in general. This is not the case with an aborted fetus. The only conceivable victim is the fetus, and obviously the debate over whether the fetus is a life is why abortion is so controversial. I am not arguing for or against abortion, I'm simply pointing out that it is similar to other "crimes" like assisted/attempted suicide, drug usage, and underage drinking/gambling in that it does not jeopardize others or society in general, and therefore, at most, is a crime only in theory and not practice.

On a side note, why do people bomb abortion clinics? Is there a more blatant example of hypocrisy? I'm not trying to attack the pro-life argument in general by mentioning abortion clinic bombers, but it's pretty amazing that people will take such actions that defeat their own purpose.

[Myrtle]

The whole issue of labeling anyone’s political views (in toto) baffles me.

Most of us who post here pretend to be poker players.

Good poker players understand that +EV is gained by ‘making good decisions’, not by sticking to one broad-based platform that attempts to deal with all specifics by embracing a ‘one size fits all’ strategy.

Making good decisions is fundamentally based upon analyzing and understanding the dynamics of each particular hand one participates in, so that the best decision for that hand can be made.

Why is it that in this forum here on 2+2 we can so easily depart from this discipline when the subject is politics?

Is it instinct that causes us to revert to some sort of tribalistic credo where our overwhelming need to belong to part of a larger group precedes our common sense?

Do we, as individuals, have some sort of overwhelming need for security of numbers that support our position that overrides the discipline of examining each and every issue on its’ own merit?

As I’m writing this, and thinking about it, perhaps that explains why most poker players are –EV?

Perhaps most of us simply cannot get away from the faulty thinking processes that have been so thoroughly ingrained in us since childhood?

I can’t help but wonder that if each of us could look at some of these issues, without viewing it through our own ‘rose-colored’ political ideological eyeglasses, that all of us might be much better off.

[[censored]]

Once again this thread is filled with Liberals deciding that conservatives in order to be conservative should really be adopting the liberal position.

Again when it comes to social issues Conservaties simply believe that their communities should represent thier common values and these should be decided by the people (through elected representatives) at the local or state level and not by judges.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again this thread is filled with Liberals deciding that conservatives in order to be conservative should really be adopting the liberal position.

Again when it comes to social issues Conservaties simply believe that their communities should represent thier common values and these should be decided by the people (through elected representatives) at the local or state level and not by judges.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I was thinking. I find it interesting that people are so obsessed with telling others how they aren't true to their own ideology, especially when they don't share it.

The concept of the post is off base in my opinion. If you don't believe in either no governmental intervention all on issues or total intervention, it apparently means you are a hypocrit with no real principles. There is no reason people cannot look at each issue and come up with a policy/decision they feel is best.

[lehighguy]

"The only conceivable victim is the fetus"

If you believe it to be a person, how can it be any less then killing a person.

You've tried to frame it in a government control framework. That somehow being pro-life made you anti-freedom. In reality you never have the "right" to kill another human being.

That is why the two movements talk past eachother. The left doesn't realize you can't have a right to kill another human being.

As far as why we persecute criminals I hope justice fits in there somewhere. If someone murders someone, even if I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he won't do it again, he should still go to jail.

[lehighguy]

No, republicans believe that the government should legislate morality and values. Conservatives realize that's facism.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
No, republicans believe that the government should legislate morality and values. Conservatives realize that's facism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give me a few examples of recent fascistic legislation passed? And by the way, what are morality and values? Does that mean when Republicans pass laws, they are pushing their values which is wrong? Don't Democrats talk about their "values"?

If Democrats believe that you shouldn't be able to discriminate on who you sell your house to, aren't they telling you what you can do with your own property? Isn't that pushing their values unto you, even if you don't share them?

[lehighguy]

I'm not a democrat, I think they're a bunch of authoritarians too, so don't bother trying to fight hypocracy with hypocracy.

Opposing gay marraige is legislating morality.
The FCC fining a network for a "wardrobe malfunction" is legislating morality.
The FDA and drug laws are regulating morality.

Anytime you tell people they aren't allowed to act a certain way even if thier actions don't harm others your legislating morality.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a democrat, I think they're a bunch of authoritarians too, so don't bother trying to fight hypocracy with hypocracy.

Opposing gay marraige is legislating morality.
The FCC fining a network for a "wardrobe malfunction" is legislating morality.
The FDA and drug laws are regulating morality.

Anytime you tell people they aren't allowed to act a certain way even if thier actions don't harm others your legislating morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fine. I just want to make sure people are consistent. I always here people attack "legislation morality" when they only apply it to when Republicans do something. It sounds like you are consistent. That is all I ask.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
No, Ricky Ricky, you're wrong. Don't get involved in this if you don't know what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually he is 100% dead on, according to the correct termonology of the study of politics. A conservative, in its broader orginal meaning has no problem with more government spending, and more government involvment in people's lives. You are talking about the Americanized version of the word conservative, which is totally different.

A good example of a true conservative in the classical sense is the German Christian Democrats. They (traditionally) support social programs, along with "Christian (Catholic) values," oppose abortion and homosexuality, and stand for "good moral values."

Liberals are similar to libertarians in this country. They are exemplified by Parties like the larger EU Parliament voting block, the Liberal Party in Germany, Shinui in Israel, and Democrats 66 in the Netherlands.

Sorry, but for the record, Ricky was right. You need to take my Intro to Comparative Politics class. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[natedogg]

The terms "conservative" and "liberal" these days tend to mean whatever it is an attacking critic wants it to mean at the time.

[ QUOTE ]

Mondern conservative positions on some issues in particular seem counterproductive and anachronistic, and are based on lawmakers' insistence on forcing people to do what they think is good for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to think of it this way. Republicans want you do what god knows is best for you. Democrats want you to do what the state knows is best for you.

Only the libertarians actually respect individual decision making.


[ QUOTE ]
Many of these positions relate to so-called "victimless crimes." For instance, why should somebody be punished for not wearing a seatbelt, underage drinking and gambling, smoking marijuana, or attempting/assisting another with suicide?

[/ QUOTE ]

All those examples apply to liberal politicians just as well. Your post should be asking "why do politicians of all stripes have such utter disdain for our individual decision making? Be it drug use, our retirement, diet, smoking, car insurance, gambling, you name it. They ALL want to decide for us".

And the stupid sheep keep voting for them and everyone is apparently convinced that the only issue of import is abortion, which by the way is the ONLY issue where liberal Democrats actually support individual liberty. In every other issue they just as hypocritical as, say Robert Bork.

natedogg

[BadBoyBenny]

I don't really think this is the case on this forums. There are a lot of posters on the conservative side who would take a liberal stand on social issues. Look at threads on medical marijuana, civil liberties, etc. There are some who tow the party line, but not the majority.

I also think the same is true of the liberals. Many of them are more open to free markets than the standard definition or the party line would make them.

Back to your poker analogy we typically label other players LAG, Maniac, Rock, etc. But often think that we don't fit a label, we are usually TAG, but will adjust our games when the situation calls for it. I think many of the posters on this forum, (or at least the posters that I still read) have a somewhat similar approach to political discussion.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
I think many of the posters on this forum, (or at least the posters that I still read) have a somewhat similar approach to political discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

.........I'd like to believe that to be true, but judging by many of posts that I've read here in the politics forum, I don't see too many examples of it.

[HighStakesPro]

Abortion is slightly different than the other issues because it is less of an argument between individual libert and government authority as it is between whose individual liberty is more important, the mother's or the fetus's. Some of the issues like legalization of marijuana and underage gambling/drinking aren't as hotly contested because they don't involve life or death cases, except in the case of medical marijuana. Therefore, politicians don't have anything to gain by taking contrarian stances on these issues because if anything it will hurt their chances of getting re-elected. It is the same with the death penalty: going on record as opposing it is political suicide, so dissenters keep their mouths shut. I am sure that in particular the issue of the legal gambling age has been discussed on here but since I am relatively new I will open up a new thread to discuss it.

I'm glad I started this thread, gained some valuable insight from others who both agree and disagree with my point of view. However, as I feared, someone like JackWhite would come in and attack everyone who he disagrees with and start labeling people and parties as liberal and conservative, as though it was two sides waging war against each other, and furthermore framing the discussion as a clash between Democrats and Republicans.

These are just political parties comprised of people with very roughly similar ideologies, but it seems like he makes an effort to perpetuate the idea that Democrats are liberal and have one set of beliefs and Republicans are conservative and have an opposite set of beliefs; I was specifically trying to avoid the debate between one party and another, because all the parties are are groups of politicians who use clever rhetoric to syphon off tiny bits of the people straddling the political fence and recruit them to their ranks; they do not represent a pure ideology, only what will further their own agendas. I explained my position as to how government should be involved in people's lives as clearly as I could in a previous post: government's purpose should be to improve the populace's general quality of life, not tell them how they should live their lives. Collecting the optimal amount of taxes provides funds which can be spent on productive ventures to improve society without having too significant an impact on people's finances so that they cannot fully enjoy these improvements. If I want to committ suicide, I should not be barred from doing so by the government because some elected lawmakers have arbitrarily decided that it's immoral. That is for me to decide, not them. I hope these examples sufficiently illustrate my point of view on the ideal role of government.

[Peter666]

What he said. To elaborate, the reason some "ultra conservative pro-lifers" bomb abortion clinics is based on the idea of innocence. No one has the right to kill an innocent human being. But a human being that is guilty of a crime or is a danger to society can justifiably be killed for the greater good. Abortionists are not considered innocent by "conservative pro-lifers" because they kill innocent human beings. Thus, it is logical for them to conclude that capital punishment is ok, because they look at it from a perspective of innocence and justice.

I don't know why this simple concept is not understood or ever explained in the media.

[HighStakesPro]

I understand the concept of punishing the guilty, but why do they take it into their own hands, and with such vengeful means? Why don't they advance their position on abortion through lawful means? Don't they accept that law enforcement is the job of the police, and lawmaking the job of congress? Bombing an abortion clinic may punish the people who in their eyes are guilty, but it certainly does not protect the innocent, as the unborrn fetuses are aborted either way; in fact, it KILLS innocent people like secretaries, technicians, and administrators. It's comparable to the Iraqi insurgency murdering an Iraqi who happened to collect the trash on a US military base. The logic is so totally flawed that it seems inconceivable for sane human beings to adhere to it. These people demand that the government exert authority over the entire county and disallow abortions completely, regardless of the personal opinions of anyone, yet because of their own personal opinions they refuse to defer to the government's authority in law enforcement and even its constitutional power to legislate what is right and wrong. This is completely hypocritical.

[Felix_Nietsche]

.....facts are the liberals aren't that great about personal freedom either. But don't believe me. Just look at the recent supreme court rulings from the liberal judges. However if you want to maximize your freedom then supporting conservatives is the way to go.

So why do they often oppose the side that would seem to support "limited government" on other issues, like legalization of marijuana, lower legal age for drinking/gambling, assisted/attempted suicide, censorship, abortion, gay marriage, and sodomy, among othes?
************************************************** *
1. Marijuana - What have liberals done to legalize MJ? In the recent California Medical Marijuana case all the judges that dissented were conservative. All the liberal judges supported the federal ban on medical marijuana. Perhaps you should be criticizing liberals instead.
2. Censorship - Care to provide any examples. There is a lot of hot air from liberals claiming censorship but I am not aware of any.
3. Suicide-I don't think it is the govt business. In the catholic faith they are taught this is a sin. I would argue it is mostly catholic politicians (liberal and conservative) that try to legislate restrictions on suicice.
4. Gay marriage - The last I heard is gays are free to marry people of the opposite sex. Just like anyone else. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
5. Sodomy laws - These are laws which have been on the books for up to 200 years and they are almost never enforced. Occasionally some cop uses this archaic law to punish a homosexual. I'd focus my attention on the cop and the DA that prosecutes arather than conservative lawmakers.

[Peter666]

The heart of this matter, as you brought up in this thread, is the question of Church vs. State. Those who are true adherents of any of the world's major religions cannot have the idea of Seperation of Church vs. State reconciled, as it would contradict their beliefs. From the Christian perspective, the Church is always above the State as the Church leads to one's eternal ends (heaven etc.) while the State is merely a temporary measure helping to organize one's temporal affairs. When the temporal gets in the way of the spiritual, the spiritual position must be adhered to first. A Christian who says they believe in the seperation of Church and State is contradicting themselves.

The idea of true liberalism, which basically means let everybody do what they want so long as it does not hurt anyone else, cannot ever work practically in the governance of a state, so long as there are different philosophical and religious views of people within that state. One group will contradict another group leading to a power struggle.

There is no such thing as a practical pure liberalism (just like there is no such thing as a pure communism). What we really have in our society is an authoritarian rule of a predominant belief structure imposed on us.

When the founding fathers of America came together, they really formed a pseudo Christian/Masonic state which the majority of the people then adhered to, because that is how they lived their lives practically. These days, with the collapse of Christian influence on culture and the rise of socialism, America has become a political battleground of what we call "conservative" (the older Christian/Masonic) vs "liberal" (the newer socialist/liberal) types of views.

A democracy is not an effective way to please all the different groups. If we were really smart, we would divide America into sections, and say: Christians here, Catholics here, Liberals here, Socialists here, etc, and stop the arguing. Let these groups make their own laws of the territory.

[Peter666]

I accidentally posted my comments to this post further down below.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
government's purpose should be to improve the populace's general quality of life, not tell them how they should live their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your position has two major problems.

1. Who defines what it means to "improve the general populace's quality of life". That purpose sounds noble and laudable but when you are confronted with what that actually means, in terms of everyday governance, there is no simple answer, and plenty of room for disagreement. I have no doubts that I would disagree with you about many programs and regulations that you currently believe are there to meet that goal.

2. How exactly do you give govt the power to "improve the quality of life" but not give them the power to tell us "how we should live our lives". There is a thin line there between paternalistic protection and authoritarian coercion, and it makes for a bad governing principle.

Your view of govt depends entirely on the belief that only uncorruptable men of goodwill shall ever hold positions of power in the govt. This is naive at best.

natedogg

[HighStakesPro]

I am opining about specific policy issues and how they are addressed by the liberal and conservative ideology. I am NOT defending or questioning the actions of any specific politicians or judges who are presumed to represent liberalism or conservatism. In particular I'm trying to AVOID a "liberals vs conservatives" argument and focus on the more relavent question of liberalism vs conservatism.

1. The reason that some issues like legalizing marijuana and the legal drinking/gambling age are not discussed at length in political circles or in congress is because they simply don't affect a great number of people, so politicians have virtually nothing to gain by taking a hardline stance on them or passing legislation to change the current laws.

Sorry, there is more to add to this post but I am dead tired right now. Later I will respond to the person who quoted my stated belief about the purpose of government.