British Man Denied Parole, Ruled "A Threat to Burglars"

[MMMMMM]

Thanks John, and likewise (except for the conservative part;-).

I am going to be reading up soon on the Libertarian philosophy--I don't know much about it yet--and I'm wondering if many of my views might not be more accurately described as Libertarian rather than Conservative (although there is some overlap between the two).

I typically seem gravitate towards political/social ideas which favor/protect the rights of the individual first and foremost, and frequently reject ideas which attempt to subjugate the rights of the individual to the so-called or supposed "greater good"--regardless of whether that attempt comes from "liberal" or "conservative" sources.

I pretty much feel that everyone should be free to do what they like as long as they are not harming others.

I also tend to favor political ideas which remain true to the Constitution of the United States (and I recently purchased from Dover The Federalist Papers and a copy of the Constitution so that I might read up a bit). In many ways, I feel that less is better when it comes to government.

These beliefs often drive me into siding with conservatives on various issues, but at times these beliefs drive me away from typically conservative stances.

Protecting the rights and liberties of the individual--that's essentially what I think government should be about--along with a few other necessities such as providing for the common defense.

[John Cole]

M,

I'd say my own political and social views are driven as well by the rights of the individual, but, I suppose, that makes me a liberal, even though I'd hardly claim that classification.

I'm also a deconstructionist, so when I read, I look for instances of what the words don't reveal, what's hidden, and gaps and fissures in the text. Much modern philosophy and literary theory addresses the inscrutability of various kinds of texts, and the Constitution is a text like any other. In other words, we begin from the stance that language is not a representation of ideas in an always understandable, direct form. (Stanley Fish is an interesting theorist to read about these matters since he is both a leading literary theorist and a lawyer.)

If I'm not mistaken, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" had their origin in constitutional interpretation to begin with. Quite frankly, I need to know much more about the Constitution, too, but I believe it can be read in any number of ways, and all may be equally valid--or equally invalid. Of course, this makes the interpretation challenging.

I don't know if we need more or less government, but I have trouble believing a party that preaches less government while finding new and improved ways to curtail access to information. Emerson said that when people tell him how honest they are, he counts his spoons. When a party preaches less government, I expect more.

Sorry for the ramble, but I was addressing--or trying to--a few of your points.

John