>Don't you believe it! Conservative parties are all about control. They'll
>cut spending (maybe), but it'll be in social welfare areas... public health,
>public housing, welfare, education, all the good stuff. The war on drugs,
>the military, the police... well, someone's gotta keep all those
>disenfranchised scum in line, no?
AFAIK, George Bush's plan for military expenditure is actually less
than Al Gore's. GWB's plan also includes withdrawing from
non-conflict uses of the military. Libertarians want a military that
can protect US property rights, so I don't see where the military is
necessarily an evil for Libertarians. Ditto with the police.
Spending less on social welfare programs like public housing and
welfare are actually Libertarian goals, so no problem there.
The war on drugs is rightfully criticized, but I'd rather work on
that one issue than have to deal with the Democratic positions on all
of the issues that you mentioned above. Every issue's Democratic
position is the opposite of the Libertarian's: social spending is a
good thing for Democrats, the war on drugs has continued under
Clinton (even from '93 - '95 when Dems also controlled the Congress),
the military is used for "world building", etc.
>Conservatism, religious or otherwise, does not equal individual freedom.
Conservatism does stress "rugged individualism" and the ability to
let some members of our society fail in an evolutionary fashion.
It's a start.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT