[PapaBear3625]

There is middle ground to be found, and the Founders exemplify it. Freedom of conscience doesn't mean just what the oddly lockstep “Free Thinkers” say it does. Freedom of association does not only apply to individuals and groups historically marginalized, it applies to all.

If FR had a thumbs-up feature, I would give it to your post.

The libertarian (note I use the small "l") position is to reduce government spending, subsidies, and government regulation. This reduction needs to be accomplished intelligently. For example, reducing bank regulation while maintaining deposit insurance just guarantees massive expenses to the taxpayers. Allowing welfare while not penalizing bad lifestyle choices likewise produces massive expenses to the taxpayers.

One thought experiment to illustrate the divide between social and fiscal conservatives:

Let's say you are a senator about to vote on a bill to cut back on the welfare state by barring any increase in benefits for any additional children conceived after the women starts on welfare, and limiting the lifetime number of years the woman is eligible for benefits.

You are the deciding vote. If you vote yes it passes, if you vote no or abstain it doesn't pass.

Over the long term, the bill will greatly reduce welfare dependency. Over the short term, the bill will likely increase the number of abortions among welfare women.

How do you vote, yes or no?

[dfwgator]

Over the short term, the bill will likely increase the number of abortions among welfare women.

That would be their sin, not mine.