[tpaine]

--- I reject the notion that there is such a thing as a right to vice; only a right to virtue. There is no right to drug abuse, no right to pronography, no right to prostitution, no right to to adultary, no right to fornication, no right to sodomy, etc.
The state is perfectly within its competence in restricting these things.
The question is one of prudence: does prohibiting such things help or hurt the common good? The answer to that is sometimes yes and sometimes no. ----

----- there should governments at the provincial, county, municipal, and neighborhood levels, each with increasingly more involvment in the citizen's daily life.
-traditionalist-

---

We are in general agreement
-john gault-

---

I can support that level of "sequestering."
316 -mrleroy-

---

Gentlemen, this republic is in serious trouble if your views are in any way representitive of todays 'conservatives'.

Yall are advocating a type of communitarianism, imo..

[MrLeRoy]

Yall are advocating a type of communitarianism, imo..

Not me---I'm just advocating the minimum goverment action necessary to defend the rights of unborn persons.

[traditionalist]

Yall are advocating a type of communitarianism, imo..

Of course. Conservatism has always recognized the importance of the community, the legitimacy of its power to regulate individual behavior, and the obligations of the individual to the community. It's all there in Acquinas, Burke, Weaver, Kirk, Straus, etc. At a more intuitive level, it's there in the writings of Madison, Washington, Adams, and the American founders. It's also there in the preamble to the Constitution.

Ignoring the communal nature of man is the fundamental error of libertarianism.

[traditionalist]

Oh, dear me! I forgot to mention Aristotle, from whom Acquinas derives much of his political philosophy.