Replies

I love it how you guys invoke Reagan when you really want to defend unrestricted access to porn and drugs and stuff like that. You're about "freedom" and "choice" in about the same way that your heroes, the abortionists, are. It would take a strong stomach to live in the society you would create; I sometimes doubt even the most bilious old fart could do it.

"I love it how you guys invoke Reagan when you really want to defend unrestricted access to porn and drugs and stuff like that."

Heh, I love how some people like to generalize, use hyperbole, and call everyone who disagrees with them a druggie simply because there doesn't exist a single valid argument for expanding government beyond it's already insanely inflated size and scope. I don't want unrestricted access to pornography, nor have I ever said that I do, so that's wrong. I haven't even mentioned drugs, so that's wrong. As for "stuff like that", could we perhaps be a tad more vague? I almost had some idea what you meant...

"You're about "freedom" and "choice" in about the same way that your heroes, the abortionists, are."

Ok, so I'm a crackhead porn fiend abortionist. What, no cannibalism accusations? Was it actually me over there on the grassy knoll? Come on, now, you completely missed a perfect opportunity to call me a commie queer, too! :-)

You've yet to make a valid argument to counter my perfectly valid points that paid, commercial satellite and cable television providers are beyond the legal scope of the FCC, and that they should be. You've yet to make a valid argument to counter my perfectly valid point that parents, not the government, should take the initiative in ensuring their children are not exposed to materials they, the parents (not the government), consider to be inappropriate. If parents want more tools to help them control what their children can view when they're not around, then parents, not the government, must lobby the issue with their providers.

For suggested talking points on expanding government power, expanding the control of the FCC, and limiting the scope and role of personal responsibility and parental responsibility, please see here. Thanks.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.