[NutCrackerBoy]

They are just so sure they are right - that they cannot even *see* that they are advocating taking away others' rights and privacy.

Generally speaking, I think *they* could agree that a proscriptive law makes inaccessible some sort of personal liberty. There has never been a successful sustained government that did not do this. And since the absence of government, anarchy, is as bad or worse than having no freedom at all, tradeoffs are definitely necessary. Let us agree that, some problems aside like Campaign Finance Reform shredding the First Amendment, under the status quo individual liberties are sufficiently sancrosanct. Within that framework, various political forces will advocate various laws including proscriptive ones - in all cases, it will be argued (sometimes speciously) that a citizen's ability to pursue happiness is best served. These questions can never be settled and will forever be the subject of politics as long as the republic shall exist.

All that said, most policy preferences of social conservatives can definitely be argued in a way that would deflect your charge.

[Sunsong]

No I don't agree. Those who want everyone to be forced to live by their values become a detriment to a free society especially when they want to use other people's money to accomplish it. Look at the issue of Teri Schiavo - though I sided with the family - there will be other cases in which it is clear that the individual themselves who is in a prolonged coma - or whatever - would want to die. Yet, social conservatives will attempt to make that illegal and also to use tax payer funds to keep people (who would themselves choose to die) alive. This is just an example. But the point is that social conservatives ( a lot of them anyway) want big government. They want oppressive government just as the article says. Phillips is making a good point here.

My point is that many social conservatives are so attached to their ideology that they cannot even *see* the truth of what I am saying.