Sunday, May 31, 2009

Episode 40 -- Interlude #2

Still having trouble sleeping, the Obese American continued to listen to the two spirits: Barry and Tom. Our hero asked...

QUESTION: “Then what is Liberalism?”

TOM: “Conservatism is the belief that reduced federal control leads to the greater good. Since the purpose of Government is to oppress people, and since people are basically good, greater involvement by government in the lives of its citizens leads to tyranny, whereas reduced government control allows people to flourish under the banners of Liberty and Freedom. True conservatives are independent spirits who want what is best for America.”

BARRY: “I disagree with your definition. Many so-called conservatives seem to want to control the citizens whenever it agrees with their objectives. Consider the conservative positions on abortion and on the legalization of certain drugs.”

QUESTION: “That's a good point, isn't it?”

TOM: “Barry makes a good point in one respect. People often confuse "conservatism" with the platform of the Republican party. There is no party that stands for pure conservatism, and republicans often confuse conservatism with religious-based tradition. A conservative must consider the issue of government control primarily above all other issues.”

BARRY: “So, you're saying that people who want to restrict gay rights aren't really conservative?”

TOM: “A conservative would not want the federal government to control the issue one way or another. States can define civil unions however they please. A federal government run by conservatives would not claim to sanction "marriage" for the fifty states -- a right that belongs only to God. Further, it would not force the states to adhere to a single standard that it defines.

“This was the problem with Roe v. Wade. Conservatives are often misrepresented as wanting to "outlaw abortion." Overturning Roe v. Wade would do no such thing; rather, it would allow the states to create their own laws instead of forcing the states to follow a single, federal rule. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds merely by hearing that case. They should have said, "The constitution does not speak about abortion; therefore, we have no authority."”

QUESTION: “And we should legalize pot?”

TOM: “That's a view taken by many libertarians, and liberals often agree with them because they want to regulate and tax its sale and distribution. A conservative would say that there shouldn't be any such laws -- whether they are about alcohol, tobacco, or any other substance. Instead, adult citizens ought to be informed of the dangers of marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol and should be free to make an informed choice about personal use. Still, it would be up to the states to ban substances and to punish offenders. The federal government should only step in to mediate disagreement between the states. For example, if one state legalizes tobacco and another bans it, the federal government would ask the states to assure that the product would not pass from a state where it was legal into a state where it was banned.”

BARRY: “That's different from what most republicans say.”

TOM: “That's correct. Most republicans respond to the issue by appealing to tradition -- not to science or even reason. However, what we're talking about is the FEDERAL government interfering in the affairs of the states by making something illegal in all fifty states. Localities would be free to ban cocaine, for instance, if the citizens themselves wanted it so.”

BARRY: “The federal government has to protect a state's citizens from one another. You cannot have complete liberty.”

TOM: “A state or local government should be able to define crimes at that level -- without the interference of the federal government. We don't need national speed limits, national abortion laws, or just about any national law. The states should define these issues themselves.”

QUESTION: “Without federal regulation, wouldn't the country degenerate into chaos?”

TOM: “That's what liberals would have you believe: that control is good. They blame various problems on "deregulation" that were actually caused by federal interference. If the feds had not ordered lending institutions to provide risky loans to citizens who lacked financial stability, the current problem with out-of-control spending would not have occurred. The entirety of the current recession stems from government interference. Doing nothing at all would have resolved the financial "bubbles" the way that they always resolved themselves in the past. All we've accomplished here is to create a larger bureaucracy which exists in order to perpetuate itself.”

BARRY: “So if someone thinks that ignoring problems solves them, then that person is a conservative.”

NEXT: Nothing Special -- Hating Everyone