Rule Three

Ideally, Reaganite Conservatism amounts to three things:

1. Smaller, more efficient government
2. Lower taxes
3. Maximum individual liberty

The first two are open for debate. What parts of the government can be eliminated and what is the standard for efficiency? Lower taxes, but for whom? What type of tax system is the best? Debatable items and those items should be debated. Number three, though, really has no wiggle room.

If I'm not harming you with my actions, then my actions are not your concern. Pretty sure that such a statement will not raise any hackles. Conservatives say such things all the time. A strange thing happens to a segment of the conservative body politic when certain issues are brought up that do not violate rule three.

Gay marriage does not infringe on anyone's right to do anything, for instance. However, social conservatives go absolutely insane at the thought of same sex marriage. The arguments against same sex marriage invariably come down to an archaic religious belief. Sure, some revisionist history regarding the special place marriage has always had in western civilization will come out, but it will always boil down to making God mad. Not a valid argument, and therefore can be dismissed.

Creationism is making a comeback under the guise of Intelligent Design. We'll just hop over the fact that Intelligent Design isn't now, nor will it ever be, a science and instead touch on the violation of Rule Three. You can teach your kids whatever you want. Once you use the public purse, you violate Rule Three. Teaching that Goddidit for the stuff not yet understood instead of teaching the scientific method stunts the intellectual growth of children. It's a social conservative position, as well. Is this a trend?

One can also apply this to the War on Drugs. Social conservatives are "for" it. Social conservatives are, traditionally, against maximum personal freedom. They also seem to long for a past that never existed. So, why is it that I've been told I'm not a real conservative on more than one occasion because I don't appreciate government intrusion into my personal life or the personal lives of others?

Ah, the answer is quite simple. I am a conservative and those that wish to increase the scope of government are the antithesis of conservatism. There are three rules, and they will happily violate two of them. What they don't seem to understand is this: increasing the scope of government to interfere in the private lives of others means the government needs more money.

Conservatism wasn't against progress. It used to be a long term outlook. What's happened, though, is that there is no looking ahead, just to an idealized past. It's a past that forgets a whole bunch of important things, like how the various trusts in the USA were a modern version of feudalism. They forgot that the 50's were a time of paranoia and racism. They forgot that without Darwin, there is no modern biology. They intentionally forgot that Fascism is a right wing ideology.

Social conservatives hold sway down south and we should remain vigilant that they do not attempt to assert control up here. They are dangerous because they choose ignorance. Rule Three isn't about maxium possible freedom only for you (and those who are like minded) at the expense of others, it's about maximum possible freedom for all people.