Well there are degrees. I believe that it is proper for a government to have a focused social safety net. For example, I don't believe that a house ought to be foreclosed because someone loses a job. Now if they don't get back to work after a while then that's another matter. The degree and length of such a program would be subject to debate.
I also recognize that some people simply can't work and haven't relatives which have the financial resources to suck it up. Think someone severely physically or mentally handicapped. Ok, I'll pay taxes for that. I'll also shell out money on a medicaid program which works. That's defined as putting a broom and shovel or whatever in the hands of those who can do something (obviously that's a metaphor for doing something useful). The point of such a program is that it should be run with the idea of downsizing and going back to those in need, not those who want to be on the dole because Momma was.
We can't practically say "get a job" when there isn't one, or when the person is ignorant in the true sense. That does not obligate us to continue that situation in perpetuity.
Guns? I'm firmly in the pro gun column. Abortion? I don't like it, because too often it's merely retroactive birth control. Does that mean I want it overturned? No, because that's not the societal consensus. I'll defer to the rule of law on that issue.
What people do in their private lives is not dependent on my opinion of what is right or wrong. I still reserve the right of discernment, but not control. That of course is limited by the "your right to swing your fist ends at the beginning of my nose" philosophy.
So to sum it up-
I don't believe government ought to force someone's morality. I teach my kids what's right or wrong. Keep your damn hands off them.
I think that people need to take care of themselves and their own, I recognize that at times it needs to be involved. In all cases the government derives it's power from the people and rules with our consent. "We The People" have a government to serve us, not the reverse. The controlling document in all this is the Constitution, and it was made hard to change for a reason. That is to provide restraints on government, and keep it from overpowering us. Dems and Reps have often abused it, but that doesn't make it right.
Government is much like the One Ring. It can be tempting to bring it in for many good reasons, but once it takes over something there is no going back.
Caveat Emptor.
Oh, I'm a Conservative now, because I don't swallow what was being pushed as "health care reform". That was merely who controls the purse strings. I also don't care for many things this administration has done. I don't think that government is good at a great many things, and having seen how things work up close and personal I have reason to feel this way.
Now two years ago I was a liberal because I believed that Iraq was a cluster that we never should have gotten involved, and I felt that when no WMDs were found (and it was clearly stated that they were there), the Republicans should have held their representatives accountable. Instead, they circled the wagons. They did so when we arrested a US citizen for years without proper legal counsel or habeas corpus. That was clearly unconstitutional, although all sorts of lame excuses were made.
Things are right or wrong on their own, and making excuses for them because they are "good in the long run" is abhorrent to me, especially when the ends justifying the means is often determined by whether there is a D or R involved.
That's how I think.
I ended up liberal libertarian on that test as well. I think the one major issue we may disagree on is health care, but I don't think we're really that far apart. 
Facebook
Twitter