Some reasons why you should be a liberal rather than a conservative

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Esp them gays, darkies, etc... right spidy?

Pick up a history book. The liberals were the ones who lead the charge against civil rights legislation with their ring leader being a former KKK member.

Did I mention that person was the DNC chairman and currently serves in the Senate as a Democrat?
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
poor as liberals do. He did not deny them because they were weak or unworthy.
Screw you, hippy. I'd rather watch you die than be forced to help you!


Homeless may be considered poor by some, but many do not feel that way themselves
Here in Canada we don't need to take care of homeless since winter takes care of them every year ;)

I do get your point - to teach a man to fish is much better than giving him one every day to make sure he doesn't starve. But I ask you this - how much opportunity is there today for an unemployed person to better themselves? How could they afford trade school or proper ESL classes for example? You still need to give the man a fish while he still learns the trade.
This is really the key idea. I don't know why extreme conservatives expect homeless people to just get jobs. Would you personally hire a homeless person? I wouldn't. Getting a job isn't easy when you look and smell like shit.
 

Zolf

Junior Member
Oct 22, 2009
13
0
0
Ah yes, Liberals are so morally superior, which is obviously why the people in red states give a higher percentage of their income to charity than those in blue states. Oh wait, Liberals are morally superior because they are willing to give to the poor from OTHER people's money. I see how that works.

There's a huge difference between a person giving to charity or the needy out of their own pocket, and the government confiscating money from one person to give to the other. The first is an act of kindness, the second is an act of redistribution by force. But I guess I'm just an evil, morally inferior peon for seeing the difference.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,761
6,768
126
I'm not sure that Jesus would advocate using force to take from those who have (against their will) to give to those who don't have anything.

Are there any examples of this in the Bible?

Render unto Caesar...............
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
As the saying goes you get more conservative as you get older. As you get older you gain experience and see that the world doesn't work based off of lofty ideology and empty promises.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Come on Moonie...maybe the time has come for you to be a nice loving conservative instead of an egotistical pig liberal. FYI...the world is not nearly as black and white as you may perceive...lots of gray out there...plus if you look close enough...I imagine you'll find a lot of different pretty colors. Really...it's OK for people to be different than you.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,761
6,768
126
"Watch how in everything conservatives say about welfare there is this hate of folk who can't make it on their own, as if being lucky yourself to have capacity and the good fortune to have been born where you can make something of yourself, some how gives you the right of righteous indignation, and some sick need to look down your nose at those who have to struggle. Never mind that some people don't have much in the way of IQ to do lucrative work, or may have been badly damaged, emotionally, as children. Jesus came with his message for these, the meek who will inherit the earth."

Gosh, my Dear Moonbeam, I nailed it with that one didn't I.

M: Yes I certainly did. You see the hate in thread after thread.

The scum can't stand the thought that somebody got something for free, that they didn't have to suffer for it and pay with wasting their life in the pursuit of a phony symbol of self worth. They built their lives and their identity on the beliefs and lifestyle of the anti-Christ, the egotistical glutton. They have condemned their souls to hell as they condemn others. They truly are the stupid, as you said, because they have no idea. All they needed to be stone deaf is to see you as a hippie. They put their eyes in their ears.
 

Cstefan

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2005
1,510
0
71
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,761
6,768
126
As the saying goes you get more conservative as you get older. As you get older you gain experience and see that the world doesn't work based off of lofty ideology and empty promises.

That is the usual path to slow mental death, the path of the death of light and hope, the death of faith in the true message of God, the faith in truth and love. Life bleaches the stupid and makes them crass. They built a castle on sand and when it washes away with the first wave of disappointment and the first pain of regret, the older seal away their heart, damn up their emotions, close down their capacity for open generous love, because they can't bear the pain. They will not follow Christ up on the cross and die at the hands of those He came to Love. They give up. That is what it is to be a conservative, to be one of the party of death.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Ah yes, Liberals are so morally superior, which is obviously why the people in red states give a higher percentage of their income to charity than those in blue states. Oh wait, Liberals are morally superior because they are willing to give to the poor from OTHER people's money. I see how that works.

Let's do some simple grade 1 math to check if you're one of the leeches on society.
Total US federal taxes taken in by the IRS in 2008: 2.3 trillion
US workforce: 145 million (154mil at 94.2% employment)
Federal taxes per employed person: $15,862

You can look at your federal income tax brackets here.
In the first bracket you pay $802.50
Second bracket is $3,678.6
The remaining $11,380.90 is from the third tax bracket at 25%
(11380.9)/(0.25) = $45,523.60 into that bracket only

Total income required to pay the "average" amount of income tax: 32,550.00 + 45523.60 = $78,073.60

If your gross income in 2008 was less than $78,073.60 you are a burden on society and should probably just die. If you earned more than this amount, your opinion is perfectly valid since you actually contributed your fair share of the taxes.
 
Last edited:

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
Pick up a history book. The liberals were the ones who lead the charge against civil rights legislation with their ring leader being a former KKK member.

Did I mention that person was the DNC chairman and currently serves in the Senate as a Democrat?

You're confusing democrats and liberals. Liberals would be pro civil rights by their nature, no matter their party affiliation. You also fail to mention that JFK, who was a democrat wrote into law the 1964 civil liberties act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
One reason is because, as a nation that is mostly Christian, we want to honor the work of Jesus and emulate his life.

Jesus cared for the poor as liberals do. He did not deny them because they were weak or unworthy. He was crucified with thieves, just like the right claims democrats are with it comes to taxing the rich and giving to the poor. That is part of ones religious duty anyway, so what matters if it is also the secular law.

Watch how in everything conservatives say about welfare there is this hate of folk who can't make it on their own, as if being lucky yourself to have capacity and the good fortune to have been born where you can make something of yourself, some how gives you the right of righteous indignation, and some sick need to look down your nose at those who have to struggle. Never mind that some people don't have much in the way of IQ to do lucrative work, or may have been badly damaged, emotionally, as children. Jesus came with his message for these, the meek who will inherit the earth.

So you can be a nice loving liberal or an egotistical pig conservative.

Do not post to tell me I'm trolling or that my thoughts are on a low level. They are posted in P&N which if filled to the brim with idiots. The above, while able to be put far more eloquently, I am sure, is still basic fact.

Wait a second. Everytime I see conservatives here use religious reasons to prove political points they are called zealots and nazis.

We are barred from invoking scripture to bar gay marriage, we are similarly barred with respect to abortion. Every little point we want to make has to be so squeaky-secular that it hurts.

I ask that, if you wish to make such an argument, at least follow your own rules.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Let's do some simple grade 1 math to check if you're one of the leeches on society.
Total US federal taxes taken in by the IRS in 2008: 2.3 trillion
US workforce: 145 million (154mil at 94.2% employment)
Federal taxes per employed person: $15,862

You can look at your federal income tax brackets here.
In the first bracket you pay $802.50
Second bracket is $3,678.6
The remaining $11,380.90 is from the third tax bracket at 25%
(11380.9)/(0.25) = $45,523.60 into that bracket only

Total income required to pay the "average" amount of income tax: 32,550.00 + 45523.60 = $78,073.60

If your gross income in 2008 was less than $78,073.60 you are a burden on society and should probably just die. If you earned more than this amount, your opinion is perfectly valid since you actually contributed your fair share of the taxes.

Right, you're proving the point. The productive working members of society bear the brunt of taxes, especially the "rich".
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
One reason is because, as a nation that is mostly Christian, we want to honor the work of Jesus and emulate his life.

Jesus cared for the poor as liberals do. He did not deny them because they were weak or unworthy. He was crucified with thieves, just like the right claims democrats are with it comes to taxing the rich and giving to the poor. That is part of ones religious duty anyway, so what matters if it is also the secular law.

Watch how in everything conservatives say about welfare there is this hate of folk who can't make it on their own, as if being lucky yourself to have capacity and the good fortune to have been born where you can make something of yourself, some how gives you the right of righteous indignation, and some sick need to look down your nose at those who have to struggle. Never mind that some people don't have much in the way of IQ to do lucrative work, or may have been badly damaged, emotionally, as children. Jesus came with his message for these, the meek who will inherit the earth.

So you can be a nice loving liberal or an egotistical pig conservative.

Do not post to tell me I'm trolling or that my thoughts are on a low level. They are posted in P&N which if filled to the brim with idiots. The above, while able to be put far more eloquently, I am sure, is still basic fact.

Also, how do you reconcile this belief that all conservatives are greedy pricks with the statistics that conservatives are more liberal philanthropists?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,761
6,768
126
1.0 to

4.0

These are all a bunch of beautiful words for egotists whose aim is to preserve their egos via a compact with others. It is for those who have no faith in God's promise that He will provide. It is a pact among the weak to protect themselves from the strong among them. "Consider the sparrow. It wants not, neither does it toil."

Libertarianism is a little monkey lie that says this tree is mine because I have an official piece of paper, and filed it first on land I stole fair and square, a little monkey trick that says we'll mob the baboon with reams of lawsuits if he tries to take our tree.

Oh yes, I'm on my way to becoming a land baron, whereas the liberal of heart, the believers in life know their Father's house has many mansions.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,761
6,768
126
Also, how do you reconcile this belief that all conservatives are greedy pricks with the statistics that conservatives are more liberal philanthropists?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity

I have posted these facts many times when liberals attack conservatives for being cheap.

I am talking here, not of organized religion and how much is publicly donated at church and charitable organizations, often for public recognition, or the illusion one can buy ones way into heaven as well as real generosity, but the phenomenon of hate for those who get something they didn't work for via taxes, the revelation of that inner contempt and hate that infects so many on the right whose only claim to fame and self worth is in what they feel they have earned and without any recognition that they earned it because they are essentially lucky, born with some ability in a place they can use it.
 

totalnoob

Golden Member
Jul 17, 2009
1,389
1
81
Why should we do something merely because some David Koresh wanabee of 2000 years ago said so?
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Jesus also hung out with drunks, criminals and whores.... NVM you're right Christian organizations like ACORN are totally following in his footsteps.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
The problem with our form of welfare is it naturally creates a divide by strong means testing, large bureaucracy, etc and the producers/taxpayers tend to dismiss the whole idea of social welfare because they will not receive anything of it.

Compare that to the other structures we pay for like laws and government to define our rights, and the entire infrastructure to regulate them. There are courts that will decide and enforce your rights - local muscle man known as the “sheriff” to chuck “squatters” off your property and so on. We all benefit from these constructs so no one minds.

Likewise a system that was more broad, like UHC for example - would result in broad support for the system since most people will receive at least something. This is why Scandinavian countries wouldn't think of getting rid of UHC no matter how right wing.

I believe it's more a structural problem than philosophical dispite being couched as such.
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Right, you're proving the point. The productive working members of society bear the brunt of taxes, especially the "rich".
Yep, that's how progressive taxation works. Many of us will never be able to contribute as much as we take out. Example: regular public school costs about $10,000 per year per student. By the time you graduate from high school, you already owe society $120,000. Those roads you drive your first car on? Paved roads can cost up to several million dollars per mile to build (cost varies a lot).

This points out one of the most confusing things about many conservatives. People making $40,000 per year keep throwing out phrases like "I don't want to have to pay for some loser" then they completely ignore the fact that they themselves are losers. They're leeching on the system (most of us are) but they're complaining about... wait for it... people who leech on the system. wtf?
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
I can't decide if I should post something useful or if I should just go away shaking my head.

Your entire OP is one big generality based on stereotypes just poor comprehension. It's like saying that Jesus drove a white car so obviously he like white people better and if you don't drive a white car it means that you don't love Jesus and spit on everything he believes in. Assume for the moment that Jesus actually drove a white car. Whatever problems you can find in the hypothetical scenario I just mentioned can be said about the OP.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Liberals care for the poor?

Look at their donation rates!
They only care when they can reach into SOMEONE ELSEs wallets for their pet projects

It's not "someone else's" pocket if they (the democrats) pay taxes too. It's "everyone's" pocket. Get your terminology straight.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Liberals care for the poor?

Look at their donation rates!
They only care when they can reach into SOMEONE ELSEs wallets for their pet projects

Both liberals and conservatives rely on others to shield themselves from the consequences of their beliefs. Far fewer liberals would be willing to take money from the wallets of the "rich" if they had to do it themselves instead of letting the IRS do their dirty work for them. Likewise, I'd love to see the "principled conservatives" look in the eyes of the hungry, ill, and homeless and personally tell them "you don't deserve any help; keep your hands off my money you leech."