From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 11:02:22 GMT
Hi Steve, Platt, all
I thought these were intriguing questions, so I'll throw in my two pennies
worth (partly to see if I actually am a conservative):
Gay marriage: ambivalent. Generally pro the 'gay rights' agenda; I have
theological qualms about it being 'marriage', but that requires rethinking
the theology of marriage in the light of modern understandings just as much
as it requires rethinking as a response to gay rights. (If the assumption of
a direct link between marriage and child rearing is removed, how do you
distinguish between a partnership, publicly acclaimed as life-long, which
isn't seeking to raise children and one that is? And how do you distinguish
between heterosexual and homosexual variants of the former? I don't think
you can - but my views haven't settled on the second issue (plus which, I
know from conversations that gay people have widely differing views on the
subject, just like everybody else))
Capital punishment: strongly against - I don't believe it can be justified
as a settled part of a criminal justice system.
Abortion rights: should be legal up until the end of the first trimester,
afterwards only if mother's life is in danger. I think it's always immoral,
just a) it can be less immoral than the alternatives and b) the immorality
increases over time, from nothing to everything.
Taxation on inherited wealth: against (it's double taxation and distorting)
Laisser-faire capitalism vs mixed economy. Depends upon definition of terms.
Unrestrained free-marketry is transparently daft (nobody sane wants free
trade in nuclear weapons), the question is how to draw the balance, and who
has the benefit of the doubt. I've shifted more towards the laisser-faire
position. I'm more concerned with the concentration of power, so, in
England, there seem to be very sensible (free-market) reasons for persisting
with a single NHS (for example, purchasing power) but why should individual
hospitals be controlled from Whitehall or by other civil servants? There are
lots of creative ways in which ownership can be dispersed. Similarly, the
free market depends upon regulations (eg to protect private property if
nothing else), the question is where to draw the line. One of the good
things about the US is the dispersal of power, especially when compared to
the UK, which is probably the most centralised Western country (something
like 90% of taxation is disbursed by central government - I think that's an
appalling statistic)
This probably puts me more in the 'libertarian' camp than straight
conservatism; but then, other questions might provide a different answer.
I'd be very interested to see how other people answer these questions -
where do you stand, Steve?
Sam
"Bush's speechwriters may be able to help him talk the talk, but does he
kneel the kneel?" (Alex Pennell)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 12:02:29 GMT