In the interests of greater communication and understanding I'm offering this olive branch. What this entails is an explantion of what I believe conservatism means to me.
When people discuss what government does or they often neglect to discuss what government ought to do or more importantly what it ought not do.
Government is not without its virtues. By its nature--indeed its very purpose--is to retain the ability to organize and project a collective will. This effort is at its most basic level intended to provide an environment where the citizenry coduct their lives free from threats to their families and lives (I do not mention economic matters as commerce is merely another means by which people extend and better their lives). In other words, we want a government to protect us against criminals, invaders and calamities that overwhelm the resources of any affected community.
Yet, every function of government, even those born of charitable mindedness, is predicated upon force. Ask yourself: suppose there were an effort to establish a program through government auspices to allow all citizens to obtain a college education through the imposition of new taxes and the establishment of a new bureaucracy but members of the citizenry objected to the effort strenuously enough to exempt itself; how would the government react?
The reasons for resistance to the educational law would be immaterial. Whether the objection hinged upon to the taxes or the bureaucracy or even some strange creed that forbade higher learning those who resisted would be in opposition to the government. If government is to be obeyed in any instance it must be obeyed in every instance.
Those who refused the new tax would find themselves summoned to the nearest magistrate where the law would be read and the simple question of whether or not the defendent had adhered to the law would be put forth. If it were to be found that the defendent had disobeyed the law the prescribed penalty would be assessed. If the defendent refused to submit to the penalty--or indeed found the law to be so contemptible as to refuse summons--armed agents of the state would be employed to compel the defendent's submission. If it were not indivual citizens in this scenario but rather an entire faction of citizens we would find the government at war with a significant portion of its citizenry.
As discussions of what should our government do in our name progresses we must always keep in th back of our mind: is this a thing for which I would bring the full force and power of the government to bear against my neighbors and fellow citizens?
Would you haul men and women to jail for refusing to participate in some government program, regardless of how charitable and well-meaning its founding intention? If not then perhaps its is the sort of work that is best left to private citizens and groups organized by free and voluntary association. If yes, then how can it be charitable or even practical if it must wring its existence from the population through force or even the threat of force? How long until such practices become habits that intoxicate and addict those who decide just how charitable they wish to be iwth our lives and livelihoods?
As a "conservative" I make every effort to maintain as high a threshold as possible when it comes to matters of invoking the power of government. When it is to be invoked let it be without hesitation or reservation but before that I believe we must have absolute, pinpoint clarity about why and how we should dispatch armed agents of the state to contend with our neighbors or foreign powers.
