The conservative community suffers from a strange conflict of intentions to both promote individual freedom from government intervention in private lives while also promoting intervention to stop behaviors the party members do not personally approve of.

And hence, we see the utter contradiction that is modern-day American conservativism—a philosophy which is simultaneously pro-small government and pro-big government. A philosophy which simultaneously argues that the individual knows best how to run his/her own life (with regards to economic matters) and that the government knows best how to run his/her own life (with regards to personal matters).

Not that modern-day American liberalism (i.e. progressivism) is any better.

While we're on the subject of issues in which the government ought not to be interjecting itself into our lives, here's a clip of Congressman Barney Frank making a good argument against anti-internet gambling legislation:

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/q-UpI1Ct-dg&hl=en”></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/q-UpI1Ct-dg&hl=en” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object>

Sadly, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was passed as part of an amendment to the SAFE Port Act of 2006). The amendment was tacked onto the main bill at the last minute by former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who—interestingly enough—had accepted campaign contributions from Harrah's Entertainment Inc.—a corporation that owns and runs gambling casino's.

The conservative community suffers from a strange conflict of intentions to both promote individual freedom from government intervention in private lives while also promoting intervention to stop behaviors the party members do not personally approve of.

And hence, we see the utter contradiction that is modern-day American conservativism—a philosophy which is simultaneously pro-small government and pro-big government. A philosophy which simultaneously argues that the individual knows best how to run his/her own life (with regards to economic matters) and that the government knows best how to run his/her own life (with regards to personal matters).

Not that modern-day American liberalism (i.e. progressivism) is any better.

While we're on the subject of issues in which the government ought not to be interjecting itself into our lives, here's a clip of Congressman Barney Frank making a good argument against anti-internet gambling legislation:

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/q-UpI1Ct-dg&hl=en”></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/q-UpI1Ct-dg&hl=en” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object>

Sadly, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was passed as part of an amendment to the SAFE Port Act of 2006). The amendment was tacked onto the main bill at the last minute by former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who—interestingly enough—had accepted campaign contributions from Harrah's Entertainment Inc.—a corporation that owns and runs gambling casino's.

Penalizing prostitues will not enhance their opportunities to further their education or to improve their opportunities to gain more savory employment..
Penalizing their customers only drives up the price and attracts the criminal elemnent wanting a share in the profits.

The real concerns (disease, trafficking, etc) can be addressed with regulations or llaws aimed at more narrow correlary practises.

If a connection is to be claimed between sexual fidelity in a marriage and honesty in governance , then some proof, or even mere correlation had better be provided.
How did FDR having a mistress affect his execution of prsidential powers?

I do not believe the social conservative want the government snooping around but the do want shame to be a factor in limiting this kind of behavior.

I also find it odd that the left, after preaching unequal power arrangement and vulnerable women needing protection, is now coming out being pro-prostitution. Do you really want poor women deciding between the long term gain of education versus the quick money of prostitution? Also, can anyone concieve of what the OSHA laws would look like for sex workers?

As for alcohol and tobacco, so for prostituion, it seems only sensible to apply the ''legalize and regulate' rule of thumb. Yet, we constantly go back to square one with each new 'sin' that draws attention and is debated.

I suppose everyone does that, but I am wondering why conservatives ignore their expressed reliance on assessing the cost effectivess of policies when it comes to practices like prostitution. The cost of arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating prostitutes and their clients is enormour, yet it appears to be highly ineffective as a deterrent.
Likewise, I wonder what happened to relying on market forces instead of government intervention.

There is a horrible disconnect here between principles, experience and a pragmatic, common sense approach.

The rationale is often protecting families or protecting individuals from abuse. But missionary zeal reaches too far over the line to protect people from themselves. I would be content to see government intervention limited to protecting the victims of predators.