social policy + new laws = squeaky wheels get the money

Submitted by jennifer solis (United States), Oct 19, 2007 at 00:13

I don't believe in "rewarding" or "the social need to encourage stable families". Stability is it's own reward.

If, as you say, Mr. Karekan, neo-conservatism is "deeply apathetic" about social issues, which I think it is, count me a member. Here in California, "trans-gender" bathrooms, frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits, muslim prayer in elementary schools, anarchy and ignorance regarding Union jobs (on the part of the Union members and the indoctrination from their "mulahs"), etc., etc.

Well, I guess "apathetic" might not be applicable after all. I just wish people would quit whining and take responsibility, and stop blamming the social system for their schizophrenic persecution complexes.

If I haven't offended you, maybe you can help me out on this one:

Websters Dictionary - "libertarian": def., - an advocat of full individual freedom of thought and action.

- that definition sounds more like a mantra left over from the '60's. Can and/or should "responsibility" replace the word "freedom"? What's your definition? Thanks, JS

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".