re: #183 laZardo

It could be possible for a “liberal” party to hold libertarian principle while the “conserative” one would be for bigger government as they are now, after all the ‘so-cons’ did try that over the last few years.

For example, William F. Buckley’s stance on drugs is in sync with “liberal” viewpoints, and I’m sure there are a lot of lizards in favor of expanded rights for the GLBT community.

/following a biaxial spectrum…

You need to un-learn what you have learned. The left-right dichotomy is flawed. But the type of conservative that was Buckley and Senator Goldwater is more in-synch with the constrained vision. It is false that those who wish to use the might of government to push social issues are “conservatives”. They are something else. Certainly they’re in the party and call themselves conservatives, and we would call them “social conservatives”, but they are not a part of the Goldwater mold.

Getting back to the dichotomy- it is the difference in a person’s view of the proper role and scope of government that distinguishes between the two visions. One vision is suitable for a democratic republic, the other leads to socialism or other forms of authoritarianism where the boundary between the rule of law and the rule of men is broken.