I have decided that far too often we have trouble agreeing on what conservative means. We often hear the many differing factions, neocon, paleocon, fiscal conservative, social conservative, and so on, arguing. So, in the interest of making myself clear, I am going to offer a platform for a national party that I would view as truly conservative. (For a few thoughts on the many varieties of nominally conservative thought see "The Political Spectrum", "Many Types of Conservatives", "The Need to Correct Ourselves", "What We Deserve", "Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "The Party of 'No'?", "Activism As The Only Acceptable Position? ", "Winning By Losing? Not A Chance!", "Why We Lose", "The State and Morality", "A Bit More Explanation", "Misplaced Blame and A Power Play" and "Remember I Predicted It").

(NOTE: In some ways this is just an elaboration upon my post ""What I Want in a President, written before the 2008 presidential election. However, as my opinions have evolved since then, and other issues have risen to prominence which were not as important in 2008, it does not seem redundant to revisit the same question again.)

Health Care

As this is the preeminent issue, I feel I should address it first. Of course, I have already given this in  "Redefining Insurance... To Actually BE Insurance", "The Insurance Sham" and "My Health Care Plan", but for the benefit of those who did not read those, I propose we end tax benefits for health insurance. Instead we should encourage individuals to pay for routine medical expenses, while buying private insurance for catastrophic events. To make prices decline, we need to also end federal and state meddling in both medical regulations and insurance. Insurance needs to be a business like any other, with freely competing firms, not cartels with purchases limited to a single state. Ideally there would be a total elimination of all regulation, but if that is not possible, I would settle for a half-measure, such as tax-preferred Health Savings Accounts and interstate competition between insurers. At least that would reduce the degree of regulation. (See also ""Medical Reform, An Overview", "High Cost of Medical Care", "Reviving Nonsense in the White House",  "A Simple Question", "An Interesting Conversation", "Bad Economics Part 10", "The GOP Health Care Plan" and "Semantic Games".)

Abortion

This is a the big one in the Republican platform, as I believe it is misplaced. This is properly a criminal justice question, and like all criminal questions should be decided by the state. I know many feel very strongly about the question, but that does not make it a federal question. Murder is evil as well, but murder is a state matter, so should abortion be. Making it a federal question is a violation of federalist principles. I know current court policy necessitates fighting this question federally, but ideally the argument should be that Roe v Wade should be repealed and the question returned to the state, not that a new federal standard should be established. (See "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", "The Benefits of Federalism", "Below His Pay Grade" and "Consolidation and Diffusion".) (NOTE: Regardless of position, whether pro-choice or pro-life, the fact remains that abortion is primarily a criminal law questions, and, as such, belongs at the state level. Our recent tendency to replace criminal law with "civil rights" is yet one more way the federal government has usurped states' rights.)

Trade

Ideally the US would accept all foreign trade without question, and without restrictions. Even if other nations impose restrictions or employ subsidies, we would still benefit from free and unrestricted trade, even if one sided. However, in today's environment the best chance to achieve true free trade is through bilateral trade agreements, so I have no objection to such free trade agreements. On the other hand, there is nothing to be gained from any protectionist measures, so in the absence of free trade agreements, the best recourse would be to allow trade without restrictions, even if it seems "unfair". (See ""Fair Trade"","Exploited Labor", "Protectionism Right and Left", "Free Trade, Employment, Outsourcing, and Protectionism", "Unfair Advantage and Foreign Trade", "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs", "Bad Economics Part 6" and "Clarfiying My Argument".)

Taxation

Ideally we would fund the federal government as was intended, via direct contribution from the states. Then it would be up to each state to decide how best to collect funds for both federal and state expenditures. As this seems a remarkably unlikely development, I imagine the best intermediate step would be to reduce federal taxes to a simple flat income tax. At least by eliminating all other taxes, especially absurdities such as corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and inheritance taxes, we could at least simplify planning. (See "What we need", "Making Taxes Hurt", "The Benefits of Federalism" and "Why I Am Not A Libertarian". For my opposition to the FairTax and my reasons why see "An Interesting Analogy",  "The Runaway Stagecoach" and "Keyhole Thinking".)

Monetary Policy

Again, the ideal is unlikely as a first step. I would obviously like to see money returned to a commodity standard as well as banking returned to an unregulated private industry. As that is unlikely to occur, I would like to see the Fed, as a first step, either fix the money supply at a given level, or else establish a fixed, regular schedule of expansion. Better yet would be to follow this first step by a return to a gold standard with the conversion rate pegged to the current gold reserves. In the end, I would hope to reach a fully free banking system, but it would be enough for now to have a currency convertible into gold, even if it is still subject to centralized fractional reserve banking. (See "The Limits of "Scientific" Management", "The Limits of Econometrics", "The Limits of Technocracy", "Technocrats", "Inflation and Uncertainty", "Bad Economics Part 7 " and "Bad Economics Part 8".)

Bankruptcy

I mention this as federal involvement in bankruptcy has caused any number of problems. As I wrote before, bankruptcy should not include forgiveness, for either individuals or shareholders.  Any sort of forgiveness ends up raising rates, reducing the availability of credit and harming those who can afford it the least. Bankruptcy is a sensible policy, ensuring that debts are repaid sensibly makes sense, but we need to make sure that all debts are paid. (See "To Correct Debra Saunders", "When Help Hurts", "Bad Economics Part 5" and "Why Borrower Forgiveness is Both Wrong and Dangerous".)

Federalism

This is the most important issue, and this one alone would establish 90% of federal policy simply by shifting so many questions to the states. For example, all criminal law should be state law. Except for crime on military bases or federal land, criminal law should be handled by states, and interstate crime through multi-state compacts. Extradition from other nations could be handled by the federal government as part of its foreign policy role, but that would be the extent of its involvement. The federal government should limit itself to military matters, foreign policy, naturalization, and the settling of disputes among the states, as well as ensuring free flow of people and commerce between states. The rest is a state matter. No federal welfare, no department of education, no department of energy or labor or housing. Very simple. (See "What we need" and "The Benefits of Federalism".)

Immigration

I believe in an ideal world we would allow free immigration. So long as we have welfare that is impossible. However, ideally we would see the end of modern welfare should my policies be enacted that will no longer be a question. Once we reach anything close to a non-welfare state, there is little risk in free immigration. If everyone who comes to the US must either support themselves or be supported by a willing individual, there is little reason to object to immigrants. (Yes, it would reduce wages, but as I described in  "Protectionism Right and Left", "Free Trade, Employment, Outsourcing, and Protectionism", "Cash For Clunkers Revisited",  "War Stimulates the Economy? Let's Nuke San Francisco!", "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs" and "Clarfiying My Argument" that is on the whole good, not bad, as we gain more as consumers than we lose as workers.) I do still believe in barring criminals, those with communicable diseases* and those from hostile nations, but beyond those minimal restrictions, once welfare has ended, there is no reason to worry. (See also "Prelude to a Full Argument" and "Keeping the Drug Cartels Alive")

Social Security

Social security is a form of welfare, not insurance (see "Social Security is Not Insurance"), so it properly belongs in the section on welfare.  However, since people view it as something different, I will handle it individually. Especially as my answer is so brief. Do away with it. Ideally, we would refund everyone's contribution and be done with it, but that is unlikely to work. So, as a best case, I would grandfather in everyone over a certain age (say 50), allow them to receive the benefits they would under the present system, and then refund the cash to everyone under 50. Maybe give those 50 to 65 the option to go either way, depending on their preferences. I suppose if that is unacceptable as well to the political class, then we could try the privatization route, though only if it were 100% private, and not the piddling small percentage Bush wanted to try.

The main goal I want to achieve is to stop taking money. I know social security is effectively a Ponzi scheme that relies on future contributions to pay off current recipients, so ending contributions will require us to finance the remaining retirees out of general funds, but so be it. That is better than continuing this bankrupt pyramid scheme, as well as continuing to tell our citizens they are too stupid and irresponsible to plan for their own retirement. The sooner we force citizens to take care of themselves, and take money out of the hands of politicians, the better. I would much rather have a small tax increase to pay off the final generation of social security recipients than allow this fictional "insurance" to continue.

Welfare

Obviously welfare needs to end. It does nothing but breed dependence on the government ("Subsidizing Irresponsibility and Poor Planning"). And this includes all welfare, not just the better known food stamps, cash aid for single parents, medical aid and so on. It includes things such as federal flood "insurance" ("Welfare for Malibu Residents"), which is nothing but a subsidy for waterfront housing, or disability payments ("Perverse Incentives", "When Help Hurts"), unemployment "insurance" ( "The Endless Cycle of Intervention",  "Consequences", "How Democrats Keep the Poor Poor") and so on.

Of course this would raise cries from the usual suspects claiming that the poor will be dying in the streets and the world will fall apart and so on, but as I argued in "Private Charity", "Private Charity Take Two" and "Liberalism's False Dichotomy ", if we can support the welfare infrastructure now, with all the government inefficiency and overhead, private charity could do a better job without all that excess baggage. unless people think they need to be forced to perform charitable acts. But, if so, then shouldn't a representative government respect their lack of charity and not force them to give?

In any case, by making welfare a certain source of income, it is if anything, more harmful than the alternative of honestly begging for a living. And so, even if charity fell off, it would still be better than the welfare state alternative. Not to mention that, without the welfare option, many "unemployable" would find some way to work, while the reduced drag on the economy would increase employment as well. In the long run, the end of welfare would not result in mass starvation and poverty, but rather an end fo chronic unemployment and a booming economy.

Education

Education is one of those issues where the conventional wisdom is strangely shared by both the right and left, and both are equally wrong. Admittedly, they differ on specifics, such as whether vouchers should be allowed, and what role the federal and state governments should play, but both are unified in their commitment to public education, and both are wrong.

Actually, even the right is wrong in supporting vouchers. As I described in "You Don't Drown in a Glass of Water - Vouchers Revisited", "Why Vouchers are not the Answer" and "Never Ascribe To Evil, A Discussion of Education", vouchers would not provide an escape form the public schools, in the long run they would instead provide a way for the government to regulate previously private schools, at best creating two new tiers of education, government monitored private schools and fully private schools which refuse vouchers. In other words, they would make us no better off than we are now, likely much worse.

The main arguments are that, without public education, schooling would be limited to a few elite, rich children and, without government oversight, parents might not choose to educate their children properly. I have argued that the first is absurd in "Private Charity" and "Liberalism's False Dichotomy ", as the money we now spend on public schools would be available for parents to spend, as well as give to charity, and without the bureaucratic overhead of public schools, would support even more education. The second is even less tenable, as there simply is no "right" education, and the belief that such a policy exists is one of the reasons we have so many budding statists in our midst. (""The Right Way")

Of course there is a middle of the road solution. Rather than eliminate public education, let us adopt a federalist solution. Let us eliminate the federal Department of Education and return control to the states, or better yet, the counties. Some could fund public schools, some could allow vouchers, and a few might be brave enough to leave it up to private education entirely. And then we could see how well each solution worked, and may find out that fully private education actually is as good as I claim. At least if we get rid of our present, monolithic, federal solution we can try such experiments and learn what is the ideal solution, rather than being stuck with one size fits all. ("Consolidation and Diffusion")

Gay Marriage

This issue seems to have faded a bit in public consciousness, but as it was once so significant, and has the potential to be significant once again, let me state my ideal solution. Ideally, marriage is not a state matter. The state could allow the creation of contracts which perform the same functions marriage now does, but marriage itself, be it traditional marriage, "gay marriage", polygamy or anything else, would be the responsibility of the various religious faiths. Thus, an individual could marry whoever he wanted, and in whatever combination he wanted, provided he could find someone to perform the ceremony. On the other hand, the state would ignore that fact, and care only about contracts between those individuals, assigning them rights and liabilities. (See "Solving the Gay Marriage Debate", "Updating an Old Post", "Revisiting Gay Marriage" and "Some Additional Thoughts on Gay Marriage".)

Of course it is unlikely any state would willingly give up the power to define marriage, and even many on the right think this is a bad idea as they somehow think it would mean the state would "recognize gay marriage". (Though in reality it would mean the state would recognize contracts between homosexuals, which it does already.) So, barring that, I would recommend that each state enact their own definition of marriage. It is probably the second best, and most federalist, solution. It would be better to get the state out of religious questions entirely (such as what is a "real" marriage), but as that single remnant of religious legislation seems unlikely to disappear, it is up to each state to redefine marriage to avoid being bitten by the "full faith and credit" clause.Still, it is my opinion it would be better to get the state out of the matter entirely, leave the churches and synagogues and mosques to deal with spiritual matters, and let the state deal with contracts and other issue with which it is well suited to deal.

Foreign Policy

I do not ascribe to the increasingly common libertarian minimalism in foreign policy. In fact, I think in some respects the libertarians who do not believe in conflict other than to repulse an invasion of our lands is actually a mistaken understanding of individual rights. After all, as an individual, I do not have to wait until I have been struck to defend myself. If a man points a gun at me, I can fire first, or if I find an armed stranger in my house, I don't have to wait to shoot. In fact, even if a man says "I am going to kill you" and I have reason to believe it, I have a right to self-defense. In fact, as an individual, I can even act to defend another, requiring no direct threat against me at all.

So, why should the state, a collection of individuals, have fewer rights? Why must the state be purely responsive and reactive in its policy, when an individual has no such burden? Yet, the Ron Paul wing of the libertarians would say we can't attack a nation which is clearly going to attack us, or attack an expansionist state conquering neighbor after neighbor, but must wait until they commit an act of clear aggression against us. That is absurd. ("What Happened?", "Correlation vs. Causation", "The Problem With Ron Paul", "War As Last Resort")

The entire topic is too much to get into here, but my basic view of foreign policy is pretty simple. ( "Foreign Policy") The state exists to protect the rights of individuals, and that includes abroad. If a foreign state harms citizens, imprisons them wrongfully, or takes their property, then we have the right to attack that state. likewise, if a foreign state refuses to defend our citizens, we have a right to intervene to protect those rights. Finally, if a state is harboring a threat to us, or is likely to perform hostile acts, we have the right to preemptively act to protect ourselves.

One final point, the state has to act in foreign policy to defend our citizens, and may give military aid or sign treaties to make that function easier, but it does not have any obligation, or even right, to provide foreign aid to nations for "humanitarian" purposes ("Looking at Foreign Aid", "A Question For Any Liberals"). Nor does the state have a duty to enact tariffs or restrict trade to favor our citizens. Given today's political climate, there may be a need to sign mutual free trade pacts to ensure free trade, but other than that, the state should stay out of questions of trade. Trade is a private matter, and not a state concern. Unless foreign nations violate rights, the state should not involve itself.

(For more discussion of general questions of foreign policy, see "Goodbye Geneva", "Why Nuremberg?", "Last Thought on the Topic",  "The Failure of Negotiation", "Moral Equivalence", "The Dark Side of Reagan's Legacy", "Lebanon and Saint Reagan" and "Civilian Casualties".)

Gun Control (And Other Rights)

Do I even need to state my opinion? Perhaps I should as I seem to be a bit more extreme (if consistent) than other conservatives. I stated it most clearly in "A Simple Proposal", where I explained that every weapon the police or military can own, citizens can as well. And the reasoning is simple. Yes, police and soldiers are acting in a special capacity as our deputies, but they are mere citizens. In fact, every part of the government is made up of citizens. And so, no government official has any rights not possessed by other citizens. So, if a soldier can have an M-16, an M-60 or a VLAW, so can any other citizen. Otherwise, how could the citizen have delegated to the soldier the right to own that weapon?

There is more to it than that, but at its heart is the simple fact that all citizens must, of necessity have the same rights. ("Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government") And those rights are absolute and inviolable. ("A Right Is A Right") Not only that, but they cannot be surrendered. A convicted criminal can agree to not exercise rights to get paroled early, and while in jail rights can be held in abeyance, but other than those special cases, rights are absolute and inviolable. As the founders said, rights are "inalienable", we cannot surrender them to the state, simply allow the state to exercise them as well on our behalf. And so, there is simply no way we can limit rights, the state does not have the power to do so, be it gun rights or rights of contract or speech. Our rights are absolute in inviolable, and that is that.

(See also "Arrogance and Gun Control", "Nuclear Disarmament and Gun Control ", "Very Brief Gun Control Post", "The Weakest Gun Control Argument" and "Gun Control, The FDA and Regulating the Law Abiding".)

Economic Regulation

Clearly I am not a fan of government regulation. I believe most regulation of industries simply enforces inefficiencies and provides no protection ("Professional Education", "Business Licensing and Regulation", "Another Thought on Regulation", "Insider Trading", "Gun Control, The FDA and Regulating the Law Abiding", "The Right Way", "Medical Regulations" and "Medical Regulation II"), and is often abused by the industires themsleves to keep out competitors. ("Anti-Business Businesses ").  In most cases the promised benefits for consumers are never seen ("Bad Economics Part 5"), and often the supposed ills are not truly caused by the free market anyway ("Bad Economics Part 2", "Bad Economics Part 3").

However, there are a few special points that need to be addressed. For example, the simple fact that managing an economy "scientifically" is impossible ("The Limits of "Scientific" Management"), and as a result, all authoritarian schemes tend to disappoint not only the general public, but even their proponents ("The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism"), who end up proposing increasing degrees of regulation ("The Endless Cycle of Intervention"). Even without this increasing cycle, government management of firms, be it through direct ownership or extensive regulation is itself inherently inefficient ("The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises"), while the free market, despite claims of waste ("Bad Economics Part 10"), tends to provide the most efficient outcomes possible. ("Fairness and the Free Market", "Planning For Imperfection", "Who Will Decide", "Greed Versus Evil "). Because of this, I would tend to be quite skeptical of even the most minor government interventions, as they would need to produce quite substantial benefits to even begin to offset the harm they can do.

(As you might notice, I have not gone into great detail on this post, mainly because it could easily stretch on for 100,000 words or more. I have written so much on this topic, even providing links is difficult. Perhaps the best place to start would be the "Bad Economics" posts listed in the Postscript, or maybe my many recent posts on medical regulation, listed under that heading earlier in this post. Both give some pretty good arguments concerning specific areas of the economy, but which can be applied to the rest of the economy as well.)

Judicial and Legal Issues

For many conservatives the question of judicial reform boils down to two issues, tort reform and strict interpretation. Those are significant, but are just two symptoms of a general problem in the system, and that is inconsistency. We have altered the system so that outcomes now matter more than principles, and as a result, the system is unpredictable. And that would be my main goal, to restore predictability to the system. Even a bad system which is predictable is better than the best arbitrary system. ("Utopianism and Disaster") Yes, this would entail fixing the tort system with its general outcome based decisions, and would also mean that constitutional issue will need to be decided by consistent principles, but I think those two issues need to be resolved as part of a general move back to a principle-driven system. (This is a topic I have been meaning to cover, so I do not have a single good link at the moment. However, keep watching the site, as I intend to write shortly about the shift from Blackstone-like principle to a system driven by arbitrary precedent and outcomes without any consistent principles.)

(For now, you can read what I have written on the topic in my posts "The Problem With Evolving Standards",  "In Praise of Slow Changes", "Predictability", "Conservatism, Incremental Change and Federalism", "Empathy" Threatens not "Justice" but Predictability", "Sotomayor and Empathy", "Interpretation and Activism", "Why Judicial Activism Hurts",  "The Problem With Tort Reform" and "Red Herring".)

Criminal Law

There is one area of law in which I have a few more thoughts than simply creating consistency, and that is criminal law. I have written on this at some length, and in part what I want here is more consistency as well, as, in some ways, part of the problem again is the attempt to get the right outcome rather than apply the right laws. But beyond that, I want to see us return to a more sensible perspective on punishment. Rather than trying to rehabilitate, and to look at punishment from the perspective of the criminal, we need to look at punishment as a tool intended to reduce or eliminate crime. Once we do that, a lot of the problems will resolve themselves.

To understand more about my belief about criminal justice, read my post "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", "Compassionate Execution", "The Death Penalty", "A Rational Approach to Punishment", "The Ends Justify the Means?", "Fair or Functional?", "Not Completely One Sided", "Motives Unimportant" (referring to "Mental Illness" -- I forgot the link in the post itself) and "Sunday Morning Talking Heads". (As some on the left still put forth the "capitalism breeds crime" argument, I would also recommend "Greed Versus Evil" which rebuts that absurd notion.)

Social Issues

This is the point on which I part company with many conservatives, mainly because I do not see the state as the proper tool for enforcing individual morality. Yes, I believe you can "legislate morality", as otherwise how to explain any laws at all? But, though we can legislate morality in terms of protecting the rights of others, I do not think the state is the proper tool for forcing individuals to behave in desirable ways when the rights of others are not involved. ("The State and Morality", "A Bit More Explanation") Mainly this is because I do not think there is any way to determine what the "right" way to behave is, at least not with the certainty I would require before forcing a belief on others. ("The Right Way")  And so, rather than try to make people live by an arbitrarily elected rule, it seems to me the best solution is to allow freedom of conscience, and then trust that the best answer will show its value and win over others. ("The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"", "In Defense of Discrimination","Private Versus Public Racism","Economic Versus Social", "A Question for Artists of the Left")

That does not mean I do not have some social conservative agenda, it just means my agenda is negative, not positive. Instead of pushing an active conservative agenda, I would rather we simply did not push a liberal one. It seems to me that simply eliminating the social engineering present in modern government would be more than enough to allow the mainstream of America to reassert its relatively conservative social traditions.("In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Shame and Behavior", "Our Rude Behavior", "Social Controls")  And, as this policy fits so well with my beliefs about the proper role of government, I see no need to do any more than that.

Environmentalism and Natural Resources

I am clearly quite skeptical concerning most environmental theories, but, even if they were all true, there is no reason to completely gut the free market system and trample all over our rights in order to remedy the problems. Even if the theories of environmentalists were entirely correct, we already had enough laws on the books, concerning nuisance, the right to use and enjoyment of property and so on, to handle most environmental torts without massive government intervention. And so, my proposal is that we stop arguing about whether or not environmentalist claims are accurate (for the moment, we can debunk them later) and instead argue that, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, their solutions are too grandiose, and seem designed not to solve the problem but push a big government agenda. If we concede their points but show how the free market and small government could still handle such issues, they will have no reason left to push the green agenda. As I think most are more interested in the controlled outcome rather than the environmental issues, they will likely give up once the issue is no longer the quickest route to an expansive state.

(See "Why Peak Oil is Laughable ", "Shocking Numbers", "The Failure of Peer Review", "Eco-Nonsense", "Interesting Blindness",  "The Dishonesty of Avatar" and "Bad Economics Part 1".)

Conclusion

As should be obvious, my main concerns are to limit the government to the bare minimum, to protect the rights of individuals, and to make sure that power is kept on as local a level as possible. There are some other concerns, such as consistency in government and limiting individual discretion, but those are secondary to keeping government in check.

-----------------------------------

* While I have no problem with excluding those bearing communicable diseases from immigration it always struck me as rather futile. The reason being that we allow our citizens to travel to those areas of the world where such diseases are rampant and reenter without any screening, so excluding foreigners who might bring in the disease seems like closing half the barn door. Still, as it makes little sense to intentionally allow in those known to be infected, a known risk, I have no objections to barring disease carriers from immigration, provided the list is limited to major illnesses and not used as a backdoor way to limit immigration by barring "flu carriers" or "cold carriers".

----------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

To help simplify this argument, I will list the handful of posts which state my political philosophy in the most concise fashion. To start, obviously  "My Vision of Government" and "My Vision of Government Part II" are a good place to start, followed by "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", "The Benefits of Federalism", "An Analogy For Government" and "A Simple Proposal". My thoughts on the origins of authoritarianism can be found in "Those Other People", "Our View of Our Fellow Citizens", "Seeing People As Stupid", "Appealing to Arrogance", "The Citizen Dichotomy", "In A Nutshell", "Cognitive Dissonance Part 2", "Changing Incentives", "Three Types of Supporters of Big Government", "Bad Economics Part 9" and "The Right Way". And finally, my economic thoughts are best read in "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part I", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part II",  "Greed Versus Evil ", "Fairness and the Free Market", "The Limits of "Scientific" Management" and "Planning For Imperfection". It is also probably beneficial to read  "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises", "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government" and "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", as well as the "Bad Economics" series, starting with "Bad Economics Part 11" and working backwards. And finally, because too many libertarian variety conservatives have a strange view of the government as a "necessary evil" rather than an often misused tool, perfectly acceptable when used properly, I recommend "Tools", "An Unappreciated Truth", "Third Party Problems", "My (Informal) Nobel Peace Prize Nomination", "Why I am a Republican", "Paved With Good Intentions" and "Some Libertarian Analogies". That should provide a pretty good understanding of the thoughts which underlie the positions described above.

POSTSCRIPT II

I mention federalism several times, and it is an essential part of any conservative position in my mind. As that is the case, I have to point out that it is not enough to simply take criminal justice questions out of the federal domain. We also must be careful lest the federal government replace criminal prosecutions with "civil rights" charges (which are often an effort to federalize criminal charges) or the more recent option, civil charges which are essentially criminal law in disguise. It will be hard to do, as some civil charges need to be available to the central government for it to function properly, but hopefully once the electorate becomes more aware of the need to rein in the federal government and protect the interests of the states this will be less of an issue.

POSTSCRIPT III

I am sure someone will be upset by my claim that this is a true conservative platform and will ask why I have the audacity to claim to know what is and is not truly conservative. To that I can only reply that we each assume we know what is and is not truly conservative, otherwise we would not be able to state whether or not something was conservative, so we each assume our own understanding is the correct definition. I am simply being honest and stating that, given my understanding of conservatism, this is a truly conservative position. I admit I may be wrong and some other positions may be preferable, but until I am shown proof of that, I stand by my positions as stated above.