But I'm not talking about "law and order" issues here, am I? Aside from the Drug War - which is collectivistic insofar as it denies me my rights of self-ownership, and hypocritical in that it commands me not to consume certain substances, but permits me to remain free to ingest other mind altering substances, such as e.g. the Trinity Broadcasting Network - the rest of the social conservative repertoire is highly collectivistic as well: I ought to be free,
as a cognizant individual, to marry whom I so desire, or to control the functions of my own body. Both of these issues stem from the
first right of ownership, which is the foundational notion that only the individual man, and him alone, is sole master of his own body.
Naturally, you'll retort to the slippery slope, the first ally of the intellectually deficient. And no, I do not believe, for instance, that a man ought to be free to marry a horse: the horse is not cognizant. John Locke, from whom Monroe, Madison, etc. derived the intellectual underpinnings for our entire system of liberal (rights-based) democracy, held that it was the
act of cognition which gave rights to the individual man; and I see no reason to change that dogma now, when it suits your communistic purposes.
So, Einzige I guess you missed the part where rich people vote more Republican than poor people, huh?
Ideology != voting habits, you dolt. There are many poor Democrats - for instance my grandmother - who still proudly remember casting their votes for, e.g., George Wallace. There are other reasons to vote for a Party than their
social stances.
In many ways, the populist Dixiecrats had more integrity than their erstwhile "economically libertarian" Republican counterparts - they were at least honest enough with themselves to openly admit they were collectivistic. And I guarantee you that, e.g.,
StatesRights would smile on his way to the voting booth to pull the lever for one of those Dixiecrats, his economic philosophy gone with the wind, as it were.
Poll
