Katie Mares Column January-April 2011

I advocate a platform of freedom for all, both in terms of negative and positive freedom. I also advocate for things like clean living but only in ways consistent with the platform. You see, either we have freedom for all, or we are all threatened by tyranny. Us vs Them, and Friendly Debate One of my missions in life is to build a community of libertarians on social issues, people who will stand up for each others' freedom, despite not agreeing with each other's views and lifestyles. This community will include both traditionalists and people who live alternative lifestyles. It has been said that everyone has an 'us' and a 'them' for me, my 'us' would be the whole of this community (including people who live alternative lifestyles), and my 'them' would be anybody who is anti-libertarian (even if

they live a similar lifestyle to me). And it is important to me that this greater 'us' win the cultural war against 'them'. Within the 'us', obviously we can have friendly debate. It is like the way every mature nation should behave, that all its citizens fight for the welfare of their country, but in everyday life within the said country people are still divided into different lifestylebased sub-cultural groups and have debates with one another. This does not decrease the solidarity of the people, it merely increases diversity. One good example is my ongoing debate with people who live alternative lifestyles. I generally don't agree with the supposed merits of those lifestyles, and I am also very keen to ensure that (within the framework of the greater 'us' of libertarianism) I will be able to keep my community of traditionalist culture alive and well (and hopefully pass it onto the next generation), but that doesn't make those who live alternative lifestyles the 'them'.

A Community of Libertarians I believe me, my friends and generally people in my cultural group will mature into a community of libertarians in the coming years. A community that will stand together for the freedom of all, and to support each others freedom in all social issues. We may have different lifestyles and different personal beliefs, but we believe freedom for all protects us all. We will stand together on issues such as freedom from discrimination for private lifestyle matters, freedom in relationships and how to define marriage, and freedom of religion in a broad sense. We will stand by our own practices and rules, and refuse to assimilate into the anti-freedom mainstream culture. In this community there will be those who adhere to traditionalist lifestyles like me (I would say that I am more traditional than 70% of GenY at least), and those who adhere to 'alternative' lifestyles that I personally

won't touch (and won't allow my children to touch in the future) but fully support the freedom for people to follow if they so choose. To build my political movement for freedom I need all of you, and in return I will do my best to bring my fellow traditionalists out of the folly of believing in excessive government power on social matters, and therefore help create a majority agreement on society leaving everybody alone to do their own thing. The Way of the Social Libertarian I am a proud libertarian on social issues, and have been since 2003. Why? I believe the concentration of power and its use against individuals will lead to discrimination (and hence social disadvantage) and loss of peace. It was the Bush years that taught me this lesson, but now that we are out of there I believe we should not forget it. I am indeed a traditionalist personally on most cultural and lifestyle issues. Last time I checked, I loved country music and ballads

and hated most hip-hop and heavy rock. Last time I checked, I prayed every day. Last time I checked, I was pro-life (but anticriminalisation of abortion), pro decency, abstinent on alcohol, anti sexualisation in the media, pro-family, anti divorce, and firmly so, and was promoting my agenda everywhere to the upset of modern hippies. In short, everything that the right wing supports except racism and homophobia. However, I detest the right wing's method of using government power to regulate everything. I do believe there should be laws preventing unwanted exposure to offensive things in public (like people being naked in public), and protection of couples and children against unilateral divorce, but there's where it should end. Anti-abortion legislation has not achieved its desired result (just look at Georgia), and ancient institutions like marriage have been destroyed by political squabbles and the enactment of 'no fault divorce'. Our tax money has also unwillingly gone to pay for

the Iraq war, church 'faith based' initiatives that promote homophobia, and the like. Therefore, I believe in a combination of advocating and voting for pro-freedom socially policies on the political level, and promoting traditional values and morals (less the bigotry) in the social and cultural setting. Anyone with me here? The Real Fix for Reactionarism It seems that nowadays there are more and more reactionary people around. You really can't disagree that extreme ideologies like racism are on the rise. Having done a lot of study in why this is the case, I have come to the conclusion that the way the world has changed recently has been too much for many people. And indeed it has. First of all, 1980s style Thatcherist economics are stupid and a complete return to Keynesian economic policies are in order. The economic miracle of the 1950s West was based on Keynesianism -

when you are onto a good thing, you don't let it go easily. Sadly, the recession in the 1970s became an excuse to try out extremist, antihuman type policies. People have suffered too much because of the rise of the economic right, and I believe it is the responsibility of the major centre-left parties of the world to take us back onto the right track. A return to a pre-80s model of economics with no ifs, ands or buts is not radical, it is pro-human. Secondly, I believe the right to live a traditionalist moral life has been eroded. Hence a lot of traditionalists have decided to wage war on all things progressive - which I believe is misguided, but sadly we must face the fact that this is happening. You see, us traditionalists really don't appreciate the inyour-face sexualisation of society, the putting down of the clean living ideal, the blaring of vulgar hip-hop music everywhere you go, and pressure applied against families that wish to be stable. Responding to us by calling us conservative (even I have been called that

a few times!) and upping the action is not really going to help - we will not convert to the hippie agenda unfortunately. Obviously the multi-million dollar media business has its role here, and they should be our main target, but what we can do is to reaffirm the right of everyone not to be offended by oversexualisation and the lack of respect in society. I am a social libertarian and I believe in freedom. Hence I support extending antidiscrimination to polyamorists (even if I don't agree with their lifestyle), and the decriminalisation of abortion by legislation (Roe vs Wade needs to be overturned because it is improper in and of itself, but whilst I am pro-life I do believe in the state not interfering in matters so personal) for example. But to help people like me make the case for these amendments in the wider world to make your life easier, you have to give us, the traditionalist majority, some respect too. Shoving it in our face doesn't help.

After All, I'm an Individualist - for a Good Reason Supporters of marriage equality have been quoted that they believe civil unions which nevertheless grants equal rights to couples are 'separate but equal' and hence unequal. I really don't buy that line - I have explicitly stated civil unions with equal rights, with no exception to family and parental rights, are equal indeed (which means that schemes in the UK and several US and Australian states count, but those in many European countries don't). But I am a strong supporter for marriage equality, right? Right, because I believe that any group of people should have the freedom to define their culture and mainstream society has no business in stopping them. Marriage is now the standard idea of relationship in the gay and lesbian community just as it is in the straight community - therefore, unless you

think it is OK to discriminate against gay and lesbian people, there is now no excuse not to support marriage equality. And I don't believe the opinions of the conservative anti-equality camp even need to be heard in this case - I am an individualist, and I believe rights of an individual come before the importance of a consensus. It's a position I take consistently across many issues - like a strong support for state rights and localities being able to set their own laws as long as it does not violate human rights statues, and strong support for multiculturalism. Some people have said that I am collectivist but that's because they look at my economic standpoints and decide that's me. Actually, I have to say that my economic standpoint derives from my ideas about how to run the economy, but it is my social issues standpoint that really defines my values. And on that, I can confidently tell you that I am a traditionalist-leaning libertarian. A Solution for Unemployment

As a result of the global financial crisis, many people around the world have been chronically unemployed and are soon going to run out of unemployment benefits. I believe society should make sure that everyone can live without too much difficulty - this is the mark of civilization as I believe it. Here's a solution I propose: anybody who is unemployed or severely underemployed can apply for government loans of up to $300 per week. This has to be paid back once they get employment, with the income threshold for repayment being $350 per week. This loan should last for about 26 weeks - thus is for the short term unemployed only, and the government would quickly recover the spending. To address the problem of chronic unemployment, government should offer all chronically unemployed people a full time job at $7.50/hr. This would not really cost that much, $7.50 per hour being pretty low and although many of these people may not be

highly skilled, the government can employ more of them, thus potentially cutting costs through employing less of the more expensive workers. This will also stimulate the private sector in the long run as government will be setting free more coveted talent for the private sector. What do you think? I would never support a burqa ban Ever since France's parliament passed a ban on the burqa, much of the Western World's racist residents seem to be pushing on their own governments to do the same. Let me say this: I would never, ever support a burqa ban, for any reason. This is antifreedom, specifically anti freedom of religion, and very statist of them indeed. And you know I oppose anything that is anti-freedom, except when to protect the freedom of those who wish to live a happy family-based life. And this is not even a 'liberal' stance - it is

just plain old conservative principle arguing against marching towards fascism. I am NOT changing into one of 'them' Recently a website made by a fan suggested that I may be changing into one of those narrow-minded conservatives that I have always said I don't particularly admire. Let me say this: I am never going to become one of them. Never. I am more open to engaging with selfidentified 'social conservatives' however because I believe we may have more in common than I previously thought. Hence I have been adopting more of their language recently. Separation of Church and State is Rule No 1 In my previous article, Love Religion But Defend Secularism, I outlined why I am an avid supporter of secularism. And I am not alone in being religious but supporting secularism - take France for example, a

nation of religious Catholics who strongly defend their secular state. Separation of church and state exists for a reason - otherwise each church will compete for a portion of the state and use it to disadvantage those who don't agree with it. Religion will then resemble politics at its worst - power struggles, majority oppressing the minority. The wall must be maintained at all cost - for the sake of religion. I suggest that those of us who seek to maintain this separation follow this rule: refuse to deal with arguments that stem from purely religious dogma without suitable reasoning. This is sufficient to provide enough space for arguments against abortion for example (everyone can see a fetus on ultrasound not just members of a particular religion) but still exclude ridiculous things like teaching somebody's version of creationism in schools. This does not mean that we are not engaging

religious people. I am a religious person myself. The idea is that we are open to all reasonable people who wish to talk, just not people who will fight for their dogma by force rather than persuasion. The Real Liberal Media - Not Playing by Conservative Rules They say that the media out there is liberal. Let me correct this - Hollywood, not the media, is liberal. I'll say that whilst Hollywood is liberal, Hollywood is not the real world either. In the real world, a lot of the media out there is conservative, or at least play by conservative rules. Just in the country I am living in I am seeing a lot of media spin against the centre-left PM we currently have. The same could be said of Obama in the US. It has actually become very dire: every liberal act is now being judged by conservative standards in the media. The real liberal media needs to stand up if we are to have any chance to progress and not be tied by chains to conservative rules. We need

to make our own rules in terms of judging people and things. Give Domestic Partnerships a Chance Domestic Partnerships are simply this: a partnership that is 100% designed for family. Nothing else, not political arguments, not religious dogma, and not relating to age old traditions about wives being property. Recently it has been hijacked and twisted into a form of same-sex marriage lite. That's very unfair - it is NOT marriage lite, it is an institution similar to but also different from marriage. Another argument for equal marriage rights, I guess. But back to the point. Domestic partnerships are stable family building blocks, and should be honored as equal to other stable family building blocks like marriage. In a time when we really need to encourage stable family building blocks, all such arrangements should be encouraged - including domestic partnerships. Many states around the world

have started to grant full couple rights for domestic partnerships - hopefully more will follow. The Wrongs We Must Distance Ourselves From My last article was about the past wrongs of certain liberal-related movements, i.e. those which advocated loose sex morals, disregard for the family and the like. And I have, for the record, spoken out against those things probably even more than against, for example, the religious right. Why do I do that, and should you be doing that too? I understand how indebted we are to the 1960s-70s generation which brought about a new wave of liberalism. However, their mistakes were plentiful, and to this day it is the negative things they ushered in that have been blamed upon the whole liberal movement, giving religious fundamentalists their credibility. It is not doing us any good. Therefore, we must denounce those past

wrongs and distance ourselves from them completely. We must do so even more decisively than the right, for it is we who are going to be harmed the most if these ideas continue to haunt the world. Wake Up, It's not the 1960s Anymore In the 1960s and 70s there were weird movements like 'free love', hippies, radical feminists rejecting the family and hating men, and the like. And we all know what the results were. The AIDS crisis of the 80s killed many from a generation, and had the most severe impact on vulnerable minorities like the LGBT and certain ethnic communities. The hippie communes have largely disappeared without making much impact. Radical feminism has been rejected by most of our generation, and seen as actually conservative in many circles too. The family still won out as the best institution to live your life in. I thought everybody had accepted that whilst it is good to have freedom and equality, the

white picket fence lifestyle is the best without peer. I thought that we had agreed that whilst we continue to rally against discrimination, injustice, war and poverty, we aim to make the family lifestyle available to everyone. Which is why I am surprised that recently I have encountered a few people who think that this is still the 1960s and that people like me are still considered ancient. No, we have found out the best way to live. And it's you, not us, that are ancient in 2010. The Limitation of Freedom: There Are Only Two Choices The recent Rand Paul scandal made me think. Society must accept either one of two moral choices: complete freedom to everyone, at a great cost, or freedom on all things except excluding freedom of personal judgments in market transactions, which comes at a much lower cost.

Let me explain. Everything is based on the premise of freedom being only fair if there is freedom for all (or freedom for none, but I don't agree with this). Complete freedom means freedom to discriminate at will, for example. This is what Rand Paul asked for. However, government has a responsibility to protect all its citizens it is just not moral to protect some but not others. Therefore, this must include protecting the freedom of all citizens to live as they believe. To do this, it must both allow and counteract private sector discrimination, by using budgetary means. This means that lots will be spent in the public sector to this goal, and taxation will rise quite significantly, meaning that whilst freedom of conscience lives, economic freedom is virtually gone. The other alternative is what we currently have - we accept limiting the freedom of people to use irrelevant cultural judgments whilst they are performing otherwise purely

economic functions because this is a way to still allow freedom of conscience in everybody's personal lives without the government having to fork out a lot more. The maximises freedom, both social and economic, whilst minimising the need for a huge government. Which one makes more sense? I guess most people can tell me. My Vision for an Ongoing Shared Culture Culture makes us strong. Culture made the civil rights movement strong in the 60s, and made the religious right strong in the 90s. If the Inclusive Family Values Movement is to be strong and strong for a long time, it is required that we have a strong shared culture. The shared culture should be inclusive to all lifestyles compatible with family values, inclusiveness and equality. Therefore, it should emphasize family friendly content, equal rights for all minorities and a equal

chance at a good life for everybody, but put behind us other issues of divisiveness. It will transcend both politics and entertainment. As with any culture, creativity and entertainment is a big part, but it will also necessarily be political as all successful movement cultures have been. It will start as a small subculture but will blossom into a force to be reckoned with. It will start with us building the basic building blocks now, and years down the generation it will be the background culture our children grow up in, as they grow up to be defenders of the cause through the culture. Everyone reading this now, I am inviting you to participate in building this culture. You can participate by putting your ideas out there, putting your talent to use in spreading the message (for example by music or art), or just simply connecting with other believers out there and start building your own big family of faith in inclusive family values.

Freedom Above All Else! The number one thing we should be aiming for and defending in a democracy is freedom. No freedom, no democracy, fascism etc. can rise up easily. Forget about electing an efficient government, if the choice is between freedom and lack thereof. This includes not just economic freedom but also the freedom to believe and live as you believe. We must stand up for that freedom, at any cost. There are many lifestyles out there that I don't agree with. But then, when it comes to governance, freedom comes first, and I stand by others' rights to live as they believe without difficulty. Judicial Activism is a Myth Let me say this out loud: judicial activism is a MYTH. In every nation with a bill of rights, judges are there to make sure that every piece of legislation is consistent with the nation's commitments to those rights,

regardless of when it is applied to the majority or minorities. That some laws will and have to be struck down are because they are inconsistent with the constitution. Great statesmen would never argue with the court in such cases. They simply amend the legislation to make sure that it is consistent with the constitution. Some conservatives think that judges are there to make things more libertine without the populace's consent. But what they are doing in every case is only to expand a right available already to the majority to minorities who have been excluded - rather than creating a new right altogether. This is making things more inclusive, not necessarily more libertine. (Consider that, for example, if nobody had a right to unilateral divorce as it probably should be in an ideal world, no court can change that. And there is nothing preventing parliament from adopting such a law either.)

The Idea of Prioritised Moderate Progress It has been argued that societies can only take that much change before its essential values are lost, and its fabric torn apart. Against this idea is the one that change just cannot come quickly enough for some groups, especially long suffering minorities. If there is only so much change that society can take, say, every year, then logic would suggest that we direct that change to make things better for those who need it the most, if we truly believe in the idea of social justice. Those who live alternative lifestyles purely because they think that's a better way - well they have their freedom to - but to change society to better suit them would have to be a lesser priority. In our world we are continuously trying to find better ways of doing things and accommodating more 'lifestyle choices' as long as their is a way of accommodating them that is not harmful. But this is nowhere as an important a process as social justice itself.

Sadly, this is not what society always does. For example, the 'changes' of the last few decades have changed society a lot to suit those who live 'alternative lifestyles' - e.g. the availability of no-fault divorce, the relaxing of attitudes towards public discussion of sex, but not changed society enough to bring social justice quickly enough to those who need it - racism is still alive and well, and equal marriage has still not been achieved (save for a small proportion of the world). In fact, the former changes may have encouraged resistance for the latter ones, since they have put too much unnecessary tension on society's fabric making it unable to accept any more change in the meanwhile (seen in, for example, the rise of the religious right). There may be a way to let people who live their life by serial marriages or those who want to marry three partners at once feel more included in society - indeed, if there is such a way that will not tear the fabric of

society apart, we probably should just do it, as we should respect others' choices. However, this is nowhere as important as providing equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, eliminating racism, and making sure transgender people have an equal opportunity at life, for example, as discriminating against the former is merely discriminating against lifestyle choices, but discriminating against the latter is discriminating against people for who they are and against the principles of social justice. Spite the Religious Right! But also win the Moral Race and prove them Wrong! Admit it - spiting a group that you don't like can be fun. However, using it on people who are otherwise fine but you just don't like is plain mean. I believe we should preserve that activity for groups that really deserve it groups that deliberately put misery into others' lives. The so-called religious right, for example.

Have you done your bit to spite the religious right today? I have. Indeed, my very lifestyle is somehow set up to spite the religious right. First, I am a believer and builder of interfaith coming together. To have the world wake up to the fact that all faiths are compatible and their one isn't the one true way - trust me, they fear this above all else, above gay marriages and the lack of school prayer. Secondly, I am trying to turn their worldview and predictions of the world upside down, for example by advocating a marriage boycott, effectively rendering a decrease in the popularity of marriage (note I mean the word not the institution of two people being together for life, they are only interested in the word anyway) in those places without gay marriage and the preservation of marriage only in those places with gay marriage, the exact opposite outcome of what they have suggested. My persistent pointing out that the welfare state is the best preventer of abortion won't make their

worldview more secure either. However, just to spite them and shoot holes in their worldview isn't enough. To really win, we have to do that whilst also winning the race on morality. We have to be able to set a moral example that is better than theirs. For example, my ideal is that we will have healthy, stable families and a lack of inappropriate sex, drugs, alcohol and abortions in my community. Winning the race on morality, more than anything, is going to put the nail in the coffin for the religious right movement. How To 'embed traditional objectives within progressive frameworks' An often stated goals in my speeches, writings and websites is to 'embed traditional objectives within progressive frameworks'. But how do we actually achieve this? Progressive frameworks are frameworks which are derived from cutting edge understandings of how we can improve our

relationships with each other and foster equality in our communities. However, within those frameworks, we can still specify which objectives are to be achieved. Progressive frameworks lend themselves to the possibility of achieving many different great objectives that older, medieval frameworks simply can't cope with. However, it is still important that time-tried objectives like stable family structures and public decency are high on the priority list too. I would wish to emphasize this point, just as much as I would like to see the introduction of progressive frameworks in our society. Support the Family that Supports Liberty United we stand, divided we fall. As in all things, we need to be united in supporting each others' decisions to live out our lifestyle beliefs freely, or otherwise we will all lose that freedom. Keep in mind that there are a lot of forces out there that seek to take away that freedom. Wingnuts who think that every community in

the world should be made in the image of their own, for example. Religious fundamentalists who believe they have the right to shove their beliefs down our throats. However, when we, the diverse people and communities who share one common thing believe in freedom - stand together, they have no way denting our freedom. We will not have to fear them. Therefore, in regards to those who choose to live apart from clean living, whilst I personally will not consider for myself their lifestyle choices and would do my best to prevent my children from straying towards their cultural turf, I will still stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the battle to ensure the lifestyle freedom of all of us, and hope that they, even though they are often wary of all clean living people, will accept my offer to stand together to fight the real threat to both of us. The Problem with Populism Put it simply - populism hurts. Ouch!

We thought it was ridiculous enough that back in the 70s and 80s some self styled experts suggested it was okay to smack children against then-new advice from child psychologists. Now former bullies are saying that anti-bullying measures are no good for a country's competitiveness. What a load of crap! That somebody can find an argument against something doesn't mean that argument is valid. For example, I have yet to see a valid argument against same sex marriage. I have never, ever seen one indeed, even though the anti-equality people have made so much noise already. However, such populist challenges, which are designed to attract those minds who haven't seen the whole picture yet, can succeed by preventing such minds from actually seeing the whole picture ever, thus impeding the spread of important ideas. For example, when I was young I was taught that anyone

who did not subscribe to traditional marriage was not of family values. Obviously this is very false. But it took me more than a decade to find and accept the truth. Many more would not even bother to travel that difficult intellectual path. A Real Step Forward For those of us who wish for equality and acceptance for all in this world, change can't come fast enough. However, we do have to struggle with a lot of forces trying to contain access to institutions, celebration and the like from being more inclusive. And it often feels like we are fighting on their turf, since what they defend is almost always the longestablished, difficult to change status quo. Maybe a better approach is to start by establishing new institutions ourselves. They can have the same spirit and purpose as the traditional ones, but have inclusion, tolerance and respect built into every one of them. A society built on such institutions would therefore have inclusion, tolerance

and respect built right into its foundations. Doing this may sound like a lot more complicated than just to convert a few existing institutions. But then, that's the only way that works maybe, especially if you take the whole world into context. Take a look a marriage equality (may fav subject). When will it be a reality across the majority of the world (not just the Western world)? 2100? Even that looks optimistic. (Obviously the equal legal marriage certificate movement is still important and my number one cause, since the only way to guarantee true equality is to have equal treatment of all couples under one single system). One thing that may stop people from defining their lives by new institutions rather than the old ones may be the factor of family approval. However, when each generation so desperately needs approval from the one above it, old bigotry and biases get passed down generations too. Therefore, we must be brave. In fact, if we are brave enough, we

may just educate the generations above about the values we cherish. Just look at those involved in the marriage boycott at the moment for example. Competition Isn't Necessarily Good In this market driven world we are often told that competition is always good. Which is something that I find ridiculous. Consider this. Worker A would be able to do a certain job for $10 an hour. Now worker B comes along and offers $5 an hour. Worker A, though demanding a wage that is not unreasonable at all, will still be priced out of the market and left jobless. Now imagine a whole nation of people surviving on $5 an hour jobs, and all the social implications. Would you like to live in that nation? Now consider this. Worker B continues to work on their job for $5 an hour, but worker C comes along and offers to do the same job for the same price, and is willing to be humiliated and yelled upon every day for no

good reason and will return this with only praise to their boss. Guess who gets the job then? As you can see, it is not only a matter of economics, it is also a matter of equality in human dignity. A Theme for a New Movement of Progress The progress that each generation can offer is often based on the circumstances they started out in. For example, the 60s generation in the West started out being conscripted for war, and their reaction against it was an anti-war peace movement whose legacy still stays with us today. Our generation needs to find such a common theme, and produce a better world based on this. Today a few people from the generations above us seem to run the world just because they have amassed a fortune by one way or another during times of economic change. The news is published and popularised because of them. Anyone who wants to run for political office need their blessings. Any new-comer to the Hollywood

circle needs their approval to be successful (as the mass-advertising needed to launch anybody up there requires a huge amount of money). The overall effect is that they control the culture. The culture is thus, at least the majority of it, not created by our generation - even if they employ people from our generation to get the message out, it is their message, not our message, that is heard. There are lots of voices out there from our generations that speak about the real issues. However, they are not heard. That is because the system is shutting us out. If the Beatles lived today, they would not be heard either. To even get a mention in the media, you have to have connections to the industry already in place. If you're not born in the right place - there goes your chance to have a star in the walk of fame for life. The effect of all this is that we, as a generation, have little power to create

change. The way we work and the way we play is discriminated against in society. The media constantly promotes negative stereotypes of us. And we can't do anything about it. The bottom line: We need to change the way culture is controlled and produced. Promises vs Results: Some Pro-Life Talk It is well known that the biggest abortion decline in recent US history came about during the Clinton administration, with his policy that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. (The rate did continue to decline in the Bush years, but I just can't see that it was anything that Bush did - the Clinton policies were simply continuing to work). Now to the 'Big-C Conservatives' who proclaimed themselves to be pro-life. They, however, also want to make sure that poor people did not have the means to raise a child properly in today's world. Their strategy is simple: just outlaw abortion. They don't

seem to need to take care of the backyard abortion problem either. Just look at Poland: abortion officially outlawed, but a high rate of backyard abortion persist. Looks like these 'conservatives' are playing out of sight, out of mind rather than facing the reality. I am not somebody who believes in abortionon-demand. However, I favour approaches that work. I can't endorse policy that comes from pure doctrine and doesn't stand up to common logic. Nor do I believe that we should take away people's right to do according to their conscience in controversial matters that don't have a clearly agreed on answer - for example, what to do in the case that the fetus is severely deformed, or what to do in the case that the mother's life is not threatened but her physical health (not emotional wellbeing) is irreversibly damaged by the pregnancy? For the USA, I have nothing against repealing Roe vs Wade - but nor am I particularly excited by this prospect. For most other

countries, abortion-on-demand probably comes from loopholes in laws that cater to the mother's wellbeing being abused - this could be addressed by simple amendments. However, beyond all this, we need to do what is effective - a living income for all, adequate childcare support, and all that. And this is what 'Big-C Conservatism' cannot deliver. The New Principles of 'Small Government' Traditionally, small government has been achieved with cost cuts, cutting programs to provide welfare to the needy, and being against basic health insurance for all. Yet these measures can be harmful to many people and hence the fabric of society itself. I suggest a few other ways that small government can be brought about without using the above means: -employing people who are already receiving welfare as much as possible. This will decrease the need for welfare naturally, without needing to resort to providing belowlivable incomes for those on welfare. This is

also good for private enterprise as it frees up more talent for the private sector to use. Since employing those on welfare is also usually cheaper, this can result in natural cost savings for the government. -taking care of everybody's life so that every citizen is on a living income. From there, we can free up the market as much as possible without needing to worry about tearing the fabric of society apart. Cutting tariffs to zero, ending all agricultural subsidies, and allowing the natural fading out of unsustainable industries in favour of imports should all be relatively easy by then. -encourage multiculturalism, with the government a protector of peace and freedom amongst all members of society rather than an agent in culture itself. The government then will be by default powerless to control culture. A New Approach to Government Employment The government should try to employ every single unemployed person in the nation. This is what I believe.

This is not as hard to do as it seems. In most advanced countries the government already has a welfare system to look after the unemployed. The government can pay the welfare benefits as a wage and ask for work for them in return. This is important because while it is natural for private employers to look for what they see most fit to help them profit, it is the government's role in society to correct market failure, including to help those that private enterprise do not find useful. This will also free up more talent for the private sector to choose from, which is also good for free enterprise. Conservatism Failed Because It Is False Advertising Conservatism says it is for freedom. They love to say how conservatism is based on libertarianism. Well, that seems quite like my approach - all the things I support are geared towards providing more freedom for people. Except that we actually are not fellow

travelers politically. Why? Because conservatism, at least in its early 21st century incarnation, does not stand for freedom - not anymore. Not when it stand against freedom of religion, as in the denial of churches and religious organisations to marry same-sex couples in accordance with their doctrine. I am told that I do share a few causes with the conservatives, time and time again. However, I would not trust that they would do anything for me in that area either. Why? Just look at their track record. Conservatism fought drugs, and drugs won. Conservatism fought divorce, and divorce won. Conservatism fought abortion, and abortion won. Conservatism fought crime, and crime won. Conservatism fought casual sex, and casual sex won. Need I say more? Conservatism has never delivered a bit of what they promised. Except for one thing - religious dogma. Why? Because for them, all the above are nice to

have, but religious dogma is their goal. Conservatism in the 21st century is about one thing - the triumph of dogmatic, literalist interpretation of religion. No wonder conservatism, which promised so many wonderful things indeed, still failed, as seen by its support rate in the young generation today.