Okay Slackie, instead of discussing the issues, create fake people, commonly known as straw men, and have them say unappealing things that have nothing to do with the topic of conservatism. If I wanted to hear about imaginary unappealing people I could just listen to OReilly or Limbaugh describe imaginary liberals.

As far as 'Me First', everybody lives by me first whether they admit it or not. The Buddhist Chant of loving kindness starts with blessings to oneself and then radiates outward to encompass relatives, friends, strangers, and finally all living beings. But most mature people realize that self-love is necessary before love of others can happen.

Without self love there's no golden rule. With no golden rule, there's no commons, no common sense of fairness. Without fairness, no sense of personal responsibility. With no sense of personal responsibility, well, we sit around and wait for the government to take care of us. That's liberalism, different subject...

I'm sick of people saying federal libertarianism is idealistic! How high does the debt have to go before you 'pragmatic' people realizing the current system isn't working? 15 trillion? 20 trillion? The problem is that the same people that print our money are the ones in charge of spending it. Do you see a problem here? States can't print their own money, so eventually they have to deal with reality and balance their budgets.

"Your remarks on “control” are well taken, but, obviously, our federal government does have a responsibility to see that tax dollars are used appropriately and fairly."

Yeah, like New Orleans. Perfect example of my original point, which is that people in government have their own agendas, and you're better off taking care of your own neighborhood.

"We can see what happens to our countrymen in places like New Orleans when the federal system is sabotaged by the Bushs and Norquists. "

So when the federal government works it's because it's the most efficient form of government, and when it doesn't it's because of the Republicans? Now who's being idealistic? Who is complaining that their perfect form of government is being ruined by PEOPLE? Get real. There will always be greedy, power hungry, selfish people in government. The pragmatic view is to limit the amount of damage that they can do.

"Our federal spending is out of control because of tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy and an imbalance between military spending and investment in non-military growth over the last 50 years. Its special interests alright, but these “greedy, power hungry, selfish people” are from outside the government, not within, except when our leaders enable them by undoing controls, checks and balances."

Greedy, power hungry, selfish people are everywhere, in and out of government. If you pay attention, they actually tend to go back and forth quite a bit (think of officials who become lobbyists, department heads who were ceos, etc.). As the power of the government grows it will continue to attract corruption from big corporations. Centralized power gives them a one-stop shop for their corruption efforts (K Street?). I agree with liberals on many of the symptoms, but giving the federal government more power isn't the answer, it never has. Power is a magnet for greed, plain and simple.

"You say you have worked in state government, but I’m guessing not for long or at a low level. Your ideas on government appear to me more theoretical than realistic."

Quite the opposite. I was in a position to see the entire process, from legislation to the writing of policy directives to the implementation of policy by the bureaucrats. I have also worked for large corporations and small businesses. A lot of my beliefs are based on firsthand observation, not on anything 'theoretical'. What always amazed me about the government bureaucracy was how far apart the motives of the individuals were from the assumed motivation of the policies, usually due to internal politics and career advancement motivations. If a policy wasn't working that the current person in charge was responsible for, then it wouldn't get fixed, as acknowledgement of the problem was seen as politically harmful to them. I saw people being promoted so that other people could solve the problems that they caused. I saw policy makers (department-level) take legislation that was well-meaning but too vague and take the opportunity to inject their own agenda that had nothing to do with the original intent. And most of all I saw the total disconnect between these people and any accountability for the money that they were spending. If a new person took over they would gleefully scrap their predecessor's efforts with no regard to money already spent. The bottom line is they knew it wasn't their money.

And no, I'm not a bitter old ex-bureaucrat. I was a consultant with an apolitical job who happened to have firsthand access to these people.

"Also, economic libertarianism is dead because history killed it. No one in their right minds want to go back to the 1890s, especially given today’s access to weapons and bombs."

What? So the 20th Century is what, a ringing endorsement for powerful national governments? I'm sure that to people living in the Roman Empire thought the Republic seemed old-fashioned. And as far as weapons, who built the weapons, was that the states? Please. Our state regularly has referendums on important policy issues. Let me know when the next national referendum on military spending is, I'll be sure to show up.

In fact, let me know when the next national referendum on anything is.

Ron Paul would not use a botnet because using botnets is not strictly proscribed by the constitution!

Ok, I support Ron Paul, but the best way to deflate stupidity is with humor and wit. Don't get too worked up and keep a smile on your face. That's what he does when he gets asked one stupid question after another.

Go Ron Paul!