I think that I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s evergreen: the ideological opposite of a progressive is not a conservative. It’s a libertarian. Conservatives often appear to be ideological opposites to progressives, but that’s largely because we think that you need to convince us first before we’ll sign off to letting the State do something. And until you can convince us, the answer is going to default to ‘no.’ But once you convince us of something, the answer obviously becomes ‘yes’ and there’s nothing really further to discuss, is there?
This, by the way, drives progressives quite mad. You see, because they have an ideology progressives obviously stake out policy positions based off of that ideology. Whether or not said those ideologically-consistent positions actually make any rational sense. It bugs them exceedingly when we insist on treating each new policy position on a case-by-case basis (which is one good reason to keep doing it)…
For example: Ferries have been regulated since – I think – the time of King Charles II, or maybe King Charles I. Anyway – a very long time.
I am a conservative. I think ferries ought to be regulated.
Why?
That ferry may be the only link between an island and the mainland. So the terms, rates, and conditions of service should be regulated.
And at the same time – as a conservative – I think the ferry operator should receive a return that will keep the service in place, healthy, provide for capital replacement, and a profit.
And if the fare turns out to be too much for some people to live on that island, well that’s your sign to move elsewhere or leave the island less often.
As a conservative I acknowledge the First Law of Economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Convincing me includes showing me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to use the power in question.
And no, invisible ink or justices bloviating about emenations of pneumbras do not count in your favor.
Ditto that plus two words: Tenth Amendment.