You make a good point about the inadequacy of the definitions. I was unhappy with it while I was typing it, which was why I added a couple more definitions on the end. And then I was just as unhappy with the word "subservient" as you were. I'm still thinking about this issue. The whole idea of defining politicial philosophies is essential if one is going to discuss these things, but it's hard to take it past the "I know one when I see one" phase.

The draft issue is only one reason I am more libertarian than conservative. Support of the draft by many conservatives, including conservatives I otherwise admire, is one area where I have strong disagreement with them. I do not support any form of mandatory government service, whether military or "Peace Corp" type. It is obvious that there are other areas where conservatives demand that individualism be subordinate to society as well--the Drug Wars are a good example.

I'm not sure zoning codes are a major requirement for mankind to live in peace. I still believe there are private alternatives to almost everything our government is currently doing.

I now am beginning to think the best description of political positions was from Robert Heinlein's "Notebooks of Lazarus Long":

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria.



The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from the highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.