<Very interesting discussion. Be sure to continue with the followup links in the "Point/Counterpoint" box about halfway down. There is a response from Jonah Goldberg, and another rebuttal from Gillespie.

Gillespie is editor in chief of Reason Magazine, and Goldberg is editor of National Review Online. This debate points out some of the fundamental differences between libertarianism and classic conservatism.*

I have to admit I lean more toward Gillespie's point of view. I am strongly opposed to any form of draft, civilian or military, and I share the misgivings of others on the creation of a new department devoted to security. Although the job the department is ostensibly intended for is a job that certainly needs doing (collecting and coordinating national security info from many sources), anyone who has read my posts knows the sad history of government programs and departments that were started with the best of intentions and went downhill from there. Except in size.

*Andrew Sullivan has developed a new category he calls "Eagles," which he describes as follows:

THE EAGLES: I'm tired of this hawk-dove paradigm. And we all know how tired left and right are as useful labels. (Yes, I know I use them, but sometimes, you gotta.) More revealing, perhaps, is the fiscal-conservative-social-liberal category, in which I think I'd probably be counted. (The roster of categories is therefore: social and fiscal libs; social and fiscal conservatives; socially liberal but fiscally conservative independents; and socially conservative and fiscally liberal independents.) But the war changes the matrix again, I think. There's a new group of people out there who are socially liberal but also foreign policy realists, especially among those who have been awakened to political engagement by September 11. Some of these used to be Scoop Jackson Democrats, but today's breed doesn't buy into the big government liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s either. Some are neocons who don't love the social right. Others are just Generation X and Y, who simply accept the social diversity of modern culture and want to see it defended against theocratic barbarians. These people are not comfortable with the Republicans' flirtation with the religious right, or their prosecution of the drug war or mixing of church and state; and they're not impressed by the Democrats' lack of seriousness in foreign policy or enmeshment with public sector interest groups. They're politically homeless, these people - but were probably key swing voters in the last election. Instead of hawks and doves, call these people "eagles." I think they'll play a key part in shaping the politics and culture of the next few years. Are you one?

Kind of like libertarians who are not isolationist? Sure sounds similar to my point of view.