Read. And the entirety of one political party exists for the promotion of the murder of children, and part of the other one isn't sure what it thinks. Do you realize you're going to die one day? It could be soon. We don't know. And when you do, your money, your fun, and your plans will mean two things: Jack and Squat. What matters? Love. Love endures. Do you seriously have so much to do that we can't even get sex right anymore? For the moment, forget the God question. Why are we so afraid of sex? We're so scared of it, it must be tightly controlled. We must use it entirely for pleasure, that momentary "AHA!" most of us know and love. Wouldn't want to just let nature take its course, and see what happens. Oh, no! If we do that, a family and joy might break out. Don't you know you're much more valuable as a cog in a soulless corporation? I am beside myself.
As a general rule, I hate "pox on both your houses" takes on politics. Most of the time, I'm inclined to think that a particular person chooses this take because someone else has made them uncomfortable with a certain aspect of their own philosophy. If they adopt a posture of cynicism, maybe they can escape the moral force of that criticism. That could be bulverism in any one case, but I have seen it before, and I can't paint a picture without generalizing. Anyway, I didn't come here to talk about that. I came here to say that both major parties in the United States--and the people themselves--have embraced the absolute individualism at the heart of classical liberalism. Rightists want freedom from constraint in economics, environment, religious liberty, and a few other things. Leftists don't believe in this absolute individualism with respect to economics or the environment (not to mention religious liberty), but they do embrace it with respect to human sexu