Non-Liberal (NL): What business does the government have spending people's money against their will? Not only the money of real people, but money from generations far into the future -- wealth yet to be created, money yet to be earned -- that will never be paid back anyway? By what means do you call this "paying our bills"? It's not even real money! It's simply politically-created debt. Raising the federal debt ceiling without cutting spending only perpetuates the illusion and deceit.

Liberal (L): That's conservative hogwash. That's George W. Bush's policy.

NL: But Bush did the same thing -- only for billions, not trillions. He and his Republican Congress raised the debt limit repeatedly. They spent like Democrats used to spend, before Obama.

NL: Rights of the individual? Which individuals?

L: The right of the individual to live his life comfortably, without worry over health care, food or shelter.

NL: But what about the individuals who are to provide this for those other individuals? Somebody pays for it, and somebody makes it happen. Do the people who finance these things, and the service providers -- doctors, for example -- have any say in it?

L: Of course. They can lobby in Washington D.C. That’s our democratic process. Majority rule, minority input.

NL: But they don't have a say in whether or not they have to provide these things for other people? Government isn't providing the health care, the food, or the shelter. Other people are. Government is forcing those other people to do so. By what right do you justify government doing this?

L: Well, nobody has ever asked that question. That's a question from the seventeenth or eighteenth century. Those issues were settled a long time ago. We have the income tax and we have Social Security, Medicare. These things go back decades or even a century. Nobody questions those. Are you crazy? That’s like questioning God.

NL: Does the fact that they're old ideas or policies make them automatically right? The Constitution, which does not provide for any of these things, is even older. If age is the standard of truth, then doesn't the Constitution trump those programs?

L: The Constitution implicitly provided for these.

NL: No, the Constitution didn't implicitly provide for anything. It was quite explicit in how it limited the powers of government, especially the federal government. It specifically provided for named powers, such as defense. But leaving that aside -- what's right is right, regardless of the Constitution, correct? The question here is what's right.

L: That's correct. And all Americans have a right to health care. All Americans have a right to a diverse and prosperous, comfortable existence. Nobody should be left behind in a society with so much wealth and comfort. It's wrong!

NL: But in a free society nobody is stopping you from sharing everything you want. If you have millions or billions, you can give it all away -- through foundations, or whatever. You can stand on your front lawn and simply hand it out. Or you can support, even go volunteer or work for, some billionaire who is giving it all away. Billionaires and other wealthy people do that even in our semi-socialized society. There's no law, in a free society, against doing whatever you want for another person, so long as they let you.

L: That's naive! That's foolish! That's country club Bush Republicanism.

NL: I don't know what country clubs have to do with this. And I don't know what Bush has to do with it. Bush was just another in a long line of mediocre, pro-welfare state presidents. Bush agreed with you; Bush agreed that the welfare state as we know it must be preserved. He even expanded Medicare by billions of dollars. He cut taxes a little, but only for the express purpose of generating more economic growth so that the government may spend more. No, Bush's price tag wasn't as high as Obama's, but he wanted essentially the same things as Obama. Eventually he would probably have spent as much as Obama does now.

L: Not true! Bush was a radical capitalist. He was the opposite extreme of Obama! He was the most evil person in all of human history, with the possible exception of Sarah Palin -- no, wait, she's not running -- I mean, whoever the next Republican nominee will be. For now, it’s still Bush.

NL: That's simply not true. It’s fine to call Bush evil, but then you’d have to call Obama something even worse. For example, after the economic crisis began in 2007, Bush openly said he wanted to "be FDR, not Herbert Hoover." When push comes to shove, it's Big Government socialism he favors. He orchestrated the government bailout of the bank industry and set the stage for the auto industry bailout. Obama expanded all of these things once in office. Bush didn't leave Obama much to undo. Obama simply wanted to expand it all, spending trillions rather than billions. I don't expect you to love Bush, as you love Obama, but I do expect you to like him -- if you believe in what you say. Bush was Obama’s handmaiden.

L: No! Obama's way is the right way. He's not pushing hard enough. That's my only criticism of him. But he's right about nearly everything, especially in economics.

NL: Then why did Bush's policies lead to an economic crisis, and Obama's policies, based on the same ideology only more consistently so, lead to an even bigger economic crisis -- some say even a catastrophe, a second Depression?

L: It's all Bush's fault! It's all Bush's fault! How could anyone, even anyone as brilliant as Barack Obama, be expected to clean up this mess in 2 or 3 years? He will need two terms. We might even need to change the Constitution, and give him more than two terms. Whatever it takes.

NL: What if Bush, or any Republican, had suggested changing the Constitution to obtain a third and fourth term? Would you have supported that?

L: Of course not.

NL: Let's get back to "rights." I don't understand something. Liberals want to give women the right to terminate their pregnancy; gays the right to have sex with the consenting adults of their choice, and also the right to have marital contracts. I fully agree that those are all individual rights. But why no other individual rights? What if one of these formerly pregnant women, or one of these gay individuals, makes a million dollars? Or even earns a salary of $200,000 a year? Why does that money not belong to him or her? Or why does that gay man or formerly pregnant woman have to spend forty percent of their week -- if they’re part of that half of the population who still pays taxes -- subsidizing the medical care, agricultural subsidies, college tuition or federal job of somebody else? I just don't get this inconsistency on rights. It sounds like you’re a free man in the bedroom, but a slave to the coercive will of wealth-redistributing politicians the rest of the time.

L: Well, that's right-wing garbage. And I can assure you that no gay man, no lesbian, or no pro-choice advocate would ever say such a thing. They're happy to invest and to contribute. They trust Barack to do it.

NL: What happened to diversity? Diversity of views, in this case?

L: Shut up.

You see what passes for the intellectual “credibility” of contemporary liberalism.

What does it say about conservatism that it’s so unable to stop it?

Don't miss out on Dr. Hurd's latest book -- Bad Therapy Good Therapy -- Autographed Copies through this website only! Click Here.