I have seen a lot from libertarians; few from conservatives or Conservatives. Which particular anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-Drug War, traditionalist, or otherwis

I have seen a lot from libertarians; few from conservatives or Conservatives. Which particular anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-Drug War, traditionalist, or otherwise conservative articles were you referring to? I think it's really funny that when you see some viewpoints with which you disagree, it is because some big, anonymous agglomeration ("Conservatives!") must be abusing their freedom of speech by saying things with which many HN readers agree (and your solution -- telling an actual big, anonymous agglomeration to push their viewpoints here -- just seems to exacerbate the problem). A few other points: In Conservatism, the purpose of people is to serve The Market. What does it mean to 'serve' the market? The market is an abstraction -- you can't make 'it' better or worse-off, though you can do that to participants. Our unregulated Conservative markets You're referring to how the unregulated hedge funds produced much worse returns than the highly-regulated commercial- and investment-banking industries -- and how the only safe spot in the current financial turmoil is the highly-regulated, government-created, government-subsidized mortgage industry, right? Right? Mississippi and Alabama have Conservative state governments, and have practically no startup activity. Massachusetts and New York are not Conservative, which makes them capable of spawning MIT and Silicon Alley. Has it not occurred to you that you have the cause and effect wrong, here? New York and California can have more abusive governments because even if you pay 50% of your marginal income in taxes, you're still better off starting a startup in CA than in Mississippi, or trading derivatives in New York rather than Alabama. What happened when we had sky-high taxes on rich people, and highly regulated markets? Some day, you will be introduced to the term 'loophole'. You will wonder why the three-martini lunch and the company car used to be so common, and are now so rare. You will run the numbers on the Reagan tax cuts and find that the reduction in nominal rates would imply gigantic cuts in total income received, which is not what happened -- and then you'll realize that, in general, tax cuts are accompanied by loophole-closing, and tax increases are accompanied by loophole creation. That's just how things work. Thank you for linking to Paul Krugman, well-known as the first person to be awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize for his political rants in a popular newspaper, rather than his academic papers. I haven't actually read what the prize committee said about him, but everyone I've met who agrees with Krugman's polemics seems to see the prize as new evidence in their favor, so I am assuming that this is what the award was for. Right?