I have alot to learn

[CaptainBubba]

I don't claim to be politically savy, nor do I ever plan to, but it seems like there is a very large and obvious logical inconsistency in the world of politics.

Up until about 2 days ago I still hadn't come to a clear conclusion on just what the difference between Liberals and Conservatives was, because both support a strong government. Apparently people place such faith in an institution based on coercion that they honestly think there is a distinction between various forms and exmaples of coerced cooperation.

If I am seriously (that means if I am so off base that it is simply ridiculous) flawed in the following statements then feel free to correct me:

Liberals: Believe that the government should control your money, not your personal life.

Conservatives: Believe that the government shoudl control your life, not your personal income.

What I fail to understand is how one comes to such a conclusion. Where do you draw the line in deciding how much control an institution based on threatened force should be able to have over you. If the government should control your personal decisions then why not your spending? If they should control your income (keep in mind by forceable coercion) then why not your life?

From my very young and admittedly ignorant mind it seems that there are only two forms of political ideology.

Those who believe that the government should hold only enough power to allow citizens to live freely as they choose.

Those who believe that the government should be totalitarian. (Theocracy in the case on many conservatives I've heard voicing their views)

The flaw I think, is that too many trust that the government is willing to make distinctions like, "ok, well obviously we can't coerce them into obeying us this way, but so and so way is still ok." Since when was that realistic? This is not a rhetorical question. When did that become realistic? Keep in mind I am not very intelligent.