That's right, it's not even diet.

If one reads today’s column in the Daily Tar Heel, you would think that drinking soda is some sort of gross evil. We’re told that foreigners think we’re fat and what we really need is a fat tax and, we should only be allowed to drink water. What’s really ironic is that this column comes from the same author who advocated pot legalization. So, what gives? Clearly this isn’t about my health. What investment does Ms. Dugan have in whether I drink soda or not?

The answer isn’t all together clear. She tries to argue that this fat tax will result in some sort of tax windfall that will alleviate our national debt problem. However, she also clearly demonstrates that she knows nothing about economics. Claiming that we are a cash-strapped economy (with Helicopter Ben printing cash like a madman, a cash-strapped economy we are not) and ignoring the more obvious consequences of discouraging consumption, Ms. Dugan clearly fails to understand the most basic consequences of raising taxes in a recession (or emerging recovery or whatever you want to call it).

Simply put, it’s none of her business what I choose to drink. If I put on 100 pounds because I drink 12 cans of soda everyday, that’s my problem, not hers. What it boils down to is personal responsibility. Ms. Dugan apparently feels like I have none. I, of course, beg to differ. I love drinking Coca-Cola. Ms. Dugan apparently does not. If I try to force her to drink Coca-Cola (i.e. force my personal preferences on her), than I am clearly in the wrong. But if she tries to force her personal preferences on me (i.e. not drinking soda), she sees herself as some sort of moral crusader. This is completely illogical. If she wants to go live her life as a starving, miserable, deprived human being, fine. Just leave me alone.

For those interested in the facts of the case, the final construction of the wall was completed last night around 8:00pm. The final size was about 6ft x 6ft. It was rather bulky and likely would have required at least two people to move. The wall was last seen at about 6:30am this morning by the morning shift for Rams’ Head Dining Hall. I discovered that the wall was missing at about 9:15am.

I think that this serves as a rather sad commentary on the state of political discourse at UNC. Can we not all acknowledge that the destruction of the Berlin Wall was a good thing, signaling the end of one of history’s most oppressive and totalitarian regimes? Can we not acknowledge that the world is a better place without the Soviet Union in it? Perhaps this is not even the issue. Perhaps the significance of the wall as the penultimate example of the failure of central planning, the misery that socialism inevitably entails, and the inability of centrally managed governments to provide even for the most basic needs of their citizens is the real problem here. Perhaps those who stole our wall are so blinded by ideology that they cannot even comprehend the walls that they have built within their own minds. But perhaps what is even more disturbing is that this university still cannot provide an environment where the free exchange of ideas is possible.

The first argument, simply put, says that the American people want the government off their backs. As Newt Gingrich argued, there is a growing realization that centralized planning leads to dictatorship. The relationship between government power and individual liberty can properly be described as a zero-sum game, such that an increase in government power necessarily entails a decrease in individual liberty. On this point, John Ashcroft made an interesting distinction. He described proper security measures as only those measures that enhance individual liberty and allow an individual to exercise a maximum level of liberty. Properly understood, a government does not grant rights, it only acts as a guarantor of rights. What is unique about this concern regarding the size of government is that it has the ability to unite the various disparate factions within the conservative movement. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, the Ron Paul people, etc. all agree that the government needs to be smaller. If the Republican Party can provide small-government candidates (as it is in the process of doing), it can take advantage of this coalition.

Another common theme was concern over the massive levels of spending and the level of intrusion into the private sector by the federal government. Glenn Beck described this concern as part of his argument having the right to fail. The main thrust of his argument on this point was that individuals and businesses have a right to and ought to be allowed to fail. Failure creates an opportunity to learn from one’s mistakes, such that after “hitting bottom” you can pick yourself up and go forward a stronger and smarter person/business. The massive spending and intervention undertaken by the federal government to prop up failed businesses and people only undermines the soundness of the American economy, it also robs people of their right to fail and prevents them from learning from their mistakes. Good examples of this are the zombies that are GM and Chrysler. The bailout mentality of the federal government and its increasingly expensive and wasteful welfare programs is only serving to bankrupt and impoverish future generations of Americans while at the same time robbing them of the ability to improve their situation. A flurry of federal dollars has clogged the economic engine of the United States. The people understand that Washington needs new leadership to slash spending and bring the budget back into balance.

The final major theme of the conference was what several speakers referred to as American Exceptionalism, or the idea that in the face of a world history dominated by tyrants, monarchs, and dictators, the American idea of individual liberty and self-determination stands out as an exception to the historical norm. We are now faced with a situation where those liberties are under assault. We are also faced with the very real possibility that the standard of living and general welfare of the rising generation of Americans will be worse than the generation that preceded it. With every bill that comes out of Congress, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate continues its assault on the liberty and prosperity of the American people. However, recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, as well as the emergence of the Tea Party Movement have demonstrated the people’s will to remain the exception to the rule and their will to fight the Democrats’ agenda.

The major themes at CPAC, concern over the size and scope of government coupled with a renewed desire to fight the Democrat agenda of poverty and misery, are also those themes that are best resounding with the American people. With its renewed strength in bearing the mantle of conservatism and renewed courage in fighting the Democrats’ agenda, the Republican Party has demonstrated that it is willing to listen to and heed these concerns. If they stay on the path they are on, the Republicans are poised to win big in the upcoming mid-term elections.