Evidently I phrased it wrong toward the end. I tried to indicate that we need true conservatism.
That means traditional values—life, family, marriage, and the rest of it. And it means freedom, but freedom that is governed by each individual’s moral sense of right and wrong. In the past, that has meant that you cannot have true freedom without religion to guide the conscience: in America’s case, mostly Christianity, and a little Judaism.
If people cannot discipline themselves, and do the right thing, then pretty soon it requires the government and the police to step in—which is pretty much where we are now.
“That means traditional values—life...And it means freedom, but freedom that is governed by each individual’s moral sense of right and wrong.”
Fair enough position, but that’s not conservatism. Moral relitivity is a liberal/progressive position. Conservatives tend to believe that there are moral lines that should not be crossed within a certain range of freedom. May I ask some specifics to demonstrate the chasm between libertarian vs. conservative ideologies?
1) Should abortion be legal?
2) Should drugs be legal?
3) Should illegal immigration be legalized?
Libertarianism (the ideology) is generally for these things. Conservative ideology is generally not.
I agree on the economics, but pretty much disagree on everything else. The fact remains that most people don’t dicipline themselves or fail to adhere to any religious teachings even if you or I do. To me, abortion is murder plain and simple, not subject to a moral relativist arguement, and certainly not something conservatives can compromise on. Abortion is the most stark example, but there are other issues where libertarians and conservatives differ.
How would you reconsile these differences without asking me to compromise on them? And how far do you think libertarian-leaning people should have to compromise their morality to accomodate conservative ideology?