Really? So you don't pay taxes? So they can't seize your property, with compensation, for public use as specified in the Constitution? You really need to consider just how restricted your liberty and property rights really are. Read the Bill of Rights carefully. Most of them are qualified rather than absolute.
The government exists as a union of the people of America. If the government oversteps its bounds we have a duty to end it. Right now there are things that our government does which do infringe on my rights but not enough to kill over or die over.
You are missing my point, which is that the classic libertarian ideal that anything that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights is legal is not the form of government we live in. In fact, it's far enough from that ideal that many hard-core libertarians would love to end it.
You don't want to ban public pornography you want to ban me owning pornography.
Really? Where did I claim that?
Unless your child lives in my laptop there's zero chance thats going to effect your child.
If you don't distribute it in public or display it in public, that is correct. And I'll thank you for your responsible excercise of your liberty.
And if you only care about your liberty, then none of us our free.
That is correct. But I would argue that none of us are ever really free. The pardox of liberty is that for it to be a good, it must be practiced responsibly. The irresponsible practice of liberty becomes a liability for others and society, thus we are only really free to practice our liberty responsibly -- that is, with restrictions. We can impose that responsiblity on ourselves or others will try to step in and impose responsibility with the law. But either way, liberty is never absolute or entirely free.
If all pornography is ever banned in America, it will not be because you responsibly view pornography in the privacy of your own home on your laptop. It will be because of the irresponsible use of pornography in public, the distribution of pornography to children, and the creation of pornography that abuses those it depicts. Thus it is in your best interest that pornography be practiced responsibly and not irresponsibly because the former will protect your rights while the latter will endanger them.
If you support using government to force the world to be how you want it your not a conservative, you are a liberal by definition.
Ultimately, people care about having a happy and prosperous life for themselves and those they love. Liberty, government, etc. are all ends to those means. What differentiates the conservative from the libertarian, in my experience, is that the conservative understands that liberty requires responsibility while the libertarian treats liberty as an end and does not demand responsibility. That's why most conservatives, for religous reasons or otherwise, are polite, law-abiding, and self-supporting even though they desire that the government leave them alone. They understand that their liberty requires responsibilty to maintain.
Where I think libertarians miss the boat is that they assume that a crass society of self-interested individuals who practice their liberty without responsibility (or the bear minimum responsiblity demanded by libertarian principles -- property rights and restrictions on attacks) is sustainable. I don't think it is because ultimately most people don't enjoy abstract liberty but the fruits of that liberty. And if the fruits of that liberty are a crass and unpleasant society, they won't enjoy it. In fact, they will treat it as a liability.
In fact, people frequently sacrifice liberty for benefits they value more. Civilization, itself, is a sacrifice of liberty for security. We give up our ability to do whatever we want to live peacefully with others for protection and prosperity. Civilization requires consideration for the reasonable wants and needs of others. And it's not unreasonable for parents to not want their children to be sexualized by pornography nor victimized as adults by the pornography industry.
Once the government comes for the drug addicts, the gun owners, the adulterers, the gays, the porno watchers, the speeders, the people who don't go to church, the people who swear, who the hell is going to be left when they make up some crazy law that makes you a criminal?
Do you think the government should ban child pornography and adults having sex with children? If so, why isn't that on your slippery slope? Humans are smarter than you are giving them credit for and are quite able to draw distinctions and reasonable lines between two things that are different.
Plus who do you think is going to win if you turn america into a dictatorship of the mob, 70% of america doesn't go to church.
Lately, I haven't been going to church. So what? Whether we explicity recognize majority rule or pretend that it's restricted, you really can't stop the mob if it wants to do something badly enough. That's why it makes sense to respond to the wants and needs of the mob so that the mob doesn't deside to toss the whole thing out and start over. Contrary to our experience with the American revolution, such experiments in starting over often go quite badly.
By this reasoning, the solution to the current kerfluffle in France is to outright prohibit firings of employees for any reason, reduce the workweek even further, etc.
It's so valuable, that it must be rationed.