Every single libertarian I know is conservative, their philosophy being smaller government and preservation of liberties found in our Constitution.
The national libertarian party just has some nutball planks in the platform, much like the republican party has. In that sense, there are a couple liberal planks, but mostly conservative.
They are a whole lot more conservative than the republican party acts now. A party is how it acts, not what it says, which is a lesson we should learn from the republicans.
And, actually, staying out of foreign entanglements is a time honored conservative policy expressed by more than two of the founders.
Also, the freedom of people to take anything within their bodies at their own discretion is a conservative principle consistent with the foundation of the states ancient police power.
Libertarians are conservative in some aspects ... but there are definite distinction between libertarianism and conservatism (which is why there are two different names).
>> They are a whole lot more conservative than the republican party acts now.
The Republican Party is far from a model of conservatism ... and I don’t remember arguing otherwise.
>> And, actually, staying out of foreign entanglements is a time honored conservative policy expressed by more than two of the founders.
Two? Anyway, isolationism is no more “time-honored” in conservative ranks than interventionism. And, isolationism is not majority position among modern conservatives. I am a conservative ... and I will not vote for isolationism as a foreign policy. It is naive, and ultimately self-destructive.
The founders of this country envisioned isolationism as a policy when isolationism was a viable option ... i.e. when weapons were short-ranged, Navies were slow, communications were archaic, and the globe was generally segmented. Technology in weaponry, communications, and speed of travel has rendered isolationism nothing more than a quaint idea for a less globalized era.
The founders also, incidentally, invisioned the national defense as among the highest callings of the Federal government. I would argue that, in this modern age of high-tech weaponry, any prioritization of national defense is anathema to the idea of isolationism.
>> Also, the freedom of people to take anything within their bodies at their own discretion is a conservative principle consistent with the foundation of the states ancient police power.
No - that’s a libertarian principle. Conservatism favors protection of innocent citizens when “freedom” encroaches on the public safety.
You are only free to do what you will, even within your own body, to the extent that this freedom does not imperil the safety and well-being of others in society. This is relatively rudimentary conservatism - as expressed by John Locke ... one of the originators of conservatism, and one of the philsophers on whom the founders drew for the founding principles of the United States.
There are always limits on absolute freedom in an ordered society.
A