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
Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are politically relative. Terms like "libertarian" are absolute, along with terms like "socialist" or "democratic". "Libertarianism" and "conservativism" are the same in the context of American politics to the degree that we were originally founded on libertarian principles.
The Consitution of the United States lays out a national government of strictly enumerated powers, limited to those functions necessary at the national level. It explicitly protects individual liberties, and generally restricts the national governments power to control personal behaviour implicitly by not enumerating the powers to do so, and therefore leaving them to the States. It is quite arguably a libertarian proposition, and holding strictly to those ideas will produce a necessarily libertarian result within that context. Faulting Ron Paul for being "libertarian" while agreeing with his desire for smaller, limited government and holding the origial intent of the Constitution is self-contradictory, IMHO.