Yeah... Somehow, I don’t think that simple and logical fact will sway the OP in any meaningful way.
You guys aren’t conservatives. You are Libertarians. I’m sure you ll struggle with this level of rational thought, so I’ll ask Daniel to interpret down to you.
Ayn Rand on Libertarianism:
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.
Logic?... rbmillerjr hasn’t used a logical argument yet. A logical argument would make conclusions based on a known premise with conclusions that necessarily follow. But his base premise “begs the question” and is itself unknown and unproven... namely his assertion that federal roads are constitutional despite having no specific constitutional text authorizing their construction. It “begs the question” because we don’t accept the premise that federal roads are necessarily constitutional.