it is, at best, naive to ignore the basic realities of human nature that limit pure libertarianism to a utopian dream rather than a coherent, truly viable, political ideology.
Kirk prized prudence, convention and custom over ideology. Isn't "prudent ideology" an oxymoron? All ideologues think their system viable no matter the evidence otherwise.
Kirk considered conservatism the negation of ideology, an outlook tested by the long experience of human traditions so hated by would-be liberators.
Dumb_Ox,
Sorry again for the silly response I posted to your original comments to me. At 2 AM EST, my mind was not working too well, and I believe I confused Russell Kirk with Robert Nozick if you are familiar with his work.
If I recall correctly from reading Kirk in college (20-plus years ago) he was a big believer in the idea that custom and tradition, manifested as culture, were the foundation of any rational society. And since he was a big believer in Natural Law and the idea that religion was the driving force behind culture, he would naturally have disdain for ideological labels. Correct me if I'm wrong on that since you seem to have a better recollection of Kirk than I do.
If my reading of Kirk is correct, then I would argue that his version of Conservatism was pretty much rejected by the vast majority of the people in the United States in the post-FDR era. I think modern Conservatism has taken the best of what Kirk had to offer, which I would argue is the strong reliance on Property Rights as the ultimate expression of Freedom and a healthy respect for the concept of Natural Law, while ignoring what seems to be the weakness...the idea that class differences and convention were static and necessary aspects of a just society. The so-called "Fusion" concept I would guess.