[Hank Rearden]

I don't think conservatives are as pro drugs as libertarians. But I know nothing about the latter except what I read on FR.

And that's the problem. We're not pro-drug, per se (although some individuals may be, much as some individuals are pro-Gore; there are wackos in every arena).

We're pro-liberty and individual responsibility. This is what distinguishes us from Republicrats and Demopublicans. When we demand a much smaller government, we actually mean it.

[Sparta]

Finally an ally on this thread.

[Kevin Curry]

We're not pro-drug, per se

Horse hockey.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Not exactly.

More like purists versus incrementalists, with for the most part common goals, but not always.

Libertarians are needed to push the ideals, and scream when a Republican goes soft, sells out, or gets drunk with power. Republicans are needed to reach the actual compromises to make progress with practical implementation, and secure the edges where pure ideology fails to work(relatively rare instances).

[Bernard Marx]

We're not pro-drug, per se (although some individuals may be, much as some individuals are pro-Gore; there are wackos in every arena).

This is exactly what happens in every conservative vs. Libertarian discussion. Whatever one Libertarian says they stand for, another finds a way to qualify it and say it doesn't really represent Libertarian beliefs. As the old joke goes, when two Libertarians actually agree on a position, they accuse each other of selling out.

The defining issue for me (although there are many others like drugs) is immigration. No matter how you slice it Libertarians favor open borders. I don't. I'm an American nationalist and Libertarians aren't. They're laissez-faire to the max, and national interests be damned. Unfortunately, a lot of politicians who call themselves "conservative" these days are sounding pretty Libertarian.