Conservatism and Libertarianism

Thanks for your great arguments fourtrouble. Appologies in advance if this round seems rushed, things came up in real life that left me with little time to post this round. My opponents definition of liberalism is invalid and self contradictory. He first argues that liberalism seeks to remove all moral and philisophical perceptions from the public sphere, then argues in his next paragraph that: "liberals uphold equality as the highest good". If equality is the highest good, than that is not keeping morals out of the public sphere, but rather acting upon a different moral code than that of conservatism. His own statement throws out his definition as flawed. TURN: The pursuit of total equality is inherently hostile to private property--the fundamental basis of libertarianism. After all, private property is inherently discriminatory, I own this and that and can prohibit you from using it, and can discriminate against you on my private property however I wish. Since Conservatism is the ideological foe of liberalism, if the fundamental basis of liberalism as my opponent himself put it is contrary to the basis of libertarianism, than the conclusion logically follows that both factions are fundamentally opposed to liberalism and hence allies. I would go further however and argue that another fundamental building block of the liberal ideology is that people are unable to care for themselves. This is evidenced in the fact that statist leftists virtually always advocate a big-brother, cradle to grave welfare system and anarchist leftists (anarcho-communists to be sure) advocate a collevtive society in which private property does not exist- "to each according to their ability, to each according to their need". That liberalism at its core has a collectivist streak seems undeniable, and later on in the round I will explain how conservatism is individualistic. Much of my opponents conception of conservatism revolves around him juxtaposing it with liberalism, however his interpretation of liberalism is quite flawed. From this it follows that his conception of conservatism is flawed as well, causing him to lose the debate.On libertarianism, my opponents definition misses the point substaintially. He argues that libertarianism attempts to "establish a neutral political framework in which individuals with conflicting fundamental beliefs can peacefully cooperate." The first part takes out the definition entirely. That is, if we have a neutral political framework, than there is nothing compulsing individuals with different beliefs to cooperate. Libertarianism follows the non-aggression principle, which is by itself itself a political framework. My opponents representation thus fails because a truly neutral political framework would allow individuals to act according to their own desires, even if that meant aggression. Moreover, my opponents interpretation implies forced cooperation-a contradiction in terms. Libertarianism does not strive to maximize cooperation as much as it does rights-I have the right not to use my property to cooperate with anyone else, however reasonable their requests. It is true that there are positions often held by "conservatives" that libertarians oppose, but recall my (dropped) analysis of how modern conservatism is muddled and confused. Recall also that my argument rested on the position of conservatism ultimately holding the natural order of private property as sacred, many culturally conservative positions (such as opposition to abortion) are positions that ultimately get defeated under statism. Further, governmental incentives towards "bads" (such as abortion and unemployment)-the cornerstone of the liberal welfare state- increases those bads according to the undisputed card 5. This tells us, once again, that libertarianism and conservatism are allied against liberalism. A libertarian society would achieve conservative ends more than statism. Fourtrouble argues that a libertarian government makes no distinction between good and evil. First this is false as the "rantings of neo-nazis" are virtually certain to encourage aggression against others- evil according to the libertarian ethic, but moreover a libertarian government would exist to enforce property rights, not to dictate the opinions of its citizens. his assertion that libertarianism would rob history of its value is flawed since governments do not tell us the meaning of history. Fourtrouble misunderstands the natural order. The conservative fundamental does not assert that mankind understands the entirety nature, as much as mankind understands it's proper place, what norms and behaviors should be followed and what is sacred. No doubt the natural order can change somewhat to account for changing needs due to gradual human evolution, but it would remain mostly the same. Even the name conservative implies that conservatives attempt to conserve something...like the natural order. Fourtroubles definition of conservatism fails because the only criteria of substance to be conservative is adherence to the status quo. Not only did Hoppe disprove this thesis in my opening round, but this also violates the (dropped) framework of the round where its specified that political ideologies HAVE TO be transcedent to the situtations in which an individual finds themselves. Furthermore, my opponent argues that Conservatism embraces change if and only if there is no "compelling historical reason to [oppose]" the change. This, ladies and gentlemen, is no political ideology. My opponent can call it pragmatism, but the reality is that without compelling values (such as the natural order of private property or the nonaggression principle) there is NO brightline to accurately judge what is or isn't a positive social change, or what is or is not a compelling historical reason to oppose something. The reason that my opponents definition fails is that it posits that conservatives can recognize what has worked in the past, without any compelling values to judge if something has worked. This is not an ideology, which must, by definition, present a "comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things", my opponents version of conservatism means to prefer the status quo, nothing more. Until he establishes a brightline on how to measure positive "bottom-up social evolution" he loses. Fourtrouble posits that a true conservative does not believe in absolute liberty, but neither does a libertarian. Absolute liberty would be the freedom to do whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want, desires as antithetical to an order of private property as anything I can think of. Libertarians also value the family unit, and a libertarian society destroys the very thing that destroys families, which is the welfare state! Again, libertarianism is what allows conservative values to flourish and be implemented.He brings up several laws that "conservatives" support, but in actuality most of those positions are statist, not trly conservative. They are grasping at straws to save a socal order swamped with statism.Conclusion: Conservatism and libertarianism have similar goals that rest upon eachother and give eachother the best chance of success. If one does not rely on the state, they have to rely on their family, and if one does not rely on their family they must rely on the state. Thus, both conservatives and libertarians support the family unit, just as they do many other things. Libertarian ethics allow conservatives to truly support their goals and ideology. For this reason, you must affirm.Thanks for the reply fourtrouble, I look forward to your next round.