Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies

I thank Con for presenting his argument. It should be noticed that I did not intentionally avoid presenting the counterarguments in R2. Since Con did not specify the requirements in the “Rules” section, I was under the impression that the rebuttals would not start until R3. If it is necessary, I suggest to use “Comment” to make up for any unaddressed arguments. Summary of the Argument Con’s definition of conservatism is fundamentally flaw Conservatism is not a monolithic belief. Traditionalism is not Conservatism. Semi-Conclusion: Pro’s definition of Conservatism is therefore more comprehensive and accurate. Personal liberty within Libertarianism context is not without limit. Traditionalism can be explained and justified within the framework of Libertarianism The tradition, within the context of this debate, is not at odd with individual liberty Reasons against gay marriage are not incompatible with the concept of liberty A strong national defense is the vanguard of personal freedom Conclusion: Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies. Comments on “Common Goal.” Con’s definition of Conservatism is fundamentally flaw (a) Conservatism is not a monolithic belief Con failed to recognize that Contemporary Conservatism is not a monolithic belief, instead, it comprise a coalition of willing. Individual beliefs are cemented into a unity by their shared beliefs in the United States Constitution. Conservatism is categorized into four distinctive movements, known generally as Religious Conservatism, Economic Conservatism, Natural Right Conservatism (individual liberty), and Traditionalism.[1] The five pillar in Pro’s definition is a summary of the aforementioned subtypes: Religious conservatism and traditionalism defends life, liberty, and pursue of happiness. Both subtypes derive legitimacy from the consent of governed. It recognizes man’s self-interests. Both subtypes find their best appearance on many social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Limited Government and traditional American value are designed to describe both types. Economic conservatism shores up the idea of free markets and encourages policy reformers. It discourages unnecessary government interventions. Economic conservatism is reflected on conservatives’ advocacy for Limited Government and Free enterprise. Natural right conservatism (liberty) asserts truths according to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Individual liberty, as defined in the Constitution, concatenated four sub-type conservatism together into a coherent unity. Collectively, conservatism demands a strong national defense to guid its interests and ensure its existence. Social conservatives and religious conservatism are squarely fall within Pro’s definition. (b) Traditionalism is not Conservatism Traditionalism is the theory that all moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation passed on by tradition. Traditionalism encompasses Religious Conservatism and Traditionalism while fails to property account for Economic Conservatism and Strong National Defense. Moreover, it may capture the meaning of liberty within traditional context but fails to include the meaning in social economic sphere. Therefore, it is insufficient to consider Conservatism merely Traditionalism. Semi-Conclusion Con’s definition partially explains the Conservatism while ignores economic conservatism and advocacy for strong national defense. Furthermore, Con’s definition cannot adequately account for individual freedom within a social economic context. Therefore, in summary, Pro’s definition is more inclusive and accurate. Personal liberty within Libertarianism context is not without limit Both Pro and Con appear to agree that Libertarianism is freedom centered. Liberty, is not a right bestowed to an individual to do whatever he or she may want in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Murder, for example, is strictly prohibited given the fact that the victims may lose their right to liberty. Pro explicitly and unequivocally defines the outer-boundary in his definition i.e., if there is no good reason to forbid something, it should be allowed; It is unclear if Con’s definition may recognize any limits. Traditionalism can be explained and justified within the framework of Libertarianism (a) The tradition, within the context of this debate, is not at odd with individual liberty Both ideologies derive legitimacy from the abiding principles of American liberty as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United Sates Constitution. “About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful and even if Conservatism can be described as Traditionalism, the Traditional and individual liberty are two sides of the same coin. If all men are created equal, that is final; If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final; No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.” [2] Therefore, it is more reasonable to consider individual liberty under Libertarianism is just another way to depict the tradition under conservatism. (b) Reasons against gay marriage are not incompatible with the concept of liberty As discussing above, liberty is not a right without limits. Government intervention is justified only if there is compelling reason for it do so. For some libertarians, a ban on gay marriage is irrational and invidious discriminatory. For many libertarians, however, government intervention is warranted on the ground that legalizing gay marriage may jeopardize the well being of next generations while also put their own liberty at risk. Again, the disagreement is a result of interpretations but principles. First, marriage is inherently and necessarily reserved for unions between one man and one woman. This is because the American society recognizes that heterosexual marriage provides the ideal structure within which to beget and raise children. By breaking such structure, children’s psychological health could be in jeopardy thereby affecting their abilities to enjoy their rights to liberty. A research paper published by Dr. Mark Regnerus suggests that children reared by heterosexual parents generally outperform them of homosexual parents. [3] Second, libertarianism establishes the voluntary exchange the gold standard of human relationships. Legalizing gay marriage may polarize social relationships and disrupt social tranquillity. Therefore, many libertarians decide to embrace social conservatism to preserve peaceful environment, an indispensable element to personal liberty. A strong national defense is the vanguard of personal freedom Government has a solemn obligation to protect citizens’ rights. A strong national defense is necessary to prevent any enemies from doing American’s any harms. Iran nuclear threats are real, and Russian animosity toward democracy may also undermine the rights to liberty enjoyed by most Americans. Military action, under many circumstances, are not only inevitable but also preferable e.g., Libya civil war. Conclusion Both ideologies derive their legitimacy from abiding founding principle, which hail individual liberty as its core tenet. The quasi-differences between Conservatism and Libertarianism is largely a result of different interpretations of the concept of individual liberty. Given the fact that individual freedom is the preeminent tenet of both ideologies and free market and limited government are strongly advocated by both ideologies, it is not inappropriate to conclude that Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies. Comments on “Common Goal” The introduction of Common Goal is used to show that Conservatism and Libertarians are defined within American culture. Thank you. References [1]. http://www.heritage.org... [2]. http://www.powerlineblog.com... [3]. http://www.sciencedirect.com...