Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies

First, I'd like to sketch out the ideological view of conservatism and libertarianism which I plan on arguing in this debate. Conservatism is a political program aiming and seeking to conserve an established order of things (tradition). Conservatism can thus be aptly described as traditionalism. Libertarianism on the other hand is a commitment to the greatest possible amount of freedom for the individual with an emphasis on removing barriers to this, making it almost universally anti-statist.Point A. Conservatism as traditionalism.The conservative political program consists of respect for "what has worked" in the past combined with emphasis on traditional values and social relations. In many instances this is causally linked to pragmatic considerations. For instance, recognized conservative values like respect for the family unit and emphasis on interpersonal unity (in religion and in some instances in a common ethnic/cultural identity) are in many respects emphasized due to the observed positive effects of these values throughout history and in past societies. Not all conservative of course are pragmatic thinkers and there is also a strong idealistic strand within conservatism. It's this idealistic strand that contains the non-pragmatic reasons for adopting conservative values. This is expressed mainly by religious conservatism (Robertson, Dobson, Graham) which seeks to revert or preserve a society based on religious principles. While there are different routes of getting there ("there" referring to support for the preservation of traditional values), the common denominator linking conservatives is respect and emphasis on the traditional.Point B. Libertarianism as freedom-centered.Libertarianism on the other hand is almost universally recognized as focusing mostly (and in many cases entirely) on the concept of freedom with a positive emphasis on such. The modern libertarian political program began as a clearly freedom-centered movement. John Locke who is recognized by many to be a major figure in the philosophical development of libertarianism sheds light on the libertarian view of freedom in relation to the individual:"The NATURAL liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will or restraint of any law, but what that legislative power shall enact according to the trust put in it."[1]Libertarians have also focused on other idealistic principles such as equality[2] as well as consequential outcomes like wealth and prosperity[3]. However, even with this seeming heterodoxy of different principles and goals within the broader libertarian philosophy, the thing that combines them all (and which without would render libertarianism unrecognizable) is freedom. Libertarians who value equality (Long, Richman, Chartier) and libertarians who favor consequence based thinking (Friedman, Hayek, Mises) are all connected within a common ideological framework by their shared emphasis on freedom. An emphasis which is of course shared by deontological libertarians who favor liberty as the end-all moral principle on which to base society and government (Rothbard, Locke, Hoppe).Contention. The Traditional as at odds with Freedom.With the frameworks of conservatism and libertarianism sketched out (traditionalism and freedom-centric respectively), we now move on to why these values are at odds with each other in such a way as to refute the position of the two ideologies as allied. Note that even if some similarities can be shown, the example from R1 of liberals having *some* similarities with Nazis is not in itself enough to prove ideological allies. The differences must be shown to outweigh the similarities and vice versa for Pro.It's clear that in some instances, traditional values happen to coincide with freedom-centric values. For instance, conservatives often pay lip service to minimal government as compatible (or complementary) with traditional values. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. In many cases though, tradition seems to be entirely at odds with tradition (see attempts at curbing or restricting personal choice in regards to things like drug use, sex, etc.). Even discounting these cases as exceptions rather than norms though, there's the prima facie case resulting from the fact that freedom is non-prescriptive (except of course being in favor of freedom itself). This means that adding in other prescriptions like respect for the family unit or cultural unity is prima facie at odds with freedom itself.===Conclusion===Not only do conservatism and libertarianism have separate ideological frameworks separating them, but the non-prescriptive nature of freedom itself means that separate value frameworks (including emphasis on traditional values) aren't just separate, but are positively at odds with freedom. While conservatism and libertarianism agree in some respects, the ideological differences and conflicts more than outweigh this.===Sources===[1] John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Ch. 4, Sec. 22. Available online: (http://www.gutenberg.org...)[2] http://mises.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...