Mynheer Peeperkorn, you have yet to explain how social libertarianism is "true conservatism". I'm trying to find out the reasoning behind that. Merely using the fact that he was named "Mr. Conservative" in no way proves that he is the standard bearer for all conservatives of all time, yet that seems your only reasoning.
I'm not your teacher. Go to wikipedia.
Your claim is that Goldwater was the true conservative, as opposed to modern day ones. The main difference of course is social policy. However, an ideology that promotes things such as gay marriage and abortion is hardly in defense of "traditional values". The definition of conservatism is being in defense of said traditional values. You've failed to say how your assertion gets around this in any way, shape, or form, and you refer to me as the one who needs a teacher.
Allowing people to gay marry or have abortions is not the same as "promoting" those things.
I don't see how defending traditional values is compatible with promoting a free market capitalist system. I'm not a libertarian, but I do give them credit for being the only ideological group that seems to understand that economic freedom is a driver of social progress.
If you think society is becoming too accepting of homosexuality, blame capitalism. It's free markets that allow TV, film and print media to discuss and depict the issues consumers are interested in.
If you think the traditional family is under attack, blame capitalism for driving increased labor mobility, making people move more and undermining communal and regional social structures, and for encouraging women to enter the workforce to make labor inputs more abundant and less expensive.
Conversely, if peace-and-love liberals want to do the most they can to limit military conflict in the world, they should embrace free trade and globalization. Countries that depend on each other for economic inputs and benefit from trade are less likely to be antagonistic and still less likely to go to war.
