[Ohioan]

Let me make a suggestion with respect to your differentiation between conservatism & libertarianism. Surely one of the most basic concepts of "Liberty," certainly one accepted by most of the Founding Fathers, is the right of people to form communities, where the residents share each other's values. Thus in the early days, especially, we also had many religious communities; we had wide cultural differences, from State to State, on all sorts of issues.

The present corruption of the concept of "Liberty," by the ACLU, NAACP, SPLC, ADL, and the like; which prevents local communities from enforcing the cultural or religious wishes of the inhabitants, by allowing any dissenting litigant to enjoin what was once permitted; is actually anti-libertarian, and part of a totalitarian utilitarianism, which reduces all aspects of culture to the lowest level that everyone can be forced to accept.

William Flax

[Viennacon]

Very much true. Libertarianism requires by necessity for religious communities, township cohesion, and most importantly family life, to control and keep in check the norms of civil society. When those norms are broken down (as has happened), that’s the excuse for government intrusion and libertarianism falls apart.

The statist feels these communities and townships to be exclusionary and totalitarian, but they are in fact the very safeguard against tyranny. In working to undermine and disintegrate them at the behest of malcontents and misfits, the government in fact persecutes the majority to the point of minority, terminating civil life and sapping a country of its nationhood.

There is a fine balance between rights and responsibilities. Governmental authorities are to secure your rights, which are outlined clearly and unequivocally, unchanging and inviolable. Communal authorities are to secure your responsibilities, and this authority is centralized in each household. We no longer have households. We have houses.