Obviously you have never learned to read (the Constitution for example), which contains both libertarian and conservative principles. For example, the Bill of Rights is entirely a libertarian principled addendum, it has zero roots in conservative thought. On the other hand, the very concept of a Constitution is conservative (versus a system of ad hoc laws developed at the spur of the moment). Moreover, I have stated here and elsewhere that after great consideration I consider myself a "Constitutional republican" (versus either a facist conservative or libertine libertarian, as the somewhat justified epithets go). Consequently, I find your diatribe ill considered and moronic for it's lack of intuition.
Instead of showing you a libertarian society (though Milton Friedman might argue Hong Kong pre 1996), I will show you a strictly conservative nation - the Taliban of Afghanistan pre Sept. 11. They conserved their religion as they saw it, they were certainly strict in doling out punishment to wrong doers, they placed no impediment on their government doing the right thing (no matter how heinous an act it might be). That's a conservative government to envy, if you want to take credit for it.
Because of the problems inherent in both undirected libertarian and conservative principles, our founders crafted a strict Constitutional document that balanced the competing needs for freedom with order. That's why this website is called FreeRepublic.com and not ConservativeRepublic.com or Democratunderground.com or whatever.
So go stuff that conservative crap down your throat, it is a flawed construct that no longer suits thinking people on this forum, and that is my point. FreeRepublic works (combines libertarian and conservative), Constitutional republican works (same balance), but conservative and libertarian both suck eggs.
Thank you. I stopped reading right there since I refuse to engage in childish and rank stupidity.