That's a rather simplistic notion. For example, it ignores history, such as the widespread existence of "blue laws" back in the days when the modern Nanny State did not exist.
A more useful discriminator between "conservatives" and "libertarians" might be found in their respective ideas of the place of the individual in society.
Conservatives tend to believe that while individual rights should be respected as far as possible, they cannot be considered without reference to the larger social group. A conservative would say that "community interests" are real, and that the exercise of individual liberties must be weighed against their effects on other people. As such, "community interest" could be considered to be a valid justification for curtailing certain individual liberties.
My experience with the more vocal libertarians at FR has been that they tend to reject the idea that "community interests" exist at all. As such, any attempt to moderate the exercise of individual liberties is dismissed as "nanny state - social engineering ... a travesty". Hollywood, with its abundance of human train wrecks, is a great example of how this philosophy plays out in real life. In that light, I see libertarianism as an infantile and destructive belief which has its roots in the same fundamental narcissism that drives liberal Democrats.
Actually, most of the “more vocal libertarians” would probably disagree with your conclusion about their opinion regarding “community interests.” More accurately, community interests are nothing but the interests of a group of individuals in a community. That means that libertarians generally fail to see how community rights trump the rights of the individuals who make up the community. How does a group of people evolve more rights than each of the individuals?
If I suspect my neighbor is doing something in her home that I don’t approve of, do I have a right to go over there and stop her? If I get together with a few more of my like-minded neighbors (who become a community) do our greater numbers suddenly invoke us with the new “right” to stop her from doing whatever it was I disapproved of?
How many people does it take to make up a community that has an interest in the practices of the individuals among us? At what number are we allowed to initiate force?
That’s the real difference between the nanny-staters of the right and left, and the libertarians. Both neo-conservatives and lefties believe in some type of mob-rule. That is to say, they both agree that there is a number where a group of individuals becomes a community that gains new rights—rights that exist for “the community” but not for the inividual. Libertarians generally don’t accept that groups have any rights that aren’t derived from the individuals in the group.
They hate to admit it, but the differences between the nanny-staters of the right and left are only a question of which derived community rights trump which inherent individual rights.
Blue laws had their genesis under out Colonial government. They have no place in a Constitutional Republic where certain government actions are off limits. This doesn't always stop legislators and litigators from slipping their leash. Which is why we also put and RKBA protection in place.
So you admit you are a "communist". At least in part. How interesting.
After seeing some of the postings to this thread, I couldn't agree more!