Conservatism vs. Liberalism

Thinking through what Conservatism is, has brought me to the following:

(NOTE: These are American Conservatism and American Liberalism. For, it turns out that American Conservatism has much in common with Classical Liberalism.)

• Individuality vs. Tribalism
• Liberalism espouses the view that It Takes a Village. While it is true that community is important, it never should become more important than the individual responsibilities and freedoms. Of course, there are limits. One cannot be free to injure the community to satisfy one's desires. But, barring injury to the community as a whole or to individuals, an individual's desires should trump one's community.
• Self-Defense vs. Accommodation
• The end result of Liberalism's horrific reaction to individual self-defense is the view that one should not aggressively defend against the primary aggressor. This started out as telling folk to just give in to robbery. It has progressed to the point that in a home invasion, even when life and limb are in jeopardy, one should always retreat. The true sickness of this world-view is that it treats the criminal as the victim -- as if they are righting some wrong. While vigilantism is generally considered wrong (although a delicious wrong -- just watch the Death Wish series), individuals should be allowed to defend themselves. And, not just their life and their bodies, but their property as well. The accumulation of property is through the work of the individual. That individual has traded parts of their life to accumulate the property. Defense of property is defense of life.
• Equality of opportunity vs Equality of results
• Liberalism sees disparate outcomes as the result of something evil. Yet each individual has different innate and natural advantages. Someone who has advantages should not be penalized because they used their advantages. We can, of course, argue whether certain advantages should be more evenly distributed, but, once distributed and used, the users should not be penalized.
• No Freedom without Responsibilities
• Liberalism sees the state as the final arbiter of what people should have. This mistake leads to the point where wealth redistribution from the haves to the have-nots becomes disease-like. If someone is given something for which one has no responsibility then what was given has no value. It will be treated shabbily (see any housing project), and will not sate the owners desire to acquire things for themselves. 

A beginning of a conservative philosophy.

Conservatives must be more attentive to how Judaism and Christianity—or at least their orthodox versions—helped foster key ideas that underlie the distinctiveness of Western culture. These include:

• The liberation of man from the sense that the world was ultimately meaningless;

• The underscoring of human fallibility and consequent anti-utopianism;

• The affirmation that man is made to be creative rather than passive;

• The insistence that there are moral absolutes that may never be violated,

• The tremendous respect for human reason in all its fullness;

• The crucial distinction between religious and civil authority; and

• The conviction that human beings can make free choices.

(This bit above has been lifted from The Acton Institute)

Those who deride Western culture are, ultimately, deriding these ideas. For them: 

• The world is ultimately meaningless
• Commonly expressed as a derogation of humanity's role in the universe
• Utopia can be achieved here and now
• Socialism, Marxism, and Communism strongly depend upon this idea. If only the "smart" people were put in charge, everything would be better. Ultimately, the Elite must oppress the common folk -- but, for their own good.
• Humanity is passive
• The problems will always be with us, but the deriders claim that people can't figure out a way of fixing the problems without control over the people.
• There are no moral absolutes
• This is particularly loathsome. We can see from any number of sources that once there are no moral absolutes, eventually, every reprehensible action becomes a necessary activity. In the 30's, premarital sex and pregnancy was considered bad. In the 60's, single motherhood *by choice* was considered bad. In the 70's, multiple partners was considered bad. In the 90's, homosexuality was considered bad. In the 2000's, casual promiscuity with multiple partners, male and female, was still considered bad. Now, there is an ongoing effort to de-stigmatize bestiality and pedophilia, one that finds university professors signing onto.
• Lack of respect for human reason
• We are constantly barraged with appeals to emotion, rather than reason. Reasoning is derided as lacking warmth and compassion. Or, being stigmatized with being racially based. 
• Civil authority has become the new religious authority
• How else to explain the cult-like following of liberal ideas.
• Human beings are forced to do whatever it is they do.
• Thus, he isn't a cad, but sex-addicted. The child is not unruly, but has ADHD.