This is your idea of conservatism. The essence of conservatism so far as I’m concerned is scepticism about rationalist or absolutist theorising that claims to have answers to the basic problems of life. Hostility to big or interventionist government follows directly.

Libertarianism is not, and cannot be, any “antithesis” to conservatism, because the two fall within entirely different categories. True conservatism is a general disposition of the character, whereas libertarianism is a political theory. Libertarians of a conservative disposition (such as myself) will, consequently, accept the general conclusions of libertarianism that are plausiblyly demonstrable (respect for person and property, recognition of the non-special status of government) whilst retaining a reserved scepticism about the radical theorising and anti-religious dogma of, for instance, the Randians.

“It is skeptical of free market capitalism and does not automatically consider taxes as bad.”

The only reason conservatives are often not opposed to excessive and income taxes is that inherent weakness in conservatism that causes it to accept evil once it has been established for long enough (as Hayek pointed out). Likewise for “free market capitalism”, which was fundamentally merely respect for property rights but is today complicated by generations of state interference to create and sustain corrupt corporate and family fortunes.

Libertarianism represents a radical antithesis to conservatism. Among other things, the real conservatism stands for monarchy, aristocratic rule and established church. It resists paganism and democracy. It is skeptical of free market capitalism and does not automatically consider taxes as bad.

Broadly speaking, yes (and the reverse).

However, pace Mr Paul, self-respecting genuine libertarians cannot honestly be Republicans. Then again, nor can self-respecting genuine conservatives.

I came to Libertarianism 40 years ago, via Hayek, Friedman, Goldwater and Buckley. I’ve always voted Libertarian, except when I voted for Reagan, who was clearly a Constitutionalist Libertarian.

I’m well aware of the influence 3rd parties have had over our political history. In a closely-divided polity, dominated by two parties, even a small number of 3rd-party voters can cost one of the dominate parties elections. (If not for the Libertarian vote, there would be 3 more GOP Senators and 8 Congressman as we speak). If that happens often enough, the dominant party, if they’re paying attention, will try to accomodate our views. That happened with the Progressives and Dems, Greens and Dems (Nader cost Gore the Presidency, and the Dems responded by veering way Left)

Now, finally, it appears the GOP is waking up and realiziing that of those Independent voters aren’t “moderates” after all – they’re Libertarians.

Problem is, the GOP establishment has gotten quite comfy with big-government “conservatism”. And they are in hock to the religious rights, whose social views are at odds with Libertarianism.

With the sudden prominence of Ron Paul and the rush to his banner by young, newly-minted “Libertarians” for whom the appeal is too often about such issues as legalizing drugs, the question of “who is a Libertarian?” has become muddied.

I would maintain that true Libertarians are guided by the Constitution – particularly Article 1, Sec 8 and the 10th Amendment. The problem for so-called conservatives in the GOP is that some of their “social conservative” base’s pet issues – principally abortion and gay rights – gain no purchase at the Federal level from a proper reading of the Constitution. Those are issues for the States and localities. So you have people who call themselves conservatives and who truly do fear an enormous Federal government, turning right around and demanding that Federal legislators bow to their whims on social issues.

What’s heartening about the Tea Party movement is that Obama’s Socialist agenda has focused people’s attention of the small-government issues. You don’t see anit-abortion, anti-gay-rights signs at Tea Parties. This terrifies the GOP leadership, because they’ve maintained their power by pandering to social conservatives with one hand and doling out pork with the other. That doesn’t work with Libertarians, who have taken prominence in the Tea Party movement.

As for making war and nation-building, one needs only to go, as one always should, back to the Constitution, which states that Congress must declare war. And, under the Constitution, the Federal government has no power to take our tax money and buy influence in foreign countries. With those restraints swept away, we have become a very expensive imperial power.

So…how to define a Libertarian? Simple; someone who reveres and upholds the Declaration and the Constitution, even when it’s, um, inconvenient.

How to define a Conservative? Honestly, I don’t know anymore, because so many self-proclaimed Conservatives blatantly ignore the Constitution.