[[File:Liberty2.jpg|thumb|]]
Question everything to learn the credibility/uncredibility and legitimacy/illegitimacy of all things.
'''But''' accept authority that is legitimate and justified. I.e. don't listen to conspiracy theorists.
I am a libertarian conservative. I believe the greatest tradition of the American Constitution is its tradition of individual liberty. The state should have no ability to regulate people's beliefs and associations. I support conservative theorist [[Edmund Burke]]'s emphasis on traditionalism as a necessity for a society and his denouncing of the anti-traditionalism of the left-wing radicals of the [[French Revolution]]. What Burke meant Originally the French Revolution ''was that change in all societies requires '' moderate and a connection to tradition or lot like the [[American Revolution]] in mroe legal terms "precedent", in order for that it to rationally advanceopposed the tyranny of a tyrannical king. The '''But the French Revolution got taken over by the extreme left-wing radicals of nutcase Jacobins''' who turned the French Revolution that Burke opposedaway from opposing a king, had completely denounced traditionalism and created into a whole new system based on untested ideas quasi-communist revolution that resulted murdered thousands of people in a descent into mass violence and repressionStalin-like purges. Burke was right that society needs to be based on saw the French being led down a dangerous path away from tradition that itself is based on experience and '''not''' on radical idealsinto violent fanaticism.
What Burke meant by his conservatism, was not that change was "bad" but that change in all societies requires a connection to tradition, or in more legal terms "precedent", in order for it to rationally advance. The left-wing radicals of the French Revolution that Burke opposed, had completely denounced traditionalism and created a whole new system based on untested ideas that resulted in a descent into mass violence and repression. Burke was right that society needs to be based on tradition that itself is based on experience and '''not''' on radical ideals. There were some really stupid ideas though that the French Revolution challenged though, like challenging hereditary [[aristocracy]], a state-run church (I think the state has no business dictating religion), and ending [[anti-Semitism]] by allowing Jews to take part in public life in France. As a libertarian conservative who is proud of the American Constitution, I don't agree with everything I hear in this place or elsewhere from the Christian social conservatives, I agree that all Americans have the right to practice religion, but I don't agree with the state becoming involved in '''''any''''' constitutional amendments on marriage - no matter who is getting married. People should only abide by the rules of the church they are associated with, the state has no business regulating people's belief systems. I agree that the gay rights movement has exploited the whole marriage issue for the purpose of allowing gay people to run for politics on the issue. If the gays want to start their own "gay-friendly religion" where they can get married, let them, that should be their individual right and they should be responsible for themselves, but it is no one's business to challenge the liberty of religious faith in America. The practice of religion is an individual right in America, and people have the right to choose their belief system, that is why our country has various denominations of Christianity as well as other religions such as Judaism. The state should never control religion, it is completely against freedom, just look at Hitler's persecution of Jews, Stalin's persecution of all religious faiths, and Ayatollah Khomeini's persecution of Christians and Jews. Major Judeo-Christian values lie at the core of American culture, but they should be defended not through constitutional amendments and other threats but through practice. The real war on marriage should be a war for '''''serious''''' marriage and '''''serious''''' parenting of all people, and advocate abstinence from sex as a means for society to '''''avoid''''' young teenage women from having children. We shouldn't tolerate having a welfare system that is doling out money to the many welfare moms who are in that position because they made a stupid decision to have sex as teenagers.
I am tired of hearing liberals note that because some small parts of the American Constitution are obsolete, that thereby the whole Constitution is obsolete. For instance, liberals note that the 2nd Amendment mentions that because one small section mentions that an American citizen has the right to park his horse, that thereby the entire 2nd Amendment is obsolete. That argument is exaggerated, of course the American Constitution was written in a specific time period, but look at what has happened recently when people are not given the right to bear arms, neo-communist Putin rose to power in Russia. Putin is running a tyranny against the wishes of the Russian people - Russian protestors do not have access to weapons and can do nothing against his police state, but if the Russian people could form their own militias, Putin would have been overthrown by now. So there is a darn good reason even today for Americans to have the right to revolt, as for the liberal complaints about some minescule section of the 2nd Amendment about allowing horses to park his horse - they have the right to press for a constitutional amendment to the 2nd Amendment updating the material on the parking of horses to something on cars - I don't have a problem. But if they try to scrap the right to bear arms I will always oppose them because even recent history shows that tyrants can stay in power longer when their is no ability of opposition to seriously mobilize to challenge them.