Bill of Rights, conservative & liberal versions
As someone on HotAir.com protests, this does not fairly present the conservative viewpoint (although in fairness to Reason.tv, it mostly shows the conservative guy sitting idly by as the liberal scratches out most of the 10 Amendments, rather than actively scratching out, e.g. the Second Amendment himself). Well, I'd say it's more of liberals vs. neocons—neocons who have ... inherited much of liberal disdain for rule of the law along with their "compassion".
As I keep saying, the core conservative values are libertarian when you look at it impartially—profound respect for the Constitution and values of our Founding Fathers, including their entirely reasonable suspicion of the government, especially the feds. The only points where traditional conservative may disagree with a typical libertarian is on social issues, and well, even there, I think we both agree that these questions should be answered by states, regardless of what the answer may be.
Well, if you are a neocon, I have as little sympathy for you as I have for liberals. But us conservatives (short of any definite name, let's call ourselves "Cheney conservatives", since Cheney did demonstrate that he believed military should be downsized once the need for it, i.e. the Cold War, was past) and libertarians should stop fighting each other—and work on making the world America safe from liberals and neocons.
Libertarians for Life Homepage
One popular misconception is that libertarianism as a political principle supports choice on abortion. And major elements within the libertarian movement (the Libertarian Party, for example) take abortion-choice stands. Nonetheless, libertarianism's basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else--for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. That is a clearly pro-life principle. Recognizing that, and seeing the abortion-choice drift within the libertarian movement, Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong under justice, not a right.
And to think Gov. Palin was character-assassinated by the liberal media for her pro-life stance!
It makes one almost wish that we could make this one exception on our stance on "de-personing" somebody.
BTW, regardless of what you may have been told by the deceptive liberal media, even the staunchest pro-lifers would choose mother's life over the child's. What they frown upon is the abortions of convenience and choice—not abortions of medical necessity.
On second thought, I am not sure exactly how a libertarian state would advance pro-life agenda:
i.e. Beyond stopping subsidy of abortions (which is really insidious, since it's essentially making all pro-lifers actually pay for abortion by way of taxation), what can a libertarian state do to ensure as little abortions as possible?
A libertarian state wouldn't be in the business of issuing doctors licenses to practice, since an association of doctors should handle that sort of thing, and a libertarian state shouldn't try to meddle with that association (unless it becomes such an odious thing as unions for white collar workers).
When it comes down to it, one couldn't really do much better than Gov. Palin has done so far: she is pro-life in her personal belief and personal life (and she's open about it), but as far as legislations and government actions go, she hasn't tried to force anyone.