Bearded W., and some of the latter part of this post is just a general rant not directed to you (for which I apologize in advance),
A conservative is someone wanting to "conserve" something, e.g., the current laws we have in place. I have never said I am a conservative (if I did, I was mistaken or it was when I was Reagan Republican). Similarly, I am neither on the right or the left. These terms are used by people who can't define the terms. Before you answer, do you know the origins of these two word? Hint - think Europe and a parliament seating arrangement.
I am also not a member of the Libertarian or Constitution Party. I do consider myself a libertarian in the sense that I believe in Liberty for the individual, including the right to screw up one's life. An individual's right to Liberty, IMHO, ceases when it infringes on another person's rights. It's really a quite simple philosophy.
From what I can tell, the "right" and "conservatives" on this forum dislike libertarians because they respect an individual's rights. (Don't drag abortion into this, an unborn baby can also be a person with rights.) No, the "right", the "left", "conservatives" and "liberals", dislike "libertarians" because they want to tell others what to do or limit their rights. Libertarians recognize people may do stupid things, but it's their life to screw up.
Drugs are the best example with respect to the "right" - I've never used pot but I have no problem with a college student smoking pot in a dorm room. The "right" feels it is their right to say, "you shouldn't do this."
Guns are the best example with respect to the "left" - I do own a few. I have no problem if someone wants to own a fully automatic weapon. The left, in contrast, hates cap guns because it could lead to violence. I have a problem with misusing guns, but not the right to own them.
Take privacy rights and property rights as something where I differ from the right and the left, respectively. I probably don't even need to say anything about the "left" and property rights. However, the "right" loves to state that there is no Constitutional right to privacy. The short version of my response is that there isn't an enumerated right because there didn't need to be when the Constitution was drafted - it was assumed and was a retained right. The Constitution is a document granting enumerated powers to the federal Government. The "right" uses the privacy argument to pay lip service to the abortion cause. (Again, abortion is not a privacy argument, it is liberty right of unborn babies.) Privacy in the Constitution was, in fact, recognized to a certain extent in the Fourth Amendment - search and seizure. Now, how does the "right" view the Fourth Amendment? As an impediment to the enforcement of law. The Rehnquist Court has taken away all true Constitutional enumerated privacy rights. Ditto with respect to the Patriot Act.
Do you want an example? If I have $10,001 in cash and want to buy a car, bring the cash into the country, or open a checking account - guess what? A report to the federal government because I could be a money launderer. Yep, the drug argument [and maybe corporate corruption] was orginally used to justify this. Now, it's the terrorist angle. The fact that I may have a lot of cash because I don't trust the banking system isn't considered.
So, for those of you wanting an example, even if you love the tax system: I don't wan't a car dealer or bank filing a federal report on me because I pay in cash. There is no probable cause. Would you like federal reports on all firearm transactions? Why is cash any different? Notice that I'm not even raising the banking system as an issue, with which I also have a problem.
How about required reports by your family physician to a state or federal government? - for your own good, of course. This is already going on and could get a lot worse.
So, to all you members of the "right" or the "left" - tell me why do not want people to have freedom and give me an example. Any example you can give supports the libertarian point of view. Or, you will be forced to say why I shouldn't be given certain rights. Name calling or slander is quite easy. Supporting your argument is quite difficult if you spend the time to think about your point of view.
David
[Edited for my habitual typos and some additional minor non-substantive edits.]