>>29 You're one year younger than me and your response is circa 35 % higher quality than most other posts I've read here.
Well, the gist of your post is the gist I have amassed over the admittedly slim period of my life devoted to politics. So why call yourself a conservative, when you are essentially a liberal (opposed to the general socialist position of the left)? The single reason I can not turn libertarian here and now is my worry regarding the interaction between a country's system, it's culture and the people. Would a laissez-faire system automatically produce the virtues -neccesary for it's own sustainability- in the people reigned by said system? Without moral decency, and some brakes on "bad greed" such as the golden rule and universalizability (I may do this, but do I want everybody to do the same?), we can't trust companies. But without consumer vigilance, companies can essentially do what they want, and call "anti-american" on whistleblowers. I mean, companies like Nestlé, Bechtel, Nike and Shell are still part of the American economy, and any criticizm is outside of the mainstream. Would immoral businesses, having hypothetically lost their political power in the transition to laissez-faire capitalism, really allow themselves to come under consumer scrutiny at the expense of profit? Doubtful. Then again, there are some books that dispel many myths about capitalism (automatic turn towards monopoly et al.), and I promise you I'll read that to get more detail.
I think the reason the 80's experiment with economic liberalism in South America failed so hard (poor Argentina was once the "star pupil" of right-wing pundits) is *partially* due to culture and particularly bad circumstances, but now we have a chance to observe two more countries emulate a more free economic system - India and China. China is far more autocratic yet their gender inequality and social hierarchies don't have the same traditional, religious basis as India's (India is experiencing a backlash against feminism, and in some regions the male to female ration is 10:9). Both countries also have bountiful, beautiful and brittle biospheres that lack any kind of allies in the multinational battle over the pie slices.
This is the crux; thanks to globalization, both countries will probably experience more freedom, more equality and a better respect for human rights, but at what cost, and for whom? There is smog over the cities, the rivers run black and then there are the dam projects that force thousand away from their homes due to politicians ever so eager to please foreign investors. 300 million Chinese have been raised over the poverty level, yet they still rely on the same illegitimate fundaments as before. Putting limits on these budding capitalist changes (unions, environmental regualtions, worker rights) would possibly slow the increase in life improvement, but now it seems as if so many people are getting a bum deal anyway, the only difference now is that there are less resources for them and the air smells worse. In a fast economy, it is easier for the people with the resources to get unfair benefits from those that don't have the opportunit to take action and get their fair slices of the pie.
Lastly, contemporary conservatism is nothing to settle for if you want better economies. The American right and the evangelicals in particular couldn't give two shits about the "self-made man". The majority of American politics cater only to the top two-fifths of the population and while the left are incapable of improving their policies for the better (
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008720), the right pretends as if the money moving upwards is a natural effect of the unrestrained market (they are the ones doing that). While I consider welfare to be wrong philosophically, it is morally justified in societies that are not adequately meritocratic (
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/HERTZ_MOBILITY_ANALYSIS.PDF)
Adding to this is the liqufying of Iraq's quite stable and well-serving public sector (all in the name of neo-con privatization), that was stripped to pieces together with most of the old legislation (this was a breach of the Hague convention regarding sustaining a country's legitimate legislation upon invasion, the only law of Saddam's they kept was a ban on unions in the public sector...). Who were the public employees that were tossed out of jobs, prevented from helping their country's infrastructure when it needed it the most? No people in particular. Just 120'000 or so Sunnis who happened to own firearms and had received mandatory wartime training. The control of the infrastructure was given to buddies of people in the administration (oh yeah we really support healthy competition among entrepreneurs because it improves quality. Just like we did with the people who supplied body armor for our brave men and women), who were quick to not do anything except guzzle up tax money and throw together sub-par medical facilities.
I actually believe that capitalism is the way to go, and that it will not take that much work to make people ready for a laissez-faire system. I believe America has a lot to gain form such a transition, but also so much to lose. I believe that the current speed with which globalization is advancing is completely unsustainable and that there is no culture in the world capable of handling a laissez-faire system. I would probably side with the libertarians if they were aware of their limitations, but until then I am not ashamed of settling for the left. I am very much ready to change my mind though. You've come across as smart, maybe you can offer me a few links or resources apart from those you've already offered (Rand fails as a philosopher, I've gathered, but I respect her for her strength and devotion).