However I disagree with both Hayek’s and your view of conservatism. The “Why I am not a Conservative” link which you posted suggests that Conservatives want to preserve the status quo. Form the American perspective this is incorrect. In the US it is the Conservatives who are pushing for deregulation, privatization and free trade and it is the ‘Liberals’ who want to preserve the status quo.

From my perspective this is how I see the political spectrum (based on real world situations of what is actually happening and not on definitions and history). Going from RIGHT(extreme Capitalism) to LEFT(Extreme Socialism)
RIGHT
Anarchists
Anarcho Capitalists
Libertarians
Conservatives
Liberals
Socialists
LEFT

Theoretically speaking whether you are a liberal or not depends on what the prevalent situation is. In India (which is currently more socialist than capitalist) you would be considered a Liberal because you oppose the current status quo (big govt, excessive regulation etc) and want to move towards a freeer market. But if you were in the US (and held exactly the same views) you could not count yourself a Liberal because they want to preserve all of the things you oppose - in which case you would find yourself in the Libertarian or Conservative camp by default. In the US the closest mainstream ideology that Libertarians can identify with is surprisingly Conservativism (and the Republican Party) and not the Liberals (Democratic Party).

In future discussions when I refer to Liberal I intend ist usage to be in the real world US context and not in the classical definition of the ideology. I think it is important to use these definitions in the real context rather that in the academic because the latter definitions were written in a whole different soci-econo-political world which has litte application today

The few areas in which they disagree are
- Abortion
- Gay Marriage
- Drugs
- Some moral free speech issues (nudity etc_

But as you can see in the majority of areas they are in close agreement - economics, politics and only differ on sme issues of morality.

A hardcore libertarian would find it difficult to agree with any of the major Liberal viewpoints and could never run on a Democratic ticket.

Although it may seem more ‘practical’ to take your perspective, it is one that you have deliberately to chosen to suit your perceptions of reality, the advantages of the academic-historical understaning, is far deeper, and provides for a much broader temporally independent discussion about who stands where in which debate. The right to left plane on which you define the idea space, is extremely limited, in that it accentutates the similarities between the liberal and the socialist on the one hand and the libertarian and the conservative, or the libertarian and the anarchist on the the other, while glosssing over the significant differences, in terms of the understanding of the role of individual and society.

It is better and more stable to impute certain fundamental qualities to each ideaology, which is independent of the time and the space. More later.

For instance though Reagan won the elections on the plank of Balanced Budgets, and less welfare spending, today the Bush Administration, taking a cue from Reagan’s Supply Siders, not only reduces taxes, which is their traditional plank, but also increases expenditure on Welfare and MediCare (Formerly liberal turf), as well as their traditional Defence expenditures. The nature of conservatism is changing with that of the Status Quo. If the Conservatives seem confused abou what they are representing, it is just representative of the kind of Paradoxes, that McGovern starts out to explain in his recently fisked article, that pervade the whole American System.

The radical Democrat-Liberals (Dean) are clamouring for even more state intervention, which they will keep doing, because that is the only perceived means of fighting for the ‘little guy’.

Maybe the rise of Libertarians is illustrative of how the Conservatives no longer represent a Liberal status-quo, but a more Socialistic one.