smooth

You might benefit from dispensing with the caricatures of liberals you are currently employing--they won't serve you very well in this discussion. What I have to say aligns very cleanly with classical theories on the importance of individualism. I don't know what you are basing your ideas on, but mine are well supported by classical philosophy, classical liberal ideology, and a long history of law and society scholars recognizing that individual rights are a means to guarantee space for personal achievement and encourage citizens to adhere to the social contract--not an end in and of themselves. As I write, you'll start to see how threads of these notions have been incorporated into traditional conservative thought. Whether conservatives can actually adhere to them in practice is a very problematic issue, especially since maintaining wealth and power is core to one sector of the current conservative political party, yet inconsistent with our cultural beliefs in rugged individualism and the importance of freedom to participate in a fair system...

To reiterate, I don't see personal rights as an end in and of themselves; rather, as a means to ensure equality and one's ability to come to the market and engage in the social contract with full knowledge that everyone is subject, and adhering, to the same rules. To guarantee full participation, I would argue that one needs to be secure in the knowledge that one's success depends on one's actions, not the actions of others.

The things you listed: intelligence, looks, and values, are personal traits. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that you can ignore individual rights. The theories I read that would speak to this issue argue that equality requires a level social playing field. Then individual traits are played out on that field and the best person wins...

Usually, the conservative's response is that we ought not to guarantee equality of outcome; this is the first time I've heard someone say that we ought not to even establish equality at birth...

It's going to be difficult to describe a coherent course of action according to current conservative party ideals mainly because the platform itself contains logical inconsistencies and attempts to bind divergent classes under one belief system--necessary because the economiclly and politically powerful are few in number but our system secures its legitimacy via the voting public. These inconsistencies and irreconcilable differences between the interests of those divergent classes comes to light in various facets: most recently in the immenent domain case...and it's starting to play out in this discussion...that one's ability to do what one wants, to express one's freedom, can somehow be truncated from one's wealth and power...

I don't see how your negation of everything I wrote explains your position to me very well. I would find this conversation more stimulating if you explained why you believed the way you do, how you came to your conclusions, rather than merely refuting what I wrote. So far, I see your comments as running afoul of both classical liberal and conservative ideology in regards to the individual's place in society and the importance of individual achievement.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman