Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
<with fingers crossed and tongue firmly planted in cheek, doing best Trump impression> Of course I have no regrets...
laugh Fifty thousand out of work comedians and I get stuck with you! laugh

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
I am pleased to see you acknowledge that Madison's views were "flexible" over the course of his lifetime. So, quoting one particular aspect of his views at one particular time for one particular purpose does not end the debate. I get frustrated at - and this is not specific to you, my friend - the citation to "founders" with cherry-picked and out-of-context quotes that don't reflect their far-more-nuanced views. That gets my back up. Done with that, now.
"Either you are flexible or you eventually break from the changes in your life." (Me)
When I post a quote from one of Founding Fathers, especially Madison, due to the research I have done I know the quote is not out of context nor has it been cherry picked. As surprising as it might be, to you, there are people who are very knowledgeable about our Founding Fathers. I am one of them.

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
But, making an effort to get back to the original thread topic -

I found this article, The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, interesting. I particularly liked his typology graphic: [Linked Image from danielmiessler.com]
He makes, I think, a very valid point about the misuse of the term "Classical Liberal" in the modern context. Why the ‘Classical Liberal’ is Making a Comeback (Politico)
Quote
Adam Smith published “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776 ...., which formed the basis of the free-market capitalist system as we understand it today, [it] also featured the most prominent use to its date of the newly coined modifier “liberal.” “Liberal” policies, in Smith’s conception and that of his contemporaneous predecessors, stemmed from the Enlightenment concept of “liberty”—"Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way,” as he wrote in “The Wealth of Nations.”

The idea caught on. The debate, however, over to whom that liberty is extended or denied, and under what circumstances, was no less robust at the idea’s inception than it is today.

Accepting your previous assertions that "conservatism" is intended to "conserve", and that both the modern "liberal" and "conservative" traditions flow from the same philosophical source, where do you feel the current modern conservative or classical liberal would/should stand on current issues, such as separation of church and state, economic inequality, and social justice reform? (Feel free to address other topics.)
Those are both very interesting articles and need to be read and reread quite carefully. It is not my assertion that conservatism means to conserve. The root word of conservatism is conserve.
https://www.etymonline.comword/conservatism#etymonline_v_28676
The separation of church and state should not be a current issue. That was resolved by the First Amendment. There is and always will be income inequality. It exists because what some people do has more value than what others do. Should the income of the Rolling Stones be equal to that of person working at their first job? Hell no it shouldn't! The efforts to make everyone's income equal can only be successful if everyone is equally poor. To achieve that is to take away the incentive to improve your life. To get rid of income inequality is part of the social justice reform. Therefore it is a bad idea.

The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary