Huge difference between liberals and libertarians. Modern liberals could not ever be in the company of conservatives. They are polar opposites by design. Libertarians are very similar to conservatives however. The root word liberty in both is mostly inconsequential as it relates to liberals
We used to even have options as far as conservatives go as they used to exist in both major parties. That day is gone. Extinct as the dinosaurs
I took a shower and got to thinking. The difference between the modern liberal and classical liberal is that the modern liberal wants to legislate morality to the fullest extent. In doing so they have to abandon freedom of speech, freedom of religion and limited government. This is why many sensible people on the left are confused because they share common ground with modern liberals in that they want gender equality and racial equality and choose not to see what's being lost in pushing the legislation of equality too far.
Politicians in turn see this as an opportunity to capitalize on the ability to legislate further into our lives, thus gaining more power and control. They get to do so under the guise of progress, since so many people are clamoring for it and mistakenly believe these issues to be the root cause of their suffering. The actual root cause is most likely much more complex and not nearly as easy to fix.
Generally it comes down to this I think. People on the left think that humans are intrinsically good and that society/culture/ institutions are what corrupt them. essentially Rousseau's social contract "man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains." So the obvious course of action is to try to change unsavory individuals through the culture/society/government that created them. To change the individual by changing the way that the system allows them to express themselves.
I think what we are seeing on the left generally is a retarded revitalization of the romantic movement. Which was an offshoot of rousseau's philosophy best illustrated in Frankenstein. Frankenstein being allegory for the soul after science and the enlightenment killed religion. General sentiment being that the human spirit must triumph over reason. That reason is a slave maker and must be destroyed and usurped in order to reunite and restore us with god and our noble nature. The fall of man. etc. In addition to this since religion has been killed by science and reason a replacement is required in order for people to have psychic harmony with the uncertainty of their lives. By killing god and the soul you also eliminate purpose. In steps marxism, BLM, Antifa, etc as a replacement religion and an end worth burning reason (or their makers) to the ground.
On the flip side you have the enlightenment school of thought which supposes that the hearts and mind of the individual are what shape the society/culture/government. That to change the government you must first change the heart of the man who creates it. Essentially individualism. Individual god given rights that are inalienable from which you get innocent until proven guilty. Which is a huge advance from trials by fire and witch hunts, etc. The sovereignty of the individual to seek truth and reason wherever he may find it so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same.
