Well obviously I disagree with this. In some ways I've relatively libertarian but I do reiterate the need for stable intermediate associations and their necessity for authority to maintain themselves. I cannot see anything but the loosest most ephemeral association standing long without any kind of authority; not necessarily very coercive or centralised authority but some kind of authority.However, it's the socially authoritarian nature of previous conditions that conflict with our inner libertarian sentiments and natural instincts toward self-management, combined with resistance to the coercion traditionally utilized in religious settings, that form the core of the antipathy of most social progressives and civil libertarians to social conservatism and the perceived authoritarianism of those rightists that focus on preservation of traditionalism.
By authority I mean what Robert Nisbet meant by it:
By authority, I do not mean power. Power, I conceive as something external and based on force. Authority, on the other hand, is rooted in statuses, functions and allegiances which are the components of any association. Authority is indeed indistinguishable from organisation, and perhaps is the chief means by which organisation, and a sense of organisation, becomes part of human personality. Authority, like power, is a form of constraint, but, unlike power, it is based ultimately upon the consent of those under it; that is, it is conditional. Power arises only when authority breaks down.
Apart from authority, as even the great anarchists have insisted, there can be no freedom, no individuality. What the anarchists said, and this is the splendid essence of anarchism and the link between it and such conservatives as Tocqueville and Action, is first, that there must be many (Nisbet's emphasis.)authorities in society, and, second that authority must be closely united to objective and functions which command the response and talents of member. Freedom is to be found in the interstices of authority; it is nourished by competition among authorities.
Also the quote from Nisbet in my post above is very useful for the conservative view on authority.
I think the use of the term "authoritarianism" is very problematic. I noted the difference between the conservative view of authority and both yours and what I gathered of Korymir's in the thread you had on that subject.
"Authoritarianism" seems to me to suggest a very consolidated, top-down, long chain of command sort of a view which is very different from the social conservative view as shown above based on the reality of the social need for dispersed, balanced authority to support the intermediate associations that provide the individual with such a large amount of the framework for his everyday life and help keep the overbearing power of the state at bay.
Personally I would consider the Catholic church reasonably large.
There's no major social conservative organization or alliance that has adopted both advocacy of those traditional mores often associated with religious tenets and anti-capitalism; that sounds as though it would be associated with a Christian Socialist contingency, but there isn't any such powerful bloc in this country.
We certainly aren't the mainstream but like the left there are enough of us economic decentralists and similar around on the right even though, like the left again, we are divided into many camps. I mean one could easily make the same comparison about the left, many less informed would say it was mainly social democrats, liberals(quite close to SDs obviously.) and state socialists. But the more informed could easily not just a lot more variety in the above three categories but many other, if smaller, varieties less centralist.
Man, you guys are both good posters it seems to me. I don't think there is much to gained by the way you are both behaving(obviously I'm not adverse to the old flamewar myself when provoked, , but that is my two cents worth.).Another off-topic post from you. I'll have to assume that you've accepted my argument, given that you've not attempted to reply to it.