Libertarianism (pt. 2)

John Stossel, a noted libertarian that appears on and hosts a show on Fox News, explained in an interview how he could not believe in "God" (TheBlaze.com).  He described that he would need proof and "...reason and explanation."  This further proves the divide between conservative and libertarianism.

As shown before, libertarians have much more in common with liberalism than conservatism.  Many may say they are open to the idea or possibility of God, but do not support it, as Stossel claims.  But this leaves a couple a series disturbing questions.

If there is no faith in the existence of God, then where do our basic rights come from?  The Declaration of Independence speaks of a "Creator" that provides us with certain "unalienable rights."  If the libertarian does not agree with the concept of a Creator, do they agree with concept of unalienable rights?  I sure they do, but then how does one obtain them?  The answer may be through man.  Penn Jillete, in the interview with Glenn Beck, was asked how he, an atheist, reconciles the reference to God in the Declaration.  His response was that there is also the mention to certain "truths being self-evident."  This was very telling, as infers that man creates the belief in God, and therefore the belief in unalienable rights (which actually makes them inalienable).  So the conclusion is that man provides inalienable rights.  And if man can give something, then man can take them away.  Would that be called a conservative or progressive idea? 

Also Stossel points to the lack of evidence of a God, something that progressives and militant atheists shout.  This is a secular and science directed idea that ignores any personal experience.  It is void of emotion and individual faith.  So again, is this more progressive thought, or is it closer conservatism?

Libertarians are not evil people.  They are just amoral.  That is something that conservatives cannot become.  If conservative leaders decide to work with libertarians, they must retain their value and moral driven base rather than adopt the libertarian idea of amorality.  For without morals, a civil society cannot exist.