So, let's break down some terms today.  Just to see where we really stand.

Let's say, for the purpose of discussion, that we have the spectrum of liberal and conservative on one hand and the spectrum of authoritarian and libertarian on the other hand.

Mind you, the following definitions are the "extreme" ends and very few people actually embody the mat this degree, but when you have met someone at these extremes, you'll know it.

First of all, what is a "conservative"?   Basically, it's a person who does it by the book.  Everything is aid out, itemized and detailed line by line.  Do not deviate from the book.  The book is good, the book is all.  That is your hard line conservative.

Conversely, your hard core "liberal" is the "rules, who needs rules?" person.  It gets down to making it up as you go along. It's pretty close to "I'll do what  I want to do and you do what you want to do and whatever happens, happens."

Now, "authoritarians"  are those who think there needs to be someone in authority and someone who is under that authority.  These are the "know your place and stay there" types.  Slavery is a pretty good representation of the extreme "authoritarian" relationship.

On to the "Libertarian" end. This is the "I am my own boss and nobody, no how at no time will ever tell me what to do" crowd.  If you are looking for anarchy, you will find it in the libertarian/liberal extreme.  Conversely, if you want a repressed society, look to the consrevative/authoritarian far end.

Now, how many of us are really such total extremists to say we agree with such postions perfectly?

Not very many of us, that's for sure.  Now think of those extreme ends in respect to the U.S. Constitution.  Lok at the persepctive from which it was written.  look at the terminology and manner in which it was written.

This constitution was not written by extremists of any of those four corners.  As a matter of fact, there is quite a centered tone it takes.

It refers very frequently to keeping individuality and personal liberty throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It also seeks to set parameters of oversight rather than specifically spelling out every detail.  Not exceedingly conservative or liberal.

In today's political soapboxing, people who try to find a reasonable place in the midlle of those extremes are called "centrists" and "moderates" by those closer to the extremes.  Very often, they are referred to in a negative light, with scorn.

Myself, I think that as a group of independent, individuals, making our own way through life, yet sharing a common space and living among each other, there need to be agreements, rules to make sure we respect and are respected. 

I believe that each rule in itself is not so much a "written in stone" rule and is more of a parameter to take into consideration the details and circumstances of each situation.

I think that your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. 

I do not think there is a "greater good" in terms of nationalism or some other contrived communal identity.  It is me and mine, there is you and yours, there is they and theirs. 

Nothing in life is fair, nothing is guaranteed beyond that which the Constitution stipulates.  I don't owe you anything and you don't owe me anything beyond respecting the Constitution.