OK, lets try again.
Modern social conservatism has only passing resemblance to the original conservatism, also known as "classical liberalism." From Wiki:
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It was committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties.
...
In the United States in the second half of the 20th Century, many classical liberals allied with social conservatives and attacked the very concept of liberalism, calling their beliefs conservatism. Source
Those "social conservatives" used to be called Democrats prior to Nixon's Southern strategy.
One characteristic that can separate the classical liberals/original conservatives from the modern social conservatives is (as was posted in the above post) attitude toward the state. Classical liberals favor limited government, while social conservatives too often look to the state to enforce their beliefs.
On this scale, Chomsky is anything but a classical liberal. While he espouses rationalism, he also believes the power of the state is required to manage most everything. From the Wiki article: "Specifically he believes that society should be highly organized and based on democratic control of communities and work places." In this he differs from classical liberals/original conservatives who called for limited government.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
