^you understand our system more than most Americans, as demonstrated by this point, haha. I do however define myself as "economically liberal" below, even though I lean away what you are defining as "liberalism"... So screw labels, haha, I do explain my position. Conservative implies they resist change... It was socialists, progressives, etc... here in the early 1900s that drove change, thus making those positions "liberal" (I.e. in favor of change)... I touch on some of this below... Of course I am a bumbling idiot too, so enjoy!
You are exactly right, and so few people here seem to get it, so I will outline if below... you choose a political system and and economic system... Many people equate the 2, but that is misguided... The very fact that you pointed that out show a thoughtfulness that most people lack.
Political system... We chose democracy, we could have chosen monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc... In a democracy the majority consensus rules (theoretically)... but it only works well if you have informed civic-minded citizens who engage in the process... We don't really have that! This is kinda beside the point, the reason I bring it up is because you got the impression I am economically conservative, when in fact it is generally considered a liberal position to extend social safety nets, which I support...I may have said something to mislead you...
Economic system... We chose capitalism, which exists on a spectrum with communism at the extreme other end... Even though I am a SOCIAL libertarian (support all rights that do not infringe on the rights of others, even drug legalization because prohibition does not work, it fuels cartels and does not curb drug usage, and if you have addicts buy a controlled regulated substance, from a government run site, you can attempt to intervene and help them break the addiction... Prohibition makes drug rebellious and deviant, which is a big draw for many people and one reason it seems to be so ineffective... Imagine using drug revenue to help people break addictions... sounds ironic, but not impossible in my mind...)... So even though I am a social libertarian I do not reflect libertarian economic beliefs (I won't abuse the Adam Smith example like many conservative economists do, not understanding the true context of his work) such as complete deregulation... I think modern China and many other places that US work has been exported to are prime examples of the environmental and social danger of deregulation... People are greedy and will get away with whatever they can to benefit themselves, so there must be rule and regulations regarding what they can get away with... If we had not done that here (making sure there's not human meat [thanks socialist Upton Sinclair] or dangerous chemicals in our food, safe machinery in factories, that toxic waste is not being dumped, minimum wage, benefits, etc...) we would still have jobs, but jobs that disgraced human beings (like the Apple employees that leaped to their death before they added the suicide net in China)... We don't even do a good job at a lot of those things due to the corporate interests that control out political system, but it sure as hell beats working in China! So back to my point... I lean way more toward the communist end of the economic scale, with the likes of Ralph Nader... lol... I think we should have universal single payer healthcare (current profit drive system has failed us for the same reasons as the EPA, FDA, etc...), lots of social programs to improve lives, good schools, hospitals (that are not profit driven, salaries should be incentive enough)... I do not however thing corporations should be government owned, right now we have a dangerous form of "corporatism" where the government and corporations walk hand in hand to the detriment of the American people at large (With the bailouts, etc... that was NOT Laissez Faire capitalism!) and then we leave little guys out to dry... It's a new Gilded age where 95% of the wealth is controlled by less than 5% so corporate interests and lobbies have taken over the political system for their own gain while America plays xbox, and turns a blind eye, because we are so relatively wealthy that most don't even notice they are getting away with this s--t!
Social political issues are a separate thing altogether... Because even if we agree democracy is best we don't necessarily agree on all the issues that arise due to a plethora of worldviews, and the diversity of thought that can exist even within one of those worldviews... So there's where people often differ... I happen to believe that as little intervention into private lives by the government is best... Heck, most Southern's will agree with that immediately... But in essence they contradict themselves by thinking the government has the right to tell me what I can smoke, who I can marry, etc... If they want the government to stay out of private lives, why do they feel so passionately that the government should curb this behavior? I walk my talk... I try not to judge others so long as they do not violate my rights... I think we can pretty clearly define when someone's natural right are being violated, and in my mind if a man and woman have the right to say "I want this person to be my soul heir etc...," which is essentially what marriage is, then 2 men have the right to make the same legal commitment to one another... It is not a religious issue... The Romans government recognized contracts between people... That is really what it is, and in my mind it is a natural right to decide who should inherit you stuff, decide when to pull the plug on life support, etc... Churches can call it whatever they want and chose to serve who they will as far as I am concerned (as I said before I would not go to a church that discriminated against me whether or not I have the legal right to)...
You agree gay people have the right to give their stuff to a same sex partner when they die? You agree they have the right to decide said partner can fulfill their wishes regarding life support, etc? You think it serves anyone to not let them file their taxes together? If you don't agree, please explain why not. I am not trying to violate anyone's right to religious freedom here... Quite the contrary... As long as your religion does not infringe on my natural and legal rights, have at it! Please just extend the same freedoms to those that do not share the same worldview... It's a big country and we'll never all be on the same page, that's why respect for tolerance (even if someone is doing something that YOU consider immoral, but is not directly affecting you or hurting a non-compliant person...). So I am a true libertarian in that regard...
You are probably economically more conservative than me (since conservative essentially means resisting change, and our current economic system is probably more in line with what you think is proper than what I would wish for...), and, as you said, more socially conservative, which is why we differ so much on this issue specifically...
If you have the patience for it, and want to understand the inter workings of my brain, please do read the whole post, haha. I kinda felt like I kept switching gears, but hopefully it is all coherent. Let me know if you have any questions.