11. fair and just — to whom, by what standard?
12. equitable — to whom, by what standard?

The loftier the terminology, the easier for non-libertarians to twist that terminology to argue for non-libertarian goals.

(*We’ll leave #7 for another day.)

As southernjames elicits above, some participants’ first principles are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive to other participant’s first principles. What is a “right”? How is it obtained? How should it be exercised? How should it be defended? Are any endeavors ineligible to be rights? How do we identify those?

The founding documents of America present the results of an attempt to define terms and find common ground in that era. In one of those earliest documents, government is defined as being “instituted among Men, deriving [its] just Powers from the consent of the governed” to secure “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Government was defined as existing to secure unalienable rights.

Does government also exist to secure equal outcomes? Can it? Have citizens adapted government to attempt that role before in history? How did it work out?

To find common ground again, we need to define the purpose of government.

To quote another one of those guys, Washington:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the crux. Government is where we citizens have consented to invest force. When used by “public servants” to secure unalienable rights government is a dangerous (but some would say essential) servant. If allowed to become a master, liberties are suborned to that force.

I think one of the first questions to answer in order to find the current era’s common ground is: Where do we consent to allow the force of government to serve us?

Do we have a right to pursue “happiness” in liberty? Or do we have a right to employ the force of government obtain “happiness” from other citizens, and their liberties be damned?

First, doesn’t that require defining what the terms “conservative” and “liberal” mean? If by liberal, you mean what is often called “classical liberalism,” that is one thing. If it is instead a description of modern progressive leftism, then it means something else. Right? And a political conservative and a modern progressive are highly UNlikely to “find common political ground” on at least half of those items. IMO.

Example: The differing view of “property rights” or for that matter “rights” in general. One viewpoint may be that “rights” are naturally inherent within the individual, endowed from the Creator and not from fellow men, and that the ONLY powers given TO the state are those which are granted FROM the people – with all other rights reserved to individuals. Another viewpoint would be that all power lies with the state and it cedes or doles out rights or freedoms as it deems appropriate. Take the Bill of Rights – does it represent a clarification of the LIMITs on the power of the government over people, or are those a specific GRANT of rights TO the people? As one example, most political science scholars (like Daniel Webster as one example) who were around when the Bill of Rights authors were still living, and it was still a new and fresh document, opined that the 2nd Amendment was simply a re-affirmation of an INALIENABLE right which ALREADY existed – and was not the creation of a NEW right bestowed upon the people FROM the government – so that it could never be argued that “what is given can be taken away.” Because it was never “given” in the first place – it was already there. The amendment was just a clarification for future elected officials – a reminder, if you will, to them – that you shall “not abridge” this right.

This of course only touches the tiniest microscopic tip of the iceberg. But you get my point. There are extreme and profound philosophical differences in perspective as to how issues like this should be viewed, across the political spectrum from right to left.

On even the non-philosophical issues – how is there any common ground between conservatives, who are generally knee-jerk in being pro-defense, and liberals, who are consistently knee-jerk in being against such things as new generation fighters, new weapons technology, the missile defense system, not to mention the size and scope of the overall military itself. Good luck to you, in finding “common ground” between the right and left on defining what the phrase “robust military” even means. It means different things to different people…depending on where you fall in the political spectrum. Right?