Generally speaking, liberals want government to act as a positive agent of redistributive justice in order to enforce equality of outcomes. Conservatives just want government to act negatively, as a protector of property rights.
This is a myth that wrongly accepts the contemporary left-right spectrum. Not only do conservatives not support property rights in any consistant way, they support forced redistribution themselves, only towards different interest groups. They tend to support interventionism at a minimum and a mixed economic system along the lines of the fascist system. One thing that the conservatives will always clamor for more funding for is the military, police and surveillance or intelligence. Conservatives may often favor protectionism, corporate welfare, limited social welfare, prohibitions and loads of social controls. At best, which isn't that great at all in the grand scheme of things, they merely want to transfer many of the bad government functions and interventions to the states. This should be blatanly obvious and I don't understand why libertarians would delude themselves into thinking that this isn't the case.
"Neo-conservatives" are actually liberals.
In my experience, paleoconservatives aren't much of an improvement and are often worse than the neocons on specific issues.
Now, there is a very broad wing of libertarian thought that really likes this idea of redistributive justice. They accept completely the Marxist mantra that equality of inputs will yield equality of outcomes, and insist that it is the State and its co-dependent institutions that must be skewing the results.
This is a straw man. Noone here accepts Marxism. In fact, just yesterday I spent a lot of time debating against a Marxist. It is also blatantly ignorant to act as if the state's intervention doesn't skew the results of the economy. That should be blatantly obvious. Noone here insists on absolute equality in outcomes. The point is that the state's intervention skews the outcomes to concentrate wealth and power into certain hands and all-over *** the average person. Of course, if we accept the mythological worldview that says that state intervention is inherently pro-worker and anti-buisiness, I can easily see how you've been deluded into thinking that state intervention somehow does the opposite, as if the main victims are big buisiness and the rich. But one must buy into a lot of contemporary political bullshit to think that, when quite clearly the people who have the keys to the jeep of the state (a euphamism for patronage and overall access to the institution in any real sense) are a select elite of mostly rich and big buisiness interests.
Of course, the reality is that humans are not equal nor are they born tabula rasa. Human society is naturally social and hierarchical. Even in the absence of the State, there will be leaders, followers, wealthy, poor, dead-weight, the pathological, the theist, the atheist, etc.
I don't disagree with these statements at face value and I don't think you'll find any left-libertarian here who does either.
And as soon as organic society orders itself accordingly, this wing of libertarianism will cry "Statism!" and call for its dismantling
Not really. The problem is that you and other conservatives fail to distinguish between what you call "natural order" and what actually is an artificially created increase in heirarchy and inequality that inevitably results from state intervention. Hence, "natural order" becomes an apologetic device. This is what all conservatives do. They assume that the existing order is natural and then defend it while ignoring any of the external influences of power interests that created or distorted that order. Everything unequal can be brushed off as nature while nurture is completely ignored. While the marxists may make the opposite mistake in overemphasizing nurture, it hardly suffices to emphasize nature at the expense of any institutional analysis of the effects of the state, culture and economic power. Both must be taken into account and I believe that conservatives fail to take the nurture side of the equation into account.
Thus, these anarchists join their Marxist cousins in the goal of permanently levelling organic society.
Nice red-baiting, crunchy con. Once again, the problem is that you conflate "organic society" with the effects of state intervention. It is disingenuous to argue as if whatever currently exists is purely "organic" and therefore legitimate. That can be used to justify whatever the status quo is, hence the problem with conservatism as a social and historical view.