It’s true that technically they can, but if the ideology behind it is not necessarily a free economy but rather individual liberty—that is, that the state should not intervene in a person’s life—then they are not being consistent when they say the state should ban pornography and same-sex marriage. Meaning, if the consideration is only a free economy and that’s what’s good for the economy, I understand. But in my estimation, the ideology on which this whole branch rests is individual liberty. Of course, I could be mistaken, and that’s why I asked you.

I also should have been more precise and not said conservatives, but rather right-wingers. Although usually there is overlap.

In your view there is a contradiction here. But contradictions in other people’s positions arise from their worldview, not from your assessments. One can talk about individual liberty in the economic sphere and not in the sphere of values.

Israeli — to the extent that you claim inconsistency among right-wingers, why not make the same claim regarding left-wingers, who cry out against ideological coercion when it comes to religious values, but support such coercion when it comes to secular values (gender equality, high taxation, scientific education, and the like)?

Everyone believes in enforcing the values necessary for society’s existence, and in freedom from the enforcement of values that are not important to it. The dispute is over which values are necessary.

(By the way, the abortion example is a bad one. Opponents believe it is murder, and therefore the woman is not deciding about her own body but about someone else’s body. I assume you also agree that one should enforce a prohibition against murdering another person; you simply think that this is not a person at all.
The same-sex marriage example is also not a good one, because the debate is not whether to prevent them from living together but whether society will define it as marriage. It is entirely reasonable that someone who believes same-sex relations should not be defined as marriage would vote against such a definition, just as supporters would vote against giving that definition to something that does not meet the criteria in their view, such as a business partnership.)

Moshe — the very fact that there are many people who argue that this is not murder, and the very fact that Jewish law permits abortion in many circumstances, and that even Michi agrees that in a case of rape one can be lenient, shows that this is far from murder and not entirely clear, so as far as I’m concerned that argument is invalid (especially since science is skeptical about what feelings and sensations a fetus even has). More than that, according to that logic, a vegetarian who believes meat is murder could pass a law forbidding the eating of meat. Does that sound normal to you?
And regarding same-sex marriage, in Israel anyone who does not marry according to the law of Moses is not considered married. Does that mean such a thing is not considered marriage? After all, in every sane place in the world it would be treated as a marriage in every respect, wouldn’t it?
As for gender equality, I argue that there should be equality of opportunity—that is, universities should not reject a woman because she is a woman rather than because of admission requirements. Regarding workplaces, I definitely think the employer should have the right to determine the criteria and the salary.
In general, I support accommodating social phenomena as long as they are within the bounds of reason, unlike conservatives who try to impose all their agendas on us liberals. As a liberal, I have no problem at all if a woman decides not to have an abortion, or if a couple decides to marry according to the law of Moses or according to the law of Jesus, and as far as I’m concerned they can even refuse to recognize other marriages. But I am simply arguing that the state should not impose values, that’s all. Except, of course, for universal values such as murder, theft, etc., where there is consensus between liberals and conservatives.

And regarding scientific education: in the religious school I studied in, which was of course funded by the state, we did not study any evolution or any Big Bang.

Of course, also with regard to policies like releasing hostages, where you can’t accommodate both views, a decision has to be made—either you don’t release them or you do. I’m simply referring to phenomena like marriage and even education, where I completely agree that everyone should be given autonomy. By the way, if it matters that much, they could even make it so that the state does not fund abortions, but still allows the option.

Regarding abortion, I am not discussing the question of what the correct position on the issue is, but only pointing to the fact that opponents of abortion argue that this is an independent body and not part of the woman’s body, and therefore government intervention here is similar to any intervention meant to prevent one person from harming another.
Indeed, if a vegetarian believes it is forbidden to harm animals for the sake of eating them, it would be proper for him to vote in favor of government intervention to prevent that harm.

Regarding marriage, the very fact that the state defines marriage is itself government intervention in the matter. The question is what is defined as marriage, and therefore it does not make sense to discuss coercion here. If it is decided that a business partnership is not defined as marriage, is that coercion against business partnerships?
As far as I’m concerned, state intervention in the institution of marriage should be abolished entirely, and it should be treated like any other legal contract. But insofar as there is such intervention, it is reasonable for people to express an opinion about what is defined as marriage and what is not.

As for coercion of liberal values, if you support forcing an institution to give equal opportunity to women or any other population group, then you believe in imposing the value of equality on people who do not support it. The same applies if you believe in collecting progressive taxes aimed at striving for a certain economic equality. Government education in schools also forces the study of certain subjects (even if not specifically evolution) on people who would prefer to study other subjects.

In short, I personally support reducing government intervention to a minimum and giving autonomy to individuals and to different communities. But to the extent that coercion is required, liberals are no less coercive than conservatives—they simply coerce different values. (See, for example, the U.S., where the ones waving the banner of individual liberty are דווקא the conservatives rebelling against liberal coercion…)