On here, individuals have argued that conservatism and libertarianism are pretty much the same thing.

However, I saw this first video on YouTube and it struck me as an interesting difference.  The speaker claims conservatives value life over liberty and argues that libertarians can't get smaller government, if they decide to stick with placing liberty over life:

And then, there is this this on the Rachel Maddow show from a few years back.  I am curious in what capacity any of this would be seen as Libertarian. 

Anyone here care to argue how libertarian and conservative are the same thing?

Fiscal policy.

They aren't even remotely the same. Anyone who thinks they are is very very confused, or has been mislead in the past.

Libertarians (as I understand it, and consider myself) are all about freedom/individual rights, minimal taxation, deregulation, privatization, etc. Taxes would be low, marijuana would be legal, abortions/euthanasia would be up to the individual, we would respect (not fear) police...and so on

Conservatives (as I take it) are about lower spending and taxes, supporting business, etc. so fairly similar economically...but are against abortion, drugs, etc. So I can see how they appear similar, but conservatives don't give a shit about personal freedom (except when it comes to firearms maybe).

Individuals arguing this quote Reagn:

http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

If i recall correctly, I believe badgenome on here likely used that quote in the past to say they were.  And what I will see, it isn't just forums, you end up politically people arguing this.

conservatives and many libertarians would argue that being for abortion is anti-liberty, and is the ultimate form of tyranny as you are denying another person of the fundamental God given right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of hapiness. I consider myself a conservatarian of sorts. pro-limited government, 100000% pro life. pro-low taxes, low regulation, pro-constitution. i view marriage as something the government shouldnt be involved in, but as long as it is involved, marriage should be the same definition as it has been since the country's founding. As it literally makes no sense to arbitrarly expend the the definition of marriage to homosexual monogomous couples while still restricting to leave out other definitions like polygomy and incest.

Conservatives and libertarians are very similar for the most part. which is why most libertarians who want any chance of winning an election run as a republican (which  im not confusing the establishment republican party as actually conservatives, most of the establisment (read" the people in charge of the party) are progressive-lights and or neo-cons.) but there are still many true conservatives that actually stand up for the constitution and liberty in the rupublican party. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz come to mind.

anyway the democratic party (including: modern day liberals, progressives, fascists, totalitarians, communists/socialists, and statists)  is a complete lost cause when it comes to liberty and the constitution and are virtual polar oposites from libertarians.

They are only a brief marriage of convenience while the Republicans are out of power, and even then we can see the divisions over matters like the NSA.

Ultimately, Libertarianism is not acceptable to the American political mainstream, which is why it only ever gains traction on the fringes, though it wins some of its small victories.

The problem is that economic liberty often interferes with economic fairness and public safety. A free, industrialized market needs heavy regulation against the tendencies of businesses to cartel themselves.

Ahhh good point on abortion. Yeah I'm pro-life as well, I see what you mean how abortion is denying the right to life. I would definitely agree that denying a woman one of their rights for the sake of an entirely new life is worth it. 

Abortion ends up being one place where life over liberty comes into play.  Because conservatives will place life over liberty, they will be opposed to abortion (and also arguably for capital punishment to punish those who took human life).  Libertarians, who value liberty over life, will end up being pro-choice on the abortion issuie.  A libertarian is more than willing to have people die, so long as they have freedom.  A conservative is less likely, but is willing to let people die if they deserve it.  Deserving it could also be the shiftless who are welfare (well, the argument is the 47% won't take responsibility for themselves), drug addicts, or any other people who deserved it, because consequences is arguably the best way to get people to end up respecting life.

The first video (skipped the second half); He unintentionally highlights an important difference when he dismisses anarchist libertarians in the beginning. But as far as a comparison between US Libertarians (a la the Libertarian Party) and conservatives goes, it's not bad. Again, it does ignore the minority of anarchists within the LP.

I do have issues with his issues with libertarian positions, but that's another issue.

The second video (skipped around a bit); Limited government can be libertarian. Intruding less on liberty is more libertarian. But she's pretty much right about the Republican Party. They promise small government, but what they really want is different big government.

Really, libertarian is an incredibly broad term. You have your LP libertarians, but you also have your anarcho-capitalists, mutualists, geolibertarians, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists... the list goes on and on. And as you can probably guess, there is significant disagreement between these various groups. (Of note; "left" anarchists reject the anarcho-capitalist claim to anarchy). Significant members of the various groups include Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and many more.

I'll take anarcho-capitalism as an example of further differences. Ancaps typically come in two flavors. You have your "Rothbardians" (for Murray Rothbard) and your "Friedmanites" (for David Friedman, not his father, economist Milton Friedman). Rothbardians derive their views from the non-aggression principle (or axiom), whereas Friedmanites argue from a sort of consequentialist mindset.

As for how conservatives and libertarians are not the same... There is actually a thing called libertarian conservatism. That's what I'd call the people who wield the Constitution as the most important document for limiting government. Interestingly, people like Ludwig von Mises, Frederic Hayek, and Milton Friedman have been described as such. All three are very significant names within the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics, which in turn, are very significant in free market anarchy (specifically anarcho-capitalism). So, there is some overlap. But if you're talking about the Republican party, or neocons... they're just authoritarian.

For abortion; the answer you get from libertarians will vary depending on who you ask. Some are pro-choice, because they see restricting abortion as infringing on a woman's liberties. Some are pro-life because they see restricting abortion as infringing on the unborn child's liberties. Some are pro-choice because they believe that banning abortion will result in too many negative externalities. There are so many possibilities depending on the views of the person you ask, and none of them are really wrong, or "unlibertarian" ... you just have to know where they're coming from.

I think he dismissed the anarchist side, because that is an entirely different issue. One could say he dismissed it in a non-constructive manner, and possibly derogatory, but I do see it as a separate issue.

And I would say there are conservative libertarians, with the likes of Ron Paul being pretty close to that.