I am a hardcore liberal, in that I am a nihilist. I have come to the conclusion that, at present, the collection of facts about the universe and the collection of value judgements of any sort that we as human beings form, do not overlap. At some point you have to introduction words like 'should', 'good', or 'bad', which are never contained in factual premises. If you believe that emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rapid rate is' bad' for the environment, what you are really saying is that it will destroy the systems which the environment requires in order to continue functioning. Asserting that this is a 'bad' thing, is a further assertion which comes from human preferences, which are ultiately rooted in evolution (selfish-genes) directly or indirectly.
However, I have induced that human beings seem to be happier if they are part of something bigger than themselves, i.e. if they have a 'purpose'. Now purpose is often antithetical to 'freedom'. If you have a purpose, and want to act in the world according to that purpose, you will face various constraints, in order to 'get shit done'. If you engage in a COLLECTIVE purpose, you will enter into certian roles and your success or failure as an individual will be determined according to the teleology you have assumed for yourself by picking up and engaging in the specific collective purpose (close to 'virtue ethics'...).
However which collective purpose I will engage in remains, objectively speaking, a choice for me. On the political level then, liberalism can be translated into a liberalism of collectives, which is antithetical to a mass-state, in which there is no purpose beyong not having a purpose (pluralism). But it is also antithetical to the absolutist vein, which I have encountered around these forums more in the last few years, which seems to run dangerously close to: purpose is good, I have a purpose which is supported by this and this philosophical tretchery, therefore EVERYONE should abide by it.
I am not a christain, a pagan, a conservative or a traditionalist, and I would not choose to live with any of these outdated and static belief systems in a collective defined by a COMMON GOOD. But I do not believe the tenants of nihilism should be dominated by these groups. A certain kind of liberalism is compatible: that of a liberalism between COLLECTIVES.
As a liberal, I like the philosophy of active nihilism because I do not like the kind of liberalism which advocates NO standards, as opposed to the kind which recognises that there are no OBJECTIVE standards, but that people could, with some shift in the current political paradigm, enter into social contracts of sorts. Stemming from this I advocate a kind of virtue ethics (in which moral judgements only gain meaningful content, and actually come alive in this and only this situation: when informed by a conception of the 'good life', or a teleology). I would simply defend, violently if necessary, my evident ability to choose my own conception of the good life. Any desperate metaphysical wankery to convince me that there is a SINGLE common good, I percieve, righly I think due to the reality of nihilism, as actually quite passive aggressive.