I'm probably too conservative in my outlook to satisfy the political Right Wing (or perhaps anyone who claims the label of conservative). For example, I continue to hold to the idea that the one who benefits from a transaction should be the one who pays. That's a way of saying that there should be at least a rough sort of equity in any sort of transaction. The one who eats the food should pay the grocer. The one who converses with family should pay the telephone service provider. Because of the payment, both parties benefit; one has the product and the other has the money.
The concept is a monetary extension of the idea of fair barter. You provide me with an obsidian knife from the mountains and I will give you a string of salmon from the rivers. If you have a surplus of obsidian and I am satiated with fish then this is a fair trade; each goes home with an improved situation. Contrarily, if you use your obsidian knife to threaten me into giving away the salmon, there is no fair trade.
Even today, some transactions have a barter-like aspect to them. I might offer to provide some free internet services to you (email, web search) in return for you accepting commercial messages. This would be fair trade if the services are valuable to you and the ability to distribute advertising is valuable to me. (In real life, distribution of advertising become valuable because the distributor can resell the access to someone else, complicating the determination of fairness.)
Fair trading can become unfair exploitation by virtue of ancillary activity. If the obsidian trader not only collects the string of fish as agreed, but also sells guide services bringing steppe dwellers to the salmon streams where they harvest fish without paying the stream peoples, then what was a fair exchange is no longer fair. The steppe people pay the mountain people for guide services, but take away the fish without paying. The steppe folk are stealing the fish and the mountain guides are facilitating the theft for their own profit. Similarly, the internet services may no longer represent a fair deal if the purveyors siphon off and resell personal data from the email messages which pass through the service.
Some of these transaction are hard to evaluate. Is the obsidian so rare and valuable and the salmon so plentiful that the stream people would consider giving away both the original string of salmon and access to their streams to be a fair exchange for the knives? Is the history of your past interests of little value to you, and does selecting the advertising you see add value to the original exchange? People could reasonably reach such conclusions.
The conservative point of view, however, demands that people be free to reach such valuations as they think best. If the mountain trader offers 3 knives for 2 strings of salmon and permission to guide the steppe people to the salmon streams, then the stream folk can decide for themselves whether this is a fair trade. There must be neither coercion nor deception or the concept of a fair agreement falls apart.
Consider an example from telephony. I believe that having telephone service is sufficiently valuable to me so as to justify paying a set amount to the telephone service provider each month. I am required to pay an additional fee in support of the 9-1-1 emergency services, something which I have never used for my own benefit. There is an element of coercion in that I can't independently decide whether the small monthly fee is a fair trade for having the emergency services available to me.
On the other hand, the society to which I belong has considered the question openly and concluded that we all benefit from having access to 9-1-1 and therefore we should all pay. And I agree. While I never called 9-1-1 on my own behalf, someone else once called 9-1-1 on my behalf and I once called 9-1-1 on behalf of someone else. Rather than the person with the string of fish deciding, the whole group of stream dwellers decides whether to allow outsiders to fish the salmon streams. Such joint decisions may grate against highly individualistic views, but they can still fit within the concept that the ones who benefit should be the ones who pay.
Now suppose that I am suspected of a crime. Perhaps I am accused of stealing salmon. Society locks me up to make sure that I will not run away to the mountains before the truth of this accusation can be determined. I decide to call a friend to post bond for me, so that I can get out of the jail -- whether my friendship is a fair trade for his trouble is something for my friend to decide. Making the call is a benefit to me, or at least I hope that it will eventually turn into the benefit of getting out of jail, so it is reasonable that I should be asked to pay the cost of the call.
But if getting out of jail is a benefit, staying in jail is not. Who benefits from the locks, the thick walls, the metal gratings, and the constant surveillance? The benefit goes to those fishers who fear I might steal their salmon also. (The benefit they get is a relief from fear. I am innocent of the accusation, but their fear is real enough.) Since it is other people, and not myself, who are benefitting, it is these other people, and not the prisoner, who ought to pay.
I hold that this is the conservative position. In fact, prisoners are frequently charged for their accomodation and for having their phone calls monitored and for other services which benefit only other people and not the ones who are coerced into paying for them.
In actual reality the conservative principle of fair exchange is the better long-term strategy. Exploitation, deception, and coercion can certainly bring short-term gains, but fairness builds up the fabric of society. The falsely accused prisoners coerced into paying for your security, the salmon fishers deceived into facilitating exploitation of their streams -- in the longer term they will turn and accuse you and they will exploit your resources, unless before then we can find a better way to play the game.