But in general it is usually defined as some people have bad logic(serial killers their psych paths liers people in chronic debt), therefore the government has the right to enforce laws to prevent chaos.
A definition has to distinguish one thing from all other things in a clear and unmistakable way. I think you need to try again here. This definition is trying to say something about the existence of government; I think, but I can't be sure. If it were a suitable definition, we'd pretty much know that it applied to a certain kind of political philosophy, conservatism, and to nothing else.
Your presentation has the rough form of a syllogism. Two statements, one building on the other, that lead to a third statement that is the logical outcome of the previous two. It is ill-formed as a syllogism, however, because it has an undistributed middle, and the final proposition does not follow. That is supposing that it is intended as a logical statement; it may not be.
Many, many, many, conservatives believe in liberal economics, but There are some that believe in conservative economics. Therefore someone who believes in political conservatism can also be an economic liberal.
There may be a very large number of conservatives who believe in Liberal economics. If there are, I don't know of any of their publications, and would be interested in knowing of some of them. I do know of folks such as the late senator Goldwater who were fiscal conservatives and believed that, as many of the founding father believed, that government and Religion should be kept separate, and that many matters of personal morals did not belong in the public sphere. Sexual orientation, for example, Goldwater felt, was your own business.
There are, as a result, some folks who are fiscal conservatives and social libertarians. Sometimes even social Liberals, I suppose, such as the late Governor Rockefeller of New York. People who are economic Liberals, however, are generally simply called Liberals, since the spending that the Keynesian economics may mandate may go toward what conservatives disdainfully call "entitlements." Conservatives tend to be programmatically against such things, especially when these programs are directed toward helping out the impoverished.
They have, however, often supported equivalent programs for folks in the upper income brackets, such as Oil Depletion Allowances and the tax cuts for the very wealthy that drained large amounts of money from public coffers during the last eight years.
Our opinions apparently part ways on some of these details.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven