You Can't Be Pro-Family And Anti-State

This would be rather beyond David Cameron (educated beyond his intelligence, and all that), but Marxists, including neoconservatives, are correct that the family, private property and the State have a common origin, with each absolutely necessary in order to maintain the other two.

However, Marxists, including neoconservatives, are wrong to see this as a bad thing, and therefore to desire the withering away of the State, which they know would be the withering away of the family and of private property, and which they want precisely for that wicked reason. It is worth bearing in mind that Marxists are ultimately no more pro-State than they are pro-family or pro-property, simply because, as Marxists themselves recognise, nobody can be.

Family life is one of the many things that conservatives exist in order to conserve. And, like all of them, it is corroded to nought by the "free" market, either directly or by driving despairing millions into the arms of Jacoboinism, Marxism (including neoconservatism), anarchism (of which the "free" market is itself a form, anarcho-capitalism) or Fascism (again, including neoconservatism, particularly as it derives from Leo Stauss or Ayn Rand).