I’m not so sure about that. Of all the people I know who describe themselves as “libertarians,” I’d say fewer than 20% of them are remotely conservative by any objective measure.
Of the professing Libertarians I have met since college they fall into two categories:
1. Libertines not libertarian - Wanted no constraints on their lives whatsoever. So actually anarchists but they wouldn’t call themselves that.
2. Single issue Libertarians - Pot the issue!, i.e. only concerned about pot - Want to smoke pot whenever & wherever they feel like it.
With 2 being the largest category.
I used to call myself a “ small L libertarian”, because it had the word liberty in it, and liberty and limited government are the conservative principles I value the most.
However, I have since learned that, for practical purposes, the Libertarian party is nothing but a third party spoiler that takes votes from conservative Republicans and helps Democrats win.
Like it or not, we have a two party system. It really doesn’t matter what the Libertarian’s platform is; their presence as a third party candidate works against the conservative movement.
Sometimes a Libertarian candidate is a true conservative, and I actually believe he would be the best man for the job, but unfortunately, running as a third party only assures the Democrat victory.
A “small L libertarian” who is a true conservative and who truly wishes to advance the cause of liberty by enforcing the constitutional limitations on the federal government, as intended by the founders, will run as a Republican, as did RR and DT - not as a Libertarian.
Maximum liberty, it is only a crime if it directly harms another. That is my view of libertarianism. Unborn life, is still life. The crime against abortion would be first on the one who pulled the trigger, and secondly on she/he who hired the assassin. OTOH, no breathalyzer or blood tests or refusal to take them should be evidence against a driver. If the police cannot use common sense and their eyewitness testimony to convict, their isn’t a crime. After an accident, the only chance to decide intoxication is medical evidence of course. That would make checkpoints illegal, but maybe set up a single lane with cones in a snakelike pattern, and watch drivers go through. Evidence could be hitting or running over cones. A just system would be citizen against citizen is a criminal case. No State v blahbla blah. It should be moheetum v blahbla blah, or there is no crime, except in cases of murder.