It isn't about economics at all. It is about structure. The root principle of libertarianism is about suppressing the power of government so that it cannot coerce individuals.
They tend to believe in Federalism because it hobbles an overweening common state. They tend to be Constructionists wrt Constitutional matters. In most cases, the things you fear of them comes from an insistence (albeit sometimes misplaced) upon great power and sovereignty granted to the states respectively by the Constitution.
Social libertarianism (rampant atheism, homosexual “marriage”, abortion, amnesty, just to name a few things I despise liberaltarians for) is Cultural Marxism.
The 'social libertarianism' you describe is more simply described as liberalism - A thing which the Republicans (as the oft proclaimed home of Conservatism) are just as guilty of, as demonstrated by the full-on liberal that just lost the election.
That absolutely does *nothing* to disqualify the very Conservative roots of American Libertarianism. And it also does nothing to the one thing that stands at that root, which all libertarians hear as a clarion call: Big government is coercive government. And there is nothing, FRiend, more Conservative than that.
I, like the vast majority Conservatives, aren’t going to “moderate” our views, since we’re in the right. Abortion is wrong. Amnesty is wrong. Homosexual “marriage” is wrong. Two and two never make five, no matter what.
As a Reaganite Conservative whose tap root is deeply embedded in Social Conservatism, I am all for the Constitutional protection of LIFE (as an enumerated right in the DoI, Granted us from God above and no one else). I am *NOT* for an amendment thus defining it (as that is a needless redundancy).
I am profoundly against homo marriage (secondarily because of the damage it does to state reciprocity as ordained in the Constitution, which btw, libertarians should rightly understand).
I am also four-sqare against illegal aliens and any sort of amnesty (as being against the rule of law, counter to survival as a country, and as being downright dumb).
That does not cause any more impasse between me and my libertarian FRiends than the same issues do with my fiscally conservative FRiends (many of whom could care less about such things)... In fact, I find more common ground with the libertarians because they are speaking from principle on the matter and care about the issues - to many purely fiscal conservatives, the issues are not important.
And for the most part, it has been libertarianism that has been treated as a read-headed step-child ever since Reagan's right foot stepped over the White House threshold for the last time. It is long past time to listen to them, and give them back the seat they once had at their own table.
Preach against giving power to the government (even for the right reasons), and you will be astounded as to how many will easily be convinced to join you. Confine yourself to concepts which fit within the enumerated powers granted to the federal government and they will cheer you on, even if they don't agree with you entirely.
That is where unity can be found, and with unity of purpose comes alliance.
Good points and well written, no doubt about it.
—HOWEVER—
Where was this attitude from the Liberaltarians when it was needed the most, say 18 days ago ?
Don’t get me wrong. I have many libertarian beliefs. Like I mentioned in the article, I’m all for repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments. I’m all for auditing, if not abolishing, the Federal Reserve. I also believe the freer the markets, the freer the people.
At the same time, I don’t believe Big “L” Libertarianism works. It may be great on fiscal issues, but it’s lousy on social and defense issues.