[steve-b]

Does any of that make sense?

No. A few examples of the mental mishmash:

Libertarians believe in freedom regardless of virtue.

Obvious self-contradiction. The libertarian position is that government infringement of freedom is morally wrong, not merely inefficient and foolish. Obviously, a concept of moral wrong cannot exist without a concept of virtue.

Therefore, you harvest the common ground principles from religion in general, without establishing religion into law.

This is in your description of conservative positions, but is clearly a libertarian position.

A problem arises because Libertarians tend to agree with liberals that religion and morality are dangers to liberty.

A repetition of the error addressed above.

What libertarians miss when they join with liberals on social issues is that even if their goal of total social licesne without regard to virtue were achievable, it can never be achieved before fiscal freedom is achieved.

Nonsense. Libertarians are more insistent on fiscal freedom than conservatives (and far more so that the self-styled "conservatives" currently running the circus in Washington).

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Libertarians are very insistent on fiscal freedom, but they do not see that it must be a prerequisite to social freedom. These two areas of freedom are inextricably linked. Fiscal servitude makes oppressors out of the socially irresponsible. The two should be required to be in equal proportions. If you want the freedom to be a dirtbag then accept the responsibility of the consequences yourself. The worst outcome is social anarchy and fiscal servitude, but the libertarian argument often leads exactly there because they fail to see just how important the link is.