Social Conservatism for Libertarians
As a long-time libertarian, one-time pot-smoking, shroom-dropping, coke-snorting, head banger, and short time Thomas Aquinas College student I have seen the divide between "social conservatives" and "libertarians" and today would like to address certain social conservative positions and why libertarians would do well to support them. These arguments would, obviously, work for liberals as well, but since liberals are immune to reasoned argument I will ignore them in what follows. Certain social conservatives would also do well to heed these arguments since arguments relying strictly on the Bible are not likely to sway either libertarians OR liberals.

Axioms of libertarianism
While libertarians may disagree on certain things, what makes them libertarians is their belief in the following two axioms:

1) The fundamental (and maybe ONLY) purpose of a state is to protect its citizens - this may or may not include a provision for the enforcement of contracts.

2) An individual's freedom to act is absolute up until the point where it infringes on the freedoms of another.

Would it be possible to derive socially conservative positions from these two axioms, rationally and empirically? That is our task today in what follows.

Abortion
While libertarians are divided on this issue, they should not be. Social conservatives believe that human life begins at conception. If this is the case, then by Axiom 1, it is the fundamental role of the state to protect this citizen from the point of conception.

If it is not the case, then it is incumbent upon libertarians to come up with a definition of when state protection of the individual should commence. The problem here is that it will always be possible to come up with an example using this definition that would allow the state to kill an adult in the same circumstances.

For example: "Life begins only when the foetus is self-sustaining." By this reasoning, would it be permissible to abort Stephen Hawking who is only kept alive by a bevy of nurses?

"Life begins when the foetus becomes "conscious". Would it then be permissible to abort adults who are unconscious?

"It is permissible to abort a foetus up until the point where it begins to feel pain." Is it then permissible to abort adults who don't feel pain?

Further examples are left as an exercise for the reader.

Gay Marriage
The issue here is the perversion of language perpetrated by collectivists and which concerns libertarians as much as it does social conservatives. Liberals are masters at redefining terms and then claiming them for their own uses. Liberals wish to redefine the word "marriage" as something like "a long term love affair between two consenting adults." This completely ignores the social and political history of the term which relates generally to the establishment of a family and the rearing of children.

Private right vs. Public sanction
While libertarians couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, they should beware of any and all attempts to increase the sphere of public sanction. Public sanction of marriages (marriage licenses issued by the state) has historical roots and libertarians should be concentrating on reducing this state power (by trying to abolish state licensing of marriage altogether) rather than on increasing it by redefining the word "marriage" to include people who were heretofore not included.

Drugs and Prostitution
I'll admit that this subject is slightly more difficult, but that the second axiom comes into play. Libertarians argue that the nefarious side effects of these activities are due to the fact that the state has made them illegal.

If the sale and possession of drugs was not illegal, libertarians argue, they would be cheaper and addicts would not need to rob and steal in order to feed their habits. Drug cartels would not have the money to subvert entire countries.

If prostitution were legal, it would not need to hide itself in the seemier parts of the city, creating no-go wastelands.

Two points:

One, these questions can be placed in an empirical context by asking whether or not in those communities where these activities are legal there is actually less infringement on the liberty of others. Amsterdam is a good example, and while the evidence is not strong, it does appear that libertarians are wrong. Amsterdam neighborhoods with high rates of drug use and prostitution, though legal, are not particularly safe for the general public.

Two, there is a broader question involving the public space. By acting to reduce the public space (by privatizing much of it), libertarians can drive these activities into private where they belong. The case of prostitution in Nevada is instructive. By limiting prostitution to private brothels, the general public is not confronted with the seemier side of it unless they choose to be.

Libertarian goals and Social Conservatism
Many of the goals of Social Conservatism fall out of the equation when the goals of libertarianism are considered:

Prayer in school? Liberal indocrination of children? Get the government out of the school business.

Religious symbols on public property? Reduce the amount of public property and increase the amount of private property.

Welfare dependency? Get rid of redistibutionist taxation.

Abortion? Define citizenship as beginning at the moment of conception.

Gay Marriage? Take the issuance of marriage licenses out of the hands of the state.

For further discussion of some of these issues, check out my multiple-utopias.org website and join in the debate.

As always, please feel free to revise and extend these remarks.