David Boaz at Cato@Liberty points to Gallup polling data suggesting that there are a significant number of libertarians in the US electorate not using that label. Not all that many people understand what libertarianism is, and so don’t describe themselves in those terms. I suspect there are also many who would use the term were it not for its nasty connotations and unpopularity.
Many people, though, will describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” which is about the best broad definition of libertarianism we have. Gallup asks whether government should leave more decisions to individuals, and whether it should attempt to promote particular values in society. The combination of those two answers gives a much higher, and increasing, indication of sympathy to libertarian ideas. Heres the chart Boaz provides:
Boaz mainly focuses on the implications of this for electoral success, something I’m not too concerned about, and it’s likely that most people classified as libertarians here would support some policies many of would find pretty objectionable. Still, once someone accepts the presumption of liberty and doesn’t see government as the first resort in solving social problems (i.e. if they’re in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart), it’s much easier to convince them that all coercion is wrong.
Brad Taylor is a graduate student in Political Science at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. He blogs at 
The trouble is convincing conservative Christians to be Libertarians (I myself am both), since you’d likely get the whole “but, being socially liberal is saying sin is okay!!!!!”. Sadly I can’t see the Libertarian movement getting very far in this country, because our country is still very religious and people will still see Libertarianism as being anti-religious.
And then there’s the problem that seems like most people have; the way of thinking “I’m not a bad person, but we must stop those other people”. It will take a ton worse happening (if it’s possible) for people to go away from trusting the government (trying) to stop the “bad guys”.
Errr….. rather I should say I’m a Christian and a Libertarian, I am not a conservative Christian.
As another Christian libertarian, I run into this myself on occassion. My response is typically something like “But violence against the sinner is a worse sin that does not save their soul, and puts yours in jeopardy.”
I like this answer because it puts the onus back where it belongs, on the conversion of souls, not the abuse of bodies.
It is a big mistake to characterize libertarians as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” Some are. Some aren’t.
A person’s moral position on issues is irrelevant. People who oppose smoking marijuana may be just as libertarian as those who favor it’s use. The key is not whether one thinks drug use and pornography are immoral. The question is whether one is willing to allow others the freedom to make their own choices as long as they do not harm others.
A conservative Christian who opposes drinking, gambling, prostitution and other “vices,” but opposes criminal laws and taxes which forcibly prevent those activities is probably a better libertarian than a person who thinks such conduct is perfectly OK.
Libertarians are not amoral. They simply concede to others the liberty to live their own lives.
I think you can be socially liberal while personally disapproving of fun. You’re right in a sense, though: there’s both a political and non-political aspect of social liberalism/conservatism.
Being libertarian is realizing that using government is immoral.
This is why I have a problem with so many political quizzes online. Being a libertarian in the sense of “Economically Conservative, Socially liberal) is purely in regard to policy/the force of state, not necessarily into how you live your life. You be morally a Christian Conservative (Homosexuality is a sin, Abortion is a Sin, Drinking is a Sin, Dancing is a Sin, etc.) but not want to use the force of state to enforce your personal beliefs (Not throw non-violent marijuana smokers in prison), this would make you Socially liberal in the political sphere. You can also believe is some very liberal economics (employee ownership of business, strong organized labor, etc.) but again be an Economic Conservative in the political sphere (choosing to shop only at Socially responsible business, but not mandating that companies follow your code).
I gather from the chart that persons who are not voting age are not human beings, don’t count, and are to be treated as inhumanely as possible. Not really sure why that would be. But I deride the idea of imposing your ideology through force by doing something as disgusting as voting.
You all find voting offensive, because presumably you suggest that this gives power to the state.If I organise a plebiscite as a private individual, would you still not vote or do you not care about the opinions of your fellow man? Just interested.
Beyond my moral objections voting and beyond the economic objections to voting, this article & survey illustrate why using the electoral process to achieve libertarian goals is a fruitless endeavor. Even if you got 100% of these people to admit they are libertarian, convince them to actually go out an vote, and convince them to vote for the LP, instead of “the lesser of 2 evils”TM you would still lose.
If a libertarian activist is willing to use the state to enforce their beliefs on others, or even to minimize damage under the current system they need to learn from the Socialist Party in early 29th Century United States. The Party never had a majority but still had many of their policies adopted. They would get public support behind 1 specific issue, and find unlikely allies for that issue, much like the Baptists & Bootleggers did with prohibition and Blue Laws. Then, they got a major party to co-opt said issue, out of fear that the major party would loose votes.