My usual dilemma too.

I figure, when the GOP acts the way they should, they are for limited gov't, which means they don't use gov't to push their religion on me.

Under Bush, they spent like Dems and we had the Schiavo affair where I was the lowest form of scum because I didn't think it was the federal gov't's business.

But I'll take being scorned for not believing in their religion because we agree on most other things, you have to believe in all orthodox beliefs in the leftist religion or you're an evil, racist, nazi.

As long as they keep the gov't out of it, social conservatives can preach to me all they want.

They're never making abortion illegal without some serious "change" in America and in the Republican party.
Other than that there's not much else they usually want the gov't to do.

Of course, if they keep acting like soft Dems, all bets are off.

Federalism is a form of libertarianism. On many of the social issues, social conservatives are not activists, but reactionaries (in the neutral sense of the word). With the exception of DADT (in the federal purview), all issues of social conservatism (abortion, gay marriage, civil unions, prayer in schools, etc.) are fueled more by liberal tinkerings at the federal level than by any inherent desire to pass "social conservative legislation". If the Feds were to keep their beaks out of issues that are none of their concern, and stop finding phony "rights" in the Constitution which allow them to arrogate more power to themselves, then the issues of "social conservatism" at the Federal level would likely be mooted. Then these issues would be decided at the level of the state and of the community, and libertarians could vote for economic conservatives (for Federal Office) and not give a rip about their social beliefs. The combinations of Judicial Activism and "Rights Mining" and (lack of) State's Rights necessitate a backlash which takes the guise of Social Conservatism... you have to have visible issues to draw attention to on this front (economic examples of this problem are less evident and "sexy", plus nearly 47% of the population don't pay federal taxes anyway, so this issue, until recently, is largely a non-starter. How else to explain the rise of "Compassionate Conservatism" (i.e. Social Conservatism combined with Liberal/Socialist Economic Policy)). Compassionate Conservatism being the worst of both worlds for a libertarian...

Been enjoying your blog. I feel for libertarians, since they are the proverbial "man who stand in middle of road." You poor guys can't organize, since even more than the dems if you don't toe the line you are out, out, out. When MCC ruined the Repub hopes, I swore I would never again vote for the least worst, and I plan on keeping that vow. If the RNCC & RNSc want to put forth liberals (called moderates for some reason) they can do it without my vote. I'll sit it out till they give up in despair.

Eric, don't give up on the Republican Party. Even when liberal/moderates are elected, they usually have a basic decency lacking in most Democrats. What holds the conservatives and moderates together is an unstated belief in individual rights. (The most notable exception being the 8 Bush Jr. years)

It took Mark Hatfield and Margaret Chase Smith, both liberals, to end the draft - during the Vietnam War. If you want to read a principled defense of individual freedom, get a copy of Hatfield's Saturday Evening Post editorial denouncing it as involuntary servitude.

As long as the Dixiecrat/Social Conservatives don't gain total control, the Republican Party is still worth the effort of holding your nose when voting.

If the Republicans want my vote they can stick with small government principles - strictly - or I can stay home.

If the country is going down the tubes (certainly looks that way to me) then it is better if the Ds have full responsibility.

I'm not interested in RINOs or Republicans who campaign on a platform of crosses.

Mike,

The Constitution is full of phony rights. Check out the IXth and Xth Amendments.

Mr. Simon,

I'm not sure if you were being facetious, but those Amendments make my point for me. The Incorporation (14th) Amendment allows the Feds to dictate what "rights" are devolved upon the States and which are not. If a given State (under a strict constructionist Constitutional regime) were to become noxious to its citizens, it is fairly easy to move to a different State. Moving out of the country (to a "State" more amenable to the Rights of its Citizens) because of an oppressive Federal Regulatory regime is less feasible. Under Federalism, there is more a a Free Market rights economy. More oppressive states will suffer population flight and loss of revenue to less oppressive states.

I'd say the Feds, via construction of the Welfare State and outlandish Environmental/Regulatory law, violates at least two of my "god-given" fundamental rights (i.e. liberty and pursuit of happiness). But thanks for the "rights" granted to me by the Exclusionary Rule, which also threatens my god-given right to Life as criminals are released when they are KNOWN to be guilty. Thanks for the rights to abortion which allows a woman I've impregnated to terminate her pregnancy without my consent, but yet force me to support said child if she chooses to keep it. Rights granted to special interest groups STRIP the rights of non-members of said groups (hate speech, hate crimes, affirmative action, abortion) and violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Mike,

Perhaps you would entertain a Constitutional Amendment.

I blame it all on the Southerners who - had they given up slavery without a fight - might have avoided a lot of these complications. The principle they fought for was sound - States Rights - unfortunately they marshaled that principle for the cause of slavery and later Jim Crow. Idiots. And now we have lost it for more important causes.

At this point your only hope is political.