What do Libertarians have in common with conservatives and liberals?

With conservatives they have not wanting taxes.

With liberals that have being pro-choice on the abortion issue and pro gay marriage.

The problem is at least some of the people who think they are libertarian still are against the liberal issues I mentioned.

The “Libertarian” ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party is basically an unusually doctrinaire form of economic liberalism. I’m more hesitant to say it’s socially liberal, at least insofar as it doesn’t seem to permit dissent from established hierarchies. They play lip service to getting the government off people’s backs in the social sphere, as a matter of personal freedom (a trait of liberalism) rather than as a matter of simply limiting the institutional power of government (conservatism), but they tend to break for the latter or even sacrifice that value entirely in favor of what they, rather misguidedly I might add, think is in the interest of their pocket books.

Also, to be fair, there are about two meaningful ways to use the term “libertarian.” One is in reference to a political philosophy (anarchism, or at least a wing of anarchism), and the other is the flip side of a dichotomy, with libertarianism being the opposite of authoritarianism. Given how authoritarian and hierarchical the Libertarian Party is, their use of the term at all in either sense is a tad comical.

Finally, don’t fall for the Republicans-are-conservative, Democrats-are-liberal trap. Neither party breaks elegantly along those lines, but the Democrats arguably hew reasonably closely to conservatism far better than the Republicans hew towards liberalism. It’s Democrats who try to preserve the status quo at any cost (conservatism), and Republicans who try to break it in favor of radical change (at least arguably liberalism).

The way I see it both Libertarians and neoconservatives are concerned with expanding their constitutional rights while evading taxes and responsibilities.

Libertarians and Liberals want to avoid wars and the over-extension of U.S. interference in international affairs.

All groups have become overly dependent on donations from large international corporations.
They also oppose activist Supreme court decisions albeit from opposite political directions.

With cons they share the free market extremism, and officially, with libs they share the civil liberties stances.
Of course, as soon the two clash and come into conflict, they side with the economy.
For example, when it comes to outlawing discrimination by companies based on race, gender, whatever, they would be fine with the discrimination.

They are all political/ideological labels.

“For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.”

President John F. Kennedy

^ Yep…..Their humanity.
Anytime we start boxing up the totality of a human being into little boxes of political preference, right/wrong dichotomies….well, it’s the stuff war is made of. Stop over identifying beliefs with ultimate truth.

@Ron_C I like the avoiding wars and avoiding international affairs part.

Unlike most others, I don’t believe that libertarians have much at all in common with what I would describe as hardcore conservatives. Hardcore conservatives are for big government and taxes as much as progressives, but they just go about it differently. Libertarians generally want states to make more decisions than they do now, and support shrinking the federal government.

Socially, libertarians do not want governmental interference in social affairs. No matter how much inequity and discrimination exists, it is all good so long as the government is not involved. Typically, libertarians do not want to talk about discrimination or inequity; but if they are made to discuss it, they imagine that somehow an exclusionary and bigoted ‘market’ will magically correct it over time. If you listen closely, you’ll hear the 19th century philosophy “separate but equal” implied.

Economically, libertarians want a virtual elimination of government, while pontificating about some sort of romanticized view of a natural order. But there is one key exception: libertarians want to violate the ‘law of the jungle’ where ownership rights are involved. So, everything should be natural EXCEPT the government and its police should exist to protect the libertarian’s things well-beyond that which he could possess in nature. This is the ultimate police state, and a formula for nothing but excessive inequity.

In contrast, social conservatives want the discrimination to be official by government, and economic conservatives want hegemony and war to acquire or increase their wealth and power. Those are the main differences.

hm.