Randal Hoven at the American Thinker defends the social conservative movement from a libertarian perspective. As he points out, the soc cons are not the ones telling us to wear our seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, banning smoking in public places or restricting gun onwership - it's our liberal friends preventing you from doing those things. As he puts it:
"I can get pornography right at my keyboard, or drive a mile and get all the sex toys I can fit into my car. I can walk to the nearest casino to gamble (but can no longer smoke there). I do need to travel to Nevada for a legal prostitute. If my teenage daughters had wanted abortions, they could have had them free and without even notifying me. (However, had they taken Advil to school, we'd all be in trouble.)"
None of this makes a great deal of sense to me, but this is world we all live in. You cna't have a nativity scene on public land at Christmas, but a government sponsored art program subsidizes tremendously offensive depictions of the crucifixtion and that's OK. Hoven also points out that is was Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot that wanted to create a "new man" that left us with tens of millions of dead. He also points out that the economic conservative, social liberal is pretty much a myth. Those that tend to vote conservative on social issues are also economic conservatives, and vise versa. In short, the social cons are also financial cons and we all just want to be left alone in peace, government be damned. Amen.