I think of libertarians as fiscally conservative and socially liberal - as long as government (i.e. confiscation & redistribution of wealth) isn't required. A libertarian would say you have the right to do anything you want, but no one owes you the means of doing it. Where unmet needs exist, they should be handled by private charities - emphasis on charity - not by government. I believe much the same thing, except I think modern society is too expensive for all charity to be handled by private charities. I'm old enough to remember the poor houses, where government bought a very large house and the elderly poor lived two to a room and set in the parlor or weather permitting on the porch all day. Where a society becomes rich enough, I think we owe the poor a bit more than that. Similarly, I think public education is a pretty good thing, whereas to a pure libertarian government schools are anathema. In these way I am more liberal than libertarian, as a liberal will accept government action (with its accompanying loss of freedom) if he thinks a need will otherwise go unmet.
My big differences with libertarians though are in foreign policy and border enforcement. A true libertarian believes in a very weak, isolationist military and foreign policy - which I think became outdated with modern ocean-going vessels and transcontinental bombers - and an open border. In that way I am MUCH more conservative than libertarian.
I refuse to admit to any progressive tendencies though. Where I have anything in common with progressives, it's purely a result of my liberal tendencies. I do not believe in wealth redistribution, either. If wealth is being too unevenly held - and remember, wealth inequities are a feature of any advanced society, as not all people are equally blessed with abilities or work ethic - I believe in adopting laws that help others better compete and build their own wealth, not in simply seizing the wealth of the richest and redistributing it.
