I think a big conflict in determining whether society wants a conservative culture comes down to two different competing views on what the end game of Libertarianism is.
View one: Libertarianism either involves the government dissolving itself and being replaced by private courts and police that respect the NAP, or in the case of more Minarchist leaning Libertarians a central government that will force local and regional governments to respect freedom. Drugs, alcohol, sex, prostitution, divorce, and guns are legal everywhere. Free trade, free immigration, no zoning, no patents, everywhere. As Walter Block said you can have a lesbian couple, a Muslim, a white nationalist, a libertarian atheist Jew, a conservative family, and a drug addict living on the same block.
View two: Freedom involves people self segregating and forming their own communities on whatever scale the founders of that community want. In a more minarchist system, this would likely be guaranteed by some kind of decentralized constitution, monarch, or libertarian ideologue dictator. The communities can have their own government, whether it is lead by a King, a dead Constitution, a Democracy, a corporation, or a religious organization. They can segregate on whatever terms they want, to follow a religion, to protect a culture, to protect an ethnic identity, to make money, for some kind novelty, whatever. Part of freedom includes having the ability to choose a leader (or master) if you so desire.
People who believe in view two are inclined to believe that a moral and religious society is more likely to create a decentralized community that is less materialistic, more supportive of secession, capable of creating and/or sustaining their own culture, and less likely to sell out for money or handouts. Evidence for the accuracy of this would generally be the opposition local governments, provincial/state governments, and religious organizations gave Nationalists, Socialists, and Democrats as they created the modern managerial state that oversees everything.
Also, with regards to the other discussion. Japan might not be very religious now (I don’t know if that was true from 1950-90 or not), but religion does not clearly lead to material wealth (at least not short-intermediate term). Japan, China, and the East Asian Tigers have hard working people with strict families, strict schools, and a sense of duty. While economic freedom is the creator of economic growth, other factors like education, discipline, corruption, and raw materials will determine how far they can go within that system. Botswana has had as much economic freedom as the above countries and more raw material per capita, but is still poorer because it lacks the human capital. African and Asian Americans exist under about the same economic policies, but very different living standards. Different cultures create different work ethics and education achievements which can create a large gap in the resulting growth.
