Sure it is, some things I believe should be taken out of the government ( health care, the fed, department of education), but issues such as gay marriage, drugs, licenses should be left to the state. Therefore I'm a conservative libertarian.
I hate to break it to you, but that's just conservative (the question is whether it's paleo or neo). I'd guess more paleoconservative. Being against gay anything except public sex is pretty much anti-libertarian. Now, you can say all marriage should be kept away from state sanctions or bans, and therefore it's up to you to find a preacher to marry you...but then anyone can start a church worshipping toasters (already exists btw) and marry gays. It takes tyranny to stop gay people from their full and equal individual rights as soveriegns. Any support for that tyranny is anti-libertarian. And really, any support for the state is a form of statism, so it to is not pure libertarianism. It's libertarian in the American colloquial sense, not the literal philosophical meaning.
Anything that involves nationalist statism (nation-states) is an ideology because nationalism and statism are ideologies. Libertarianism (a word synonymous with, and in fact invented to substitute for, anarchism) is a philosophy with all 5 features of a philosophy...espitemology, ethics, logic, aesthetics, and metaphysics. Ideologies like nationalism and statism (even small government statism) lack one or more of those 5 necessary aspects of philosophy, and therefore are ideologies.
Being against drugs being an individual choice ultimately; tyranny. Again, individual sovereignty. Being for liscences? That's not even Milton Friedman small government statism! He was a small government statist and fully against even medical liscences, let alone driver's liscences! It's free market economics 101: barriers to entry into the market.
Therefore there is no such thing as conservative libertarian. You're conservative and like the name "libertarian" because it's fashionable or you haven't taken your ideas far enough yet (logically or ethically). You realize Paul only calls himself "conservative" to get votes, right? There is no conservative libertarian...because we don't seek to conserve any traditions...we seek to change them according to ethics and logic. If they happen to stay the same, it's not out of a need to conserve "values" on our part...it's because they happened to jive with logic, ethics, and individual sovereignty.
Hell, we want MORE activist judges, not less. We want them to assert MORe things are individual rights not up to the state to determine, not less or the same.
Even Barry Goldwater was a paleoconservative...many paelocon ideas have classical liberal leftovers in their analysis...but that's as far at it goes. Classical liberalism is similar to, but not identical, to libertarianism. Insofar paelocons are similar to classical liberals, they are similar to libertarians...but even that only goes so far due to the differences between the two schools of thought.
I'm an anarchist and call my self "conservative" too, in certain company...just to sell the ideas of liberty. It doesn't mean I really believe I'm a ideological conservative! Not even close. And those who I'm selling to are not libertarians as long as they hold on to this conservation notion and anti-DemoCrip vs pro-RepubliBlood mentality.
The main problem conservatives have is...after a bad progressive idea has been in place for a half a centruy, they start to try to conserve it as tradition. That's what happens when conservation is the principle you pursue. Hence the drug war, statist sanctioning and banning of marriages, anti-immigration (anti-free market) nonsense, and lisences and passports. All progressive ideas the conservatives fought against...now that they've been around a while, now they want to conserve them as traditions.
It's mind numbing.
