There are quite a few of libertarians on this board. When I speak of being socially libertarian, I mean condoning policies that lessens the restrictions on what people are allowed to do in a social sense, like burning flags, walking around naked, smoking pot, males putting on make-up, shaving, women not wearing scarf, etc.
Now, you might all have heard the argument; christian-conservatives strongly opposing homosexuals are closeted homosexuals themselves who are in denial of their own desires and working in the opposite direction to prove to themselves and the world around that they are in fact straight.
But what about libertarians? Think about this argument. I don't smoke pot. I don't put on make-up or feel like walking around in the buff. I can find numerous other things to burn than flags. So why would I support people's right to do such acts, that aren't directly beneficial to myself?
One explanation might be that I associate with the flag-burners on another level. If I have had my own freedom restricted on other turfs, like say I wanted to drink alcohol in public, and that is against the rules, then I might see more positives in lack of rules and restrictions in general. So libertarian attitudes result from sympathy with the restricted.
So if libertarian attitudes are a function of experience, and not just genes, would that mean that socially libertarian people are all social deviants with bad experiences on some level? I might be shooting myself in the foot here.