re: #30 marjoriemoon

He had to run as an R though, or he wouldn’t have picked up any votes.

I’ve tried to get a definition of libertarian over the years and mostly I’ve described it as Ron Paul. I’ve never seen liberal libertarians, unless you think “no taxes” is a liberal, i.e. hippy, kinda idea. Does Ron Paul want to legalize pot? Hmmm, then we do have something in common!

Economic libertarian - Definitely more of the Ron Paul type. Wildly free markets to the extent that a hardcore econ libertarian would support having currency privatized.

A social libertarian, on the other hand, is going to be rabidly pro-choice (unlike Ron Paul who is pro-life), pro-drug legalization, pretty much keep the government out of every decision one makes that doesn’t cause public harm. Depending on the type of decisions, these can fall on both sides. Drug legalization, gay marriage, and choice are three examples of a left libertarian viewpoint. It just so happens these issues are also part of mainstream liberal thinking but that doesn’t make them any less libertarian in how the positions are formulated/rationalized.

Most people, whether they care to admit it or not, have some issues where they might be labelled a “small l” libertarian. There’s nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

Ron Paul is definitely an economic libertarian, but where social and foreign policy are concerned, he is a little more paleo-con. You’ll note that Ron Paul is getting attention now for his economic positions. In foreign policy he’s very much of an isolationist that many R’s kind of laughed at him during an early presidential debate. That, actually, made him a quasi-darling of the left. Before I get pounced on that statement, I’ll admit that I’m probably putting that a little strongly, but he was at least a curiosity that gave D’s good ‘neener-neener’ ammo to the R’s.

All of this is just my opinion though, so take it for what it’s worth.