Brian Miller wrote: BM) These discussions (and the related Ron Paul discussions I've been having in other forums) keep probing at that darn existential question of what it means to be a "small-l libertarian," [...] So far this year, the following people (and/or their supporters) have laid claim to the term "libertarian": [...] (BM
There is surely nobody on your list who cannot be described as libertarian (relative to some reference set) on either economic issues or on social issues. The dichotomy in American politics between those two kinds of issues isn't "existential", but rather is obvious. If you want to continue the pretense that the dichotomy confuses a libertarian as smart as you, then drop by the next Operation Politically Homeless table in your area, and apply the Advocates' quiz to the people in your list. As I already explained <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2201> to you, Paul gets a 90/100, and Kucinich gets a 90/10. For more precise definitions of the dichotomy, and two candidates extra dimensions to add to Nolan Space, see http://marketliberal.org/Politics.html. For an explanation of why the traditional clustering of Americans in the Nolan plane allows Duverger's Law to hold, see http://marketliberal.org/FixLP.html#WhyWeLose. Brian Holtz blog: Knowing <http://knowinghumans.net/> Humans
