' ...I made an awful boo-boo in my reply. I did not mean to say that mainstream libertarians consider themselves to be "classical conservatives" (whatever that might be); I meant "classical liberals." ...'

A few of the "beltway libertarians" might still refer to themselves as 'classic liberal' but that terminology is a bit archaic. You know the type --- big government lovers who want to call themselves libertarian because it is chic, but do not want to give up the power of the central government. (think Libertarian Party)

Libertarians are libertarians; there is no better word.

However, the Republican Party has benefited from many libertarians who self-identify as "paleo-conservative" and thus feel more at home in the GOP than with the "socialist" Democrat party. So, these people could be referred to as "classic-conservatives", I suppose, without going too far afield.

Now Rothbardian Anarcho-capitalists who follow the Austrian School of economics --- now we are talking real libertarians. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Walter M. wrote: Doesn't this unduly minimize conservatism of the "paleoconservative" sort? For example, The American Conservative journal, libertarians including some at the Cato Institute, the conservatives signers, including Richard Viguerie, of a declaration to abolish torture and restore constitutional government, and antiwar conservatives such as Justin Raimondo and even Pat Buchanan?

L.W.M. replied: You raise an excellent point. However, Mr. Buchanan's "performances" on cable news were distinctly different than his articles at AmCon and elsewhere. He's been a Bush apologist from day one and still is on Cable News. The man is a joke and has been since his unraveling at the Republican convention in 1992. Why is he even on my TV? It prevents me from watching it. The real intelligen conservative voices get no play at all. when was the last time you saw Gen. Odom or a host of others on your TV?

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html

====

You are spot on, Walter. There is a large group of people who self-identify as paleo-conservative. Rothbard at one time believed that they would make useful allies (to libertarians, of course) in the project of reducing the size and coercive nature of the central government. As I recall, he backed Buchanan in the 80s as the least of the evil choices available to support for President. The paleo-cons ended up voting for Republicans for a host of reasons; but I am sure they are not pleased with the outcome. They used to be Democrats, and the Dems will need them again if they are to obtain a secure majority and fix some of the Bush evil.

The fact that Pat Buchanan must sometimes put on a different face to get on the TV news shows does not diminish the importance of this group --- it just shows that there is no way to get on the news shows with that message.

L.W.M., Just because they have no great leader does not mean they do not exist!