Contrary to a previous post I would not classify Barak as a liberal.
Of course not. That poster either hasn't been around here long enough or doesn't understand the term "liberal" well enough. There are some folks who believe (I think Rush Limbaugh perpetuates this) that "liberal" means "not conservative"--that is, if I'm conservative, then anyone who doesn't agree with me is liberal.
It should be clear to all and sundry that I'm not particularly conservative, as is evidenced by my failure to support military adventuring, my opposition to the prohibition of things like gambling and prostitution and drugs, and my thorough dislike of the USA PATRIOT Act. But it should also be clear to all and sundry that I'm not liberal either, as is evidenced by my strong support of gun rights and international free trade and my constant attacks on taxes (any and all taxes) and government programs.
Hence, if you're used to thinking of politics represented as a one-dimensional left-right spectrum, it's kind of hard to place people like me, because while I clearly don't belong at either end, I also clearly am not your average wishy-washy fence-sitting middle-of-the-road can't-we-all-just-get-along centrist. I prefer to think of it as a two-dimensional diamond, with liberals (government on economic issues not social issues) on the left, conservatives (government on social issues not economic issues) on the right, authoritarians (government on as much as possible) on the bottom, and libertarians (government on as little as possible) on the top. If you can see that in your mind's eye, then the proper place for me is crammed as tightly into that top corner as you can get me.
But even that's not really sufficient, because that'd cram us anarcho-capitalists into the same point as the anarcho-socialists, and we're so fundamentally different that that's probably misleading: just about the
only thing we share is our distaste for government. You're on your own, though; I haven't come up with a visualization for that.
