The libertarians consider the opposite of libertarian to be totalitarian. They see that as perpendicular to the conservative-liberal axis. They are generally conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. Four years ago (I think) I found a web site that allowed you to compare your view with the various candidates. I found that I agreed with the Democratic candidates on about 20-30% of the issues, the Republican candidates on about 30-40% of the issues, and the libertarian candidate on about 80% of the issues.
Since breast freedom is a social issue, they are liberal on that and support breast freedom. Likewise the greens.
The Libertarians were a major party in this state, but they just lost that. They had to have a candidate get 5% in a state-wide race to maintain major party status, and they only got a little over 4%. Ther governor's race will depend on the absentees, it is currently D 49%, R 49%, L 2%.
I intended to vote for Kerry, as an anti-Bush vote, but at the last minute I couldn't hold me nose tight enough, read the Libertarian candidates statement in the voter's pamphlet, and voted for them instead. No use sharing the guilt if Kerry won. I hate elections where I rate the two major party candidates as F and D-. Whoever wins, I lose.
Too bad "none of the above" isn't allowed to win. I only heard of that happening once, about 40 years ago in a South American mayor's race. The hippoputumus at the zoo got more votes that the 12 human candidates combined. He was disqualified and the winner, too macho to take the insult, committed suicide, as did the next one down the line. The others withdrew before the could be chosen, and they had to hold a new election. But they didn't let the hippo run again.
They credited the newspaper's editorial with causing the big landslide for the hippo. The paper had said that, no matter how bad you thought the candidates, you should vote for the best qualitied candidate. The voters agreed, and chose the hippo as the best qualified of the lot.