"I have no idea why one would want to descend and degrade ones intellect by using the left right label" -- asks Rob
This is a wonderful question.
The shortest useful answer is that it's done on purpose. Were I ever so slightly less long-winded, I might have left it here.
The next shortest is that it is in order to call attention to the "objectively" and wrongly rightist tint to the standard libertarian position.
I prefer the interestingness answer:
It's a claim about what is interesting, not about what is true. To listen at the objectivist conferences, the libertarian discussions on the internet, and such, there tend to be four major flows of conversation.
1. What the masters said: Rothbard, Rand, Friedman I, Hayek, Spencer, etc.
All of these are admirably positioned off the left-right axis.
2. What libertarian positions are supported by no one else:
Drug legalization. Privatization of the roads. Government = Mafia.
3. What libertarian positions are shared by the right:
Taxes. Regulation. Government excess. Government corruption. Guns.
4. Opposition to liberals
Discrimination is not irrational. Lack of HNU (gender/race/individual). Indeed, this sums it up nicely.
Furthermore, the libertarians TEND (not in all cases) to prefer to listen to media that is rightist. And laugh at the takedowns of liberal silliness (which are funny). And begin to identify (in fact, not in name) with folks from the conservative political spectrum. Thomas Sowell (who I respect greatly) is a great example of a libertarian who is significantly along the conservative spectrum (look at his analysis of poor conservative vs. poor liberal positions). Glenn Reynolds is in the same camp. And if one were to agree with the standard liberal critique of positions...who finances you matters to what you say.
Climate Scientists are funded if their studies merit more study (are alarmist). How shocking that global warming discussions are alarmist.
Rush is funded by listeners who have a strong Christian bent. Shocking again that Rush has become more religious over the years.
Cato is notably <CORRECTION>somewhat. Not a majority, by any means </CORRECTION>funded by Koch Industries. How shocking that their position on unused property is advantageous to large oil corporations.
With all that...and the truly second-axis positions from the original experts...why the hell are libertarians so closely aligned with the right? (semi-rhetorical)
Rothbard recommended the other way. Brin recommends the other way. Wilkinson leans the other way. But most don't. Most actually lean significantly rightward.
My claim is that the political right answer many <EDIT> but not all or even most </EDIT>boring questions in a boringly correct way. On the other hand, those on the political left answer many interesting questions in a shockingly wrong way. I hold that the topics from the political left are more interesting and more deserving of study in general than those from the political right, AND that the libertarian response tends to be to dismiss those questions at least partly because the answers suck so badly, or the apparent consequences are anti-libertarian. Instead, let's address the questions...with a sciabarra/marx/hayek inspired dialectical approach, and a clarity about economics and heredity and the nature of politics that somehow seems to escape the leftist worldview.
So I call myself a left-libertarian. Some days. Other days, it's mutualist, anarcho-capitalist, agorist, market anarcho-socialist.... (I threw that last one in just to annoy my readers).