by definition. I'm about to do a speech on Libertarianism and looking at what the definitions are of conservatives and liberals. If conservatives are for preserving the current order and liberals are for "reform or progress" according to Webster, that would make Ron Paul a liberal by definition. But that might depend on what you consider reform and progress, socialists have unfortunately taken the words and corrupted them to the point of no return. Now i know libertarians are considered classical liberals, but shouldn't there technically be different types of "modern" liberals? One type can be Libertarian like Paul and another socialist like Obama. So isn't Ron Paul technically a Liberal?
Dang, talk about some political labels that have been misused and abused into not having any meaning left over. Could call him a classical liberal, but you could call him a conservative, too. Of course, the modern accepted use of the word liberal means someone who likes to spend lots of government money. I might even just talk about how these labels have changed so much that you have to define what they mean before you can use them effectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism being a liberal means believing in the principles of liberalism. So yes, Ron Paul (and I guess many other people who don't label themselfs as "liberal") is a liberal
Libertarianism is not incompatible with liberalism or conservatism. You can be libertarian and be conservative, or libertarian and be liberal. In fact, I would say this is the most pure form of conservatism and liberalism. Socialism, statism and fascism are the opposites of a libertarian philosophy and (IMO) incompatible with real conservatism or liberalism. Funny how we have to call the REAL meaning of liberal "classic". As though the idea is old, or antiquated. When in reality, what passes for liberalism today is not liberal at all. I'm not sure about FA Hayek, but Ludwig Von Mises is one of RP's heroes, and there is a great book out about how he was the last Great Knight of Liberalism. Even Barry Goldwater considered himself a liberal towards the end of his life. This from the guy who wrote, "Conscience of a Conservative".
"liberal" in the common vernacular (as used by pundits on talk radio) is used to mean those favoring tax and spend policies and cradle to grave nanny state government. Ron Paul is the antithesis to this definition. If you are going to claim Ron Paul is a liberal, you had best define the term clearly for context.
I was tripping around Mises.org today, and found this, which I think is a beautiful (albeit long) explanation of classic liberalism from an American perspective. An American Classical Liberalism http://www.mises.org/about/3225 Again, it's long but it's a fantastic read. Excerpt Of course, there are some folks who say things like "where has libertarianism ever been practiced? It wouldn't work!", and yet for some time, it worked to amazing effect in this country.
It depends on what definition of liberal you're looking at and from what perspective. If you are looking at it from webster's then sure he is, but if you are looking at it from American political history (which is the definition people are using when they call obama or hilary liberal) then he is not, he is a conservative. Looking at the word liberalism is can mean the more modern definition of the word tying it with socialism, but looking at it from a world history perspective then the whole United States is liberal for having all of these freedoms and a democratic form of government.