[Torie]

I think what he meant is that the definition was so watered down and generalized in order to create a big tent covering so many diverse views resulting in so many divergent and contradictory applications in actual practice, that it became "over-diversified" such that it was drained of meaningul content.

[Lchris]

<< I think what he meant is that the definition was so watered down and generalized in order to create a big tent covering so many diverse views resulting in so many divergent and contradictory applications in actual practice, that it became "over-diversified" such that it was drained of meaningul content.>>

I think both you and rdb believe that libertarians hold many contradictory views in order to appeal to a wide spectrum of people. This is not at all the case. Libertarian positions are only "contradictory" from the point of view of left or right wing dogma --e.g. you might think it's a contradiction to be against both gun control and the war on drugs (of course nonlibertarians will assume from this that I'm a druggie with an arsenal, another misunderstanding that equates being against criminalizing something with being personally in favor of it). Libertarians try to be consistent; this results in taking positions that seem contradictory by conventional standards. This has nothing to do with diversifying or trying to appeal to many people. It's taking basic principles to their logical conclusions even when those conclusions go against the status quo.