Just to throw a bit of wrench into the works here, I'd like to tease out some of the contrasting economic perspectives.  Politics and economics are hard to separate, but I feel like economic perspectives get short shrift in a lot of these discussions.

Take the contemporary American libertarian for example.  Socially, I have few disagreements with this set.  I favor drug decriminalization and full legalization of substances like marijuana.  I fully support federally qualified same-sex marriage.  I don't think the state should have the power to execute.  I think women of all ages should have unfettered access to safe, legal healthcare, including abortion.

However, economically the picture is very different.  The reason for this is that the modern American libertarian is to the right of Milton Friedman economically.  They are predominantly adherents to the Austrian School of economics, a dogmatic approach to economics that has hardly evolved in nearly a century.  They believe, in keeping with their hero Ludwig von Mises, that all economic thought must be derived axiomatically.  They believe that math has no place in economics as human affairs are too complicated to model mathematically (though apparently they can be modeled axiomatically leading to the curious situation where sets of plain-language axioms, subject to the same analytical flaws identified by Gödel, are somehow superior to analysis where the symbols are numbers.. still waiting for someone to explain this to me).

To say that they are fans of the invisible hand is to make the case mildly.  In the most extreme examples, as in the case of Mises' protege Murray Rothbard, they are so vehemently anti-statist as to regard all state power as being exercised at gunpoint, and thusly being fundamentally coercive, with economic policies such as industrial regulation being no exception to this indictment in their view.  They would take initiatives that Adam Smith himself would have balked at, like abolishing public schools, a social institution that Smith himself advocated for.  They would eradicate the Fed, FDIC, FDA, DOE, etc.  The only government they have interest in is one that operates a judicial system to enforce contracts, a police force to protect property and an army to protect the nation.

As a Californian, I'm very familiar with the anti-tax fundamentalists.  I'm still trying to figure out if they're the same set as the Ron Paul-type Austrian school adherents.

All of this is just to say that you didn't really address any economic concerns in your liberal libertarian, but did with your conservative libertarian.  I sometimes hear people identify as left-libertarian, but maybe that just means they're libertarians without painfully heterodox economic views.

Using your classifcations and Genghis's scale I am:

Liberals:

Bleeding Heart - 4 (mostly empathetic to these kinds of causes, but i do feel like a small minority of needy people are just friggin lazy)

Unionist - 2 (they served their purpose and need to stick around to make sure basic rights are maintained but i think they do more harm than good nowadays.)

Libertarian - 5 (socially, man, lay off. what i do in the privacy of my own home is my own business. legalize all drugs, legalize prostitution, legalize gay marriage, etc. etc.)

Conservatives:

Libertarian - 3.5 (economically, I must admit I have a lot of faith in Adam Smith's invisible hand, tho I think DF and I jibe on how the free market isn't perfect)

moral Majority - 1 (this is kind of the antithesis of the Libertarian liberal category, which is why it's getting the exact opposite. So many hypocrites in this bunch it's frightening. But even if you practice what you preach and live life according to the Good Book, you have no right to exert your way onto me ... as long as my way doesn't harm others)

I-hate-taxes - 2 (dont get me wrong. i do hate taxes, and think government wastes way too much money. I wish people gave enough charity to make taxes irrelevant, but that's just fantasy-land)