Sure, I'm all against murder. But the black market scenario is still very similar. In both assassination and abortion you have party A hiring a third party to do something to party B without party B's consent. The question is why one would be a black market and the other would not.
So far your only counterpoint to Paul being a libertarian is that he is pro-life. As I pointed out, that's a very tricky moral issue so I don't think it could possibly be a litmus test. I scanned through all of his official positions on his website just now - he seems to be on the libertarian side of every issue listed.
(I'd heard that before on the news as well, but Penn Gillette was the only one to have said it.)
That sentence shows you don't understand abortion and I'm virtually certain you don't want to.
Pro-life, and saying ID/creationism should be taught alongside evolution are the 2 I can think of off the top of my head. I don't feel like examining his positions on everything. He is in between a typical republican and a libertarian. I don't make up what the words mean.
You could start calling Ron Paul-like people libertarian and call typical far right libertarians super-duper libertarians. You could call them aardvarks for all the good would do.
If you are for the government making any laws about social problems that are none of it's business, you are not a libertarian, by definition. Not my definition, THE definition that existed before I was even born.
Ron Paul takes a mixture of authoritarian, centrist and libertarian positions on social issues. That is the definition of centrist. He seems very different from conservative republicans because he IS. He is in the center and they are authoritarian.
But again, I don't make the definitions up, this has existed longer than I have. Calling Ron Paul a libertarian doesn't make him a libertarian any more than calling him Mr Ed would make him a horse.