Hey guys, I am also in the libertarian left quarter like most of you, but more toward the center.
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87
The funny thing is that I am moving. Ten years ago, I would have been more toward the authoritarian right (like most Western political leaders). My position about some issues are unchanged (anti-religion, for abortion, etc.), but others did evolve a lot.
I used to be for death penalty, then completely against, then now again for only for extreme cases (eg. political, religious or terrorost leaders).
I used to be ultra-liberalist, but I realised that many big companies (eg. in Japan) can be very unscrupulous both regarding the environment and people's health, so there should be some control. Then, I came to think more financial equality between people was needed (although people are naturally unequal) to guarantee social stability and peace. The Japanese have well understood that at least. The Europeans favour equality because of ideals of human rights that all people are born equal and should be given equal chances. If I agree for the chances, I completely disagree that people are born equal (not even fake twins in the same family), and even if they were, the environment and personal experiences will shape their personality, intelligence and whole life.
For me the government is only a means to achieve peace among unequals. India succeeded very well through its Hindu beliefs and philosophy. The government should be as liberal as possible to stimulate the economy, but prevent or punish all abuses, either from corporations or individuals. So politicians should be only the best, most intelligent and most idealistic (devoid of financial greed) people who can arbitrate and responsabilize people in a society as free as possible. That is why I got a score a bit on the left.
Since a lot of historians believe his teachings were influenced by Buddhism, he would most likely reside in the same quadrant as the Dalai Lama, I suppose. 
