Eh? Confirmation bias-much? People have been against war, and pro-pot for decades, and most of them have not been libertarians, unless you want to claim the hippies were libertarian.

"Other people were also right" is not an argument against libertarians being right about things.

And isn't that the point? We should be celebrating and expanding on the opposition that exists, not dismissing it for lack of "our label".

No, but it is an argument that libertarianism is incidental to them holding a few views that happen to be popular.

Lots of people value freedom, and many of them are pro-pot and anti-war because they believe the alternative to be oppressive.

Libertarians are a narrow subset of this who subscribe to an absolutist philosophy that they believe will maximize freedom. Many people who value freedom strongly disagree with libertarianism as a means to achieving it, even though they sympathize with the desire.

Your characterization of libertarians as people with an absolutist philosophy that they believe will maximize freedom applies only to a subset of people who identify as libertarians.

If true, that supports my point further.

..and to reply to your later addition - there is no reason to celebrate libertarianism if you think it's a damaging philosophy just because libertarians agree with you on a few issues. Libertarianism isn't an arbitrary label.

I - for one - think that libertarianism is just as bad a problem as "the security state" (or whatever label you want to apply to a state-run security apparatus which appear to be beyond the rule of law).

>blindly support the actions of whichever leader bears your label

No, rather than being the worst, that avoids saying pretty much anything of substance about the political world at all. If the leaders are well-chosen and accurately labeled, you've actually described the best system.

i don't think it to be the worst of all political worlds, but isn't libertarianism like an anti-politics? cutting the political system down to minimum size, letting the economic system fill the vacuum?

Sensationalist writing to stir activity. That's all that's coming from the author.

There are many different schools of thought carrying around the word "libertarianism" but yes, they are in each their own way anti-politics. It's not left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, but authoritarianism vs. freedom.

libertarians are absolutists. They are always on the same side of issues. So obviously they will be on the right side sometimes. But they are on the completely wrong side on other issues because they see things in black and white. they cant imagine things being more complex than that. There have been liberals and conservatives on the right side of these issues from the start.

I have no idea why author wrote this sentence. It seems completely out of context to me. Anybody care to explain?