No, I am not a libertarian anymore. However, I might still vote for a Libertarian (Capital L).

My views on politics would best be called Classical Liberalism or just plain Capitalism. However, there was a time that I had been part of the Libertarian Party of Canada. This was before I realized that libertarians philosophically had issues with reason and reality from the most core of its ideology. With its fill on subjectivism and anarchism among its ranks. Not all Libertarian members, but, people that are actually listening to and following it to its conclusions which are the anarcho-capitalism's very foundations. I would be quick to vote for a better, less insane and reason based member of the Libertarian Party of Canada still, but. I do not at all anymore sign off on the philosophical views called "libertarianism."

The issue was the lack of basing the philosophies view on reality and reason. As well its view on anarchism not only being OK, but, for many the ideal way of having society. It also does not care if its philosophy is based on reality or not. Or about morals at all. It does not care about anything, but, following its Non Aggression Axiom as just that an Axiom. No need to prove that it is right by appealing to reality or what is true. It acts as a faith not as a reasoned position, I agree that the initiation of coercion or non-consent is evil and a very specific evil. However, you get there by following the facts that we all should have our individual rights defended as the role of government which comes from looking at the facts. You do not get there out of nowhere as an Axiom.

You cannot get there out of thin air by saying it is an axiom and beyond evidence or proof, or reason of any kind. Rights are not somehow naturally inside of men or women. If you cut yourself in two; please do not! You will not see rights there in nature. Rights are the ability to think and act within society as one sees fit free from harm/coercion as long as your action is not itself infringing others same rights. It is a system in a social context of how people are free to be with each other. It is not an axiom granted to you by God or Nature. These are the so-called roots of the NAP of libertarians and is not based in reality at all. Non-coercion being an ideal is true, but, it is simply another way of wording individual rights protection by a properly moral and good government.

Libertarianism has no reason to be right as it does not even search for one. So, before you say I am a libertarian for agreeing with the defending of individual rights I am not. Libertarians can be great people individually, but. the actual underlying Axiom is not based in reality. If you are a Libertarian and a classical liberal I will agree with being called the latter. However, I would ask you if you are sure you want to use a term used by people like Murray Rothbard; whom think parents should have the right to starve and neglect their children till they died. Or the likes of Walter Block whom has said in his own words that the issue with the Holocaust was that Hitler forced people into Ovens and did not persuade them to walk in on their own. There are many names; Classical Liberal, the Liberal Right, Lassiez Fairest, Radical for Capitalism, Constitutional Republican.The bankrupt libertarian shipwreck does not own liberty.

Members of Libertarian Parties that do use reality as their base or are not intellectually really "libertarian." They need to emphasize their differences from lower case libertarian intellectuals and the other movement that uses the name. They should point out that they do not agree with the nutcases that treat libertarianism as a faith to an axiom that is really standing on shaky legs floating on top of quicksand.