A libertarian paradox?

[Associate Justice PiT]

The central point of libertarianism is that government should be there only to ensure that individuals do not infringe on eachother's rights.

     Not only that, but dedicated anarcho-capitalists have argued that pressure from one's peers & private law enforcement would discourage acts of aggression between individuals without government. Not to say I agree with them, but as far as I can tell the notion that only government can oppress people has no existence except as an anti-libertarian strawman.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This reminds me that I used to have a rather elitist tendency to say "libertarians think X" to mean "I hold this libertarian position because I believe X". Holding a position because your ideology demands it is decidedly backwards. Generally you have a particular ideology because of your world view, not the other way around.

[Associate Justice PiT]

What point could there possibly be to make that is rooted in a premise that is blatantly false? Beck and Palin are not, and never have been, libertarians.

But they are perceived as such by the wider public.

The wider public has never even heard of libertarianism.

That segment of the wider public that has, then. If they have, it is because people like Glenn Beck have peddled themselves as such.

Yes, but so what? Beck is a liar, a neocon wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.

Indeed. But he claims to be a libertarian, and so the public identifies libertarianism with him.

Again, so what? If Barack Obama began advertising himself as a libertarian, would that make him one?

No, but he does not. Glenn Beck does. And it is Glenn Beck's ideology that shall subsume libertarianism.

So then we'll get a new name. Honestly, what is the point of this?

     Which may be necessary if Glenn Beck is running around pretending to be one of us. He has as much of a claim to being a libertarian as I do to being a monarchist.