19 votes

What do you call yourself?

Libertarian, Anarchist, Minarchist, Anarcho-capitalist, Sovereign Citizen, Constitutionalist, etc.??

It seems since we are all about individualism, that labels don't stick or we are constantly coming up with new ones so we don't get lumped in with someone we don't like. I would prefer to be called a libertarian because it's so simple. It all hinges on the non-aggresion principle, and its easy to look at everything through that lens. But the word libertarian has been so bastardized by the media and the Tea Party its hard to get a conversation going and declare your political ideals. So what do you say?

Edit 7/27: Wow thanks for all the comments. I couldn't have imagined a better response.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I agree Liberty. +1

Sums us both up quite well I bet :)

I'm just..

I'm just a freedom-lovin' sumbitch. That's what I call myself.

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

wolfe's picture


James Bond...

Did someone already do that joke? ... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Voluntaryist is a very agreeable name for many people

The terms libertarian and anarchist have aggressive connotations for the more meek in our society. I change it up frequently though based on my audience.

Constitutionalist. Mostly

Constitutionalist. Mostly Libertarian but not on every issue. Step 1 is restoring the Constitution.

Ventura 2012

I call myself "Unrepresented

I call myself "Unrepresented by my Government".

A "Ron Paul Republican" or "Ron Paul Supporter"

I don't even like saying "libertarian" because people might associate that w/ Glenn Beck for all I know.

Classical Liberal

I've recently embraced the term "classical liberal." I like to participate in the Republican Party, where an increasing percentage may see "liberal" as not necessarily a pejorative term, but one unfortunately misrepresented by "big government" proponents identifying with that label within the last 100 years. I believe the phrase clarifies both the founders' philosophy towards government and the direction towards which I believe the Republican Party should aim. Too often these days, the vague terms "conservative" and "liberal" are used loosely, leading to division and confusion as each listener has a unique association with their meanings. "Libertarian" works in only some small-group circumstances, provided "lowercase L" is emphasized. "Republican" can be too vague as it's often necessary to clarify that I don't agree with the legislative voting records or executive actions taken by many members of the party.

I think todays libertarianism

I think todays libertarianism is what a classical liberal was. Libertarianism today is basically the philosophy of Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, with Austrian economics thrown in. I like using classical liberal when I strike up conversation, because like you said it confuses people. Then you get a chance to explain some history and wake some people up.

Some Call Me...



"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


There is no duration defined in the Oath

I AM...

a spiritual being and apparently part of the human race, although the last hundred years or so does not necessarily indicate our race as superior.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Well let's see, I call myself

Well let's see, I call myself a..... CHRISTIAN ANARCHIST !!! :)

Beware the cult of "government"...

They call me

The Wanderer


Take a trip back to memory lane. ;)

a word

that many hate and many love:

an individual

I too am as such.

Yet the only text from the OP that makes me squirm a bit is...

"It seems since we are all about individualism". -luvdispencer

I am not all about individualism. I certainly recognize myself as an individual, and I accept my responsibility in pursuing and engaging all effort in successfully manifesting my character as such, but I am not an individualist.

good distinction

i don't think i've ever used the word individualist, and i will continue to avoid it at all cost, as well as individualism. you're right, a tad creepy.

I call myself Spoon

anything else would be collectivist.

I'M A WAGE SLAVE. Always have been. You can call yourself...

...anything you want.

But you're not free - the government owns most of you.

For starters, just look at your paycheck: Federal taxes, Socialist Security, Medicare and that's just the beginning.

Most of the nation pays state income tax too.

Property tax implies that you don't own your property - the government does.

Look at the BILLIONS of dollars your congress gives away to foreign nations - just for being foreign nations.

I'd like to claim to be a Libertarian in philosophy, but I don't like political parties at all anymore.

They have ruined the liberty experiment which was our country.

So in the end, I'm just a wage-slave.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul


is the name I call myself.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Modern-day Abolishonist! ....

...'Cause we still have a slavery problem. ;)

Thats a joke.....but hey maybe I'll start using it. hehe

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

That depends on the audience.

Among idiots, conservative (or "no comment").

Among those with a bit of political sense, libertarian.

Among libertarians, anarcho-capitalist.

Among anarcho-capitalists, non-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist who rejects the possibility of polycentric law.

Among non-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists who reject the possibility of polycentric law...well, I think I'm the only one. ;-)

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Heh! Reminded me of this video I saw posted around here...


I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


excellent strategy, I use it

excellent strategy, I use it myself.

Ventura 2012


that was great :)

Do you mean to say you reject the desirability

of polycentric law? Because the possibility of polycentric law should be evident.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

No, I mean the possibility

Stateless law is possible, polycentric law is not.

To be clear, by "polycentric law" I mean a situation where private judges have non-exclusive, overlapping jurisdictions and where there is no established appeals process to settle disagreements between judges. The absence of exclusive jurisdictions and an appeals process will generate conflict until (from that conflict) exclusive jurisdictions and an appeals process emerge.

I'm writing a paper explaining my position in detail. Part I is posted on my blog.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

competition v. monopoly

What's wrong with competition in providing a service?

Law, order, justice, security, dispute resolution -- these are services, and surely you know that the free market is the best way -- and only moral way -- to deliver goods and services.

So why use violence and threats to eliminate competition in the provision of law?

Nothing's *wrong* with competition in the provision of services

...it's just not *possible* if the service is dispute resolution.

The reason that the dispute resolution business is susceptible to monopoly (unlike every other industry) is because it is inherently violent. It is not possible to settle all disputes peacefully. Without exclusive jurisdictions and/or an appeals process, judges will often end up on different sides of a dispute. Hence, sometimes judges will find themselves on different sides of a *violent* dispute. Competition between judges is inherently violent, unlike competition between (for example) fast food chains or ship builders.

"So why use violence and threats to eliminate competition in the provision of law?"

The use of violence and threats is inherent in the provision of law, and will result in the elimination of competition over time even if no one consciously attempts to create a monopoly.

P.S. See my blog linked above.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

2 types of violence

The reason that the dispute resolution business is susceptible to monopoly (unlike every other industry) is because it is inherently violent.

If the free market in dispute resolution leads to peaceful monopoly, then this is fine. It's initiatory violent monopolies that I have a problem with.

The use of violence and threats is inherent in the provision of law

Violence can be initiatory or defensive/retaliatory. Violence used in dispute resolution is supposed to be only defensive/retaliatory. This type of violence is okay according to libertarian principles (NAP).

If all the DRO owners...

...are good libertarians, then a *non-aggressive* monopoly will emerge as I have briefly described. My concern is that, over time, the organization will fall into the hands of less scrupulous individuals and become aggressive (i.e. a state).

Whether this happens or not depends on the structure of the organization: e.g. whether it is more or less centralized. It's essentially the same problem as we face in trying to keep limited government limited.

Since everything depends on the form the inevitable monopoly takes, I disagree with those of my fellow ancaps who think our goal should be to create a free market in dispute resolution, and let the chips fall where they may.

Rather, we should start thinking about how to design the best organizational structure for a non-aggressive monopoly. Once we have that organization, our ultimate political goal should then be to implement it in reality from the start (skipping the "chips fall where they may" polycentric law phase).

I also think it would be a lot easier to sell ancapism if we could talk about a concrete organization rather than....get rid of the state, it'll all work out okay, trust us.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."