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.

Comment viewing options

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

Tom Woods has more or less

Tom Woods has more or less done this already(he told me via email). But yes, I think they are misguided, you can go ahead and add every anarchist thinker ever born to the list.

Ventura 2012

You once told me that

You once told me that constitutional government is easier to sell than anarchism. I agree. But do you think we can ever get to the point where enough people will understand economics so that they will support limited government so that there can be change?

I think

Its possible. We can sell it more easily because a lower level of economic knowledge is required to understand minarchy. Ultimately, we don't need to get them to understand it in a 2 party system. We can have a relatively free constitutional republic with significantly less that 50% of the public behind us. This was the purpose of the Bill of Rights, to protect libertarian land owners from the rabble that would contract away their liberties at a drop of a hat. Letting non-landowners vote was a HUGE mistake.

Consider, if we didn't have a Corporate Whore media, Ron Paul would be president. We just have to get rid of ONE little thing. Compare that to constructing an anarchy lol.

Ventura 2012

This study says that you only

This study says that you only need 10% of the population to hold a belief in order for it to be adopted by the majority of the public.

Minority rules: Scientists discover tipping point for the spread of ideas

Interesting theory, the

Interesting theory, the problem is when you have multiple 10%'s believing conflicting theories. Which one prevails?

Ventura 2012

a sinner

a sinner

Liberty = Responsibility

I am Ira

from the Freeman clan!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

A Free Spirit

Like each and every human who has walked this earth, we are each a free spirit
and are immediately a free individual when born into this human form.

I have never wanted to keep anyone from their potential as a free individual.
I often wonder if those who try to keep someone from being free actually have a soul.

Natural Order

A Human being Created by our Father in Heaven

That's what we all are. Everything else was created by man.

Plantin the seeds for our Savior. In the End Jesus wins!

deacon's picture

I don't call myself anything

would be kinda weird for me to call myself,and I usually know where i am at

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence



When talking with others, I prefer 'patriot' or 'part of the liberty movement' or 'constitutionalist'.

In terms of actual philosophy and ideas, there are no good labels yet since we are something new. What word describes some combination of: libertarian, conservative, and populist?

Many different

Many different things:


"Ron-Paul Republican"
"Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative"
"Goldwater Republican"
"Practical Libertarian"
"Traditional Conservative"
"'Real" Conservative"
"'True' Conservative
"Traditional Liberal"

Personally, I think what makes it difficult for me to fit in any one group, is that most "leaders" of said groups are incapable of seeing the other point of view. Generally, I think that that on most issues, there are multiple sides to them, even multiple sides with validity.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Something called a "human"

with a bunch of other divisive labels slapped on after it, apparently.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

A free man. A creation. I

A free man. A creation. I will not be governed by other men.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I know a lot of us don't like

I know a lot of us don't like labels, but what about when you are forced into one box or the other? http://www.dailypaul.com/290832/1d-political-poll-self-descr...

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

I am an American.

I am an American.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

-Thomas Jefferson


fuck your labels. I'm an American.

How nice it would be if ballots omitted labels. No (D)'s or (R)'s to do your thinking for you.

but 'American' is a label...

As for me, I was born a Bamobo, and I shall die a Bamobo.

A signature used to be here!

It's not a label in the sense

It's not a label in the sense that the other one's are. It unites, doesn't divide. We're ALL Americans. (Well, in the USofA, at least...)


American used to mean synonymous with freedom. Now it just means a proud member of a tyrannical and oppressive nation state.



I sometimes tweak my descriptors depending on to whom I'm talking, but if I have the time I generally tend toward Stone's 'libertarian communitarian'...

Human being

Not trying be cliché but think about it. There is no such thing as political identity.

We act according to our desires and the circumstances surrounding us. Our autonomy over our actions gives us the power to choose what will serve our best interests. Are decisions are based on our options, which we can develop but not control. At the end of the day, we must choose what will make us happiest, whether it be to conform for our safety, fight and die for our integrity, dominate and control for our ego, live peacefully for the best interest of our families, or live recklessly for our excitement, etc...

There are no natural rights. There are just means by which we can attain our ends.


Beyond Integrity

Stand your ground holding a torch. Once the fire has visited you in your mind, you can hold the fire on the torch... which symbolizes being a good example for others.

Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. Each of us do what we can while alive. Some day as a mortal, I am going to die. We all will.

I may even be killed for my beliefs and that may be how I die. What does it matter?

A promise to be there for other people makes them feel better now but it is a lie. It is a promise that can not be kept because any of us can die at any time.

Nothing lasts 'forever', except maybe some ideas.

Myself and a vast ocean of other individuals are all torch bearers of liberty in this time.

There will always be torch bearers long after I'm gone just as they existed before I was born. In some ages, human liberty will encompass many whereas other ages will be dark and tyrannical for most.


What's that from?


I made it up on the spot

It just popped into my mind.

Less eloquently speaking, I believe we are each our own individual yet we are also part of something larger which is life. We can experience life alone and along with others. Experiencing life with others where there is mutual love is the bright place and its a timeless idea that has personal and universal value. It is both subjective and objective.



-Economics — neo-Confederates usually advocate a free market economy which engages in significantly less taxation than currently found in the United States, and which does not revolve around fiat currencies such as the United States Dollar.[2]

-History — many neo-Confederates are openly critical of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln to varied degrees, and of the history of Reconstruction. Various authors have written critiques of Lincoln and the Union. Slavery is almost never defended, but it is usually denied as a primary cause of the American Civil War. Critics often accuse Neo-Confederates of "revisionism" and of acting as "apologists".[3]

-Secession — many neo-Confederates openly advocate the resecession of the Southern states and territories which comprised the old Confederate States of America. The League of the South, for example, promotes the "independence of the Southern people" from the "American empire".[2] Most neo-Confederate groups do not seek violent revolution, but rather an orderly separation, such as was done in the division of Czechoslovakia.[12] With Constitution Act 542, passed on 25 November, they agreed to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia as of 31 December 1992.[12] Many Neo-Confederate groups have prepared for what they view as a possible collapse of the federal United States into its 50 separate states, much like the Soviet Union collapsed, and believe the Confederacy can be resurrected at that time.