Where are their so many nonsense "Libertarians"?

A philosophy predicated on leaving people alone is inevitably going to attract fringe elements whose primary social/political motivation is to be left alone. So the attraction of pariahs and outcasts and misfits (both benign and sinister) to libertarianism is unavoidable.

Where I think we have failed is in our inability or refusal to police the distinction between "libertarian" and "not a libertarian but attracted to aspects libertarianism." Whether it results from apathy or a desire to have the membership list grow or a misguided perception that the fringe right can be made into liberal cosmopolitan legal egalitarians, I don't know, but that is where the problem is in my book.

I've said it before, but I think libertarianism is comprised of two groups: people who loathe "the others" so much that they can't be anything else, and people who equate "the others" with themselves so completely they can't be anything else. I think the latter group is in line with the history and spirit and philosophy of libertarianism. I think the former group just ended up here because they've nowhere else to go.

It's easy enough to spot this, all you have to do is look for the "libertarians" whose libertarianism is circumscribed by some arbitrary tribalism (like, say, the US border), or the "libertarians" who insist that the only requirement libertarianism imposes on anyone is to respect my property line (ergo "Nazis can be libertarians").

The rejection of legal egalitarianism and the elevation of private land ownership to sole philosophical concern gives away the game.

I wasn't around in the 70s and 80s so maybe collapsing this distinction made some sense back then, but it doesn't now. The only question is whether there exists the requisite will in the liberty movement to keep drawing this distinction and enforcing it.

I will say that, frankly, the kooks and conspiracy theorists don't trouble me nearly as much as the nationalists and neoconfederates and reactionaries.

"He's got some kooky ideas about the moon landing but he fights for peace and justice and equality" sounds a lot nicer than "he calls himself a libertarian but he wants land mines on the border and thinks companies that hire immigrants should be shut down."

If we want to fix this problem then I think the institutions of libertarian thought in this country have to be consistent, unequivocal, and public about the distinction.