Typically, unless congressmen identify as small-L libertarians(ie: Jared Polis, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash) they are tyrants in all areas where they are effective, and ineffectual in all areas where they are pro-freedom. ie: Socialists who are good on the issue of war and maybe a few social issues(anti-war, pro-drug-legalization) are ineffective at preventing war or reducing prohibitionist tyranny, but their other bills that expand government power are supported by the other totalitarian sociopaths in Congress. In this way, congress acts as a "one way valve" that supports a steady flow of tyranny into our lives.

It's only when someone is consistently anti-government (libertarian) that they begin to provide a tiny bit of resistance to the dominant sociopath-driven paradigm. The framers of the Constitution called this networked sociopathic action "tyranny"(only the anti-slavery framers were coherently anti-tyranny-for-others). The abolitionists expanded the terms used to refer to tyranny: bondage, servitude, kidnapping, and slavery. Stanley Milgram's test of Americans to see if they would act immorally in service of false authority found the affirmative, and then, the My Lai massacre provided the final chapter in his book "Obedience to Authority." Shortly afterwards, Llobaczewski(anglicized) labeled the study of political evil "Ponerology," and labeled modern government(s) with the term "pathocracy" or "rule by sociopaths."

This last view has a lot of explanatory power. The rule of law in democratic republics functions well shortly after their creation, but tends to be destroyed by sociopaths who are more highly incentivized than others to capture the offices of power. Those who are not pure sociopaths are "sociopathic at the higher hierarchical levels of human organization, which are then both made abstract to them, and placed significantly out of reach of their influence."

For this reason, only jury trials really matter to the minority of intelligent self-educated libertarians. The remainder of the libertarian movement that requires working with others has been captured by the fraudulent "Libertarian Party."

Neutralizing opposition networks is a delicate art. If it becomes too obvious that that is what is happening, money and talent can be brought to bear against that neutralization effort. For this reason, the existing police state has a very intelligent policy: they encourage the stupid libertarians(the LNC, CP, RP, Cato, Mises, etc.), and "infiltrate and impede" or attack the smart ones(Schaeffer Cox, Ross Ulbricht, Irwin Schiff, Aaron Patterson, FIJA.org).

This leaves an inept freedom movement to oppose tyranny. The tyrants then shrug their shoulders and say, "You can organize against us, it just so happens that nobody is intelligent enough to get anywhere with that strategy. The public must not agree with libertarianism."

Of course, when someone begins to effectively organize against them, they are usually scuttled, framed, arrested, etc.