It seems that two camps have formed within the "Big Tent" of libertarianism.

On the one side we have a bunch who think that "libertarianism" includes judging people by the color of their skin or the place of their birth. Who think that freedom of movement and association only apply to certain individuals, i.e., them. And who promulgate ignorant, anti-intellectual myths about race and sexuality, and believe that libertarianism stands for their freedom of speech to spread hateful views with impunity. (And they're right that they have this freedom of speech...but my freedom of speech allows me to condemn their words, and my freedom of association allows me to refuse to have anything to do with them.)

On the other side we have some who believe that waging aggressive war against a country and a people that never threatened, or were a credible threat to, the U.S., can somehow be reconciled with the word "libertarian." Who are not only abysmally unaware of Bourne's dictum "war is the health of the state," but can't even see it when a real live example is burning in neon lights before their eyes -- destroying the economy, trampling on civil liberties, increasing the threat of terrorism, debasing any human values remaining, condoning torture and colonialism and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Well, fuck that shit.

I see two groups of self-styled "libertarians" advocating -- clamoring! -- for the use of state power to achieve their ends. One side wants to get their guy elected, and will excuse anything on that journey, so that he can keep out furriners and impose good Christian values on all. The other side wants the world's largest army to put down -- with extreme prejudice -- anyone, anywhere, who might conceivably be linked to a hypothetical attack on the good ol' U.S. of A.

Call me intolerant if you like, but include me out of any tent big enough to hold all that stench. And if either of these is what "libertarian" has come to mean, it's time I stopped using the term.