I don’t see how it’s any different.

I can testify to the truth of this from my own experience. It took me a long time to identify with any political philosophy, but I eventually found myself identifying with libertarianism. When I mentioned this to a friend, he said “Are you kidding? Those guys are far right-wingers.” I certainly didn’t want to be though conservative or right-wing, and I didn’t feel I was, and I didn’t see why viewing liberty as a worthwhile goal was right wing. From the time I began reading libertarian literature and identifying as a libertarian, it was a very short trip (within a year, I believe) to anarchism. The first time I read Murray Rothbard, I basically said, “that’s it, this is for me.” And then of course Left Libertarianism appealed to me immediately as well. Earlier, during my high school days, though I did not know the literature or terminology, I probably would have identified with the New Left or perhaps even “Lifestyle Anarchism” (pejorative notwithstanding).

But of course my position is that the mere existence of fuzzy boundaries (between vacation and abandonment; between hills and mountains; between red and orange; between people and animals; between being alive and being dead) doesn’t invalidate the distinction.

If there is no consensus, isn’t it just a matter of time before aggression is committed?

But if you guys are just using a broad definition of libertarian, which includes social anarchists and populist paleoconservatives (I know Roderick does this) then I don’t have any objection. I don’t really take pleasure in disqualifying people as libertarians.