Originally Posted by Willravel

Tim McVeigh believed in radically small government and voted for Harry Browne (L) in 1996. He even identified himself as libertarian in an interview with the Washington Post. Like many conservative youths, he started Republican, but moved libertarian as he became more politically aware.

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Irrelevant. What someone -calls- themselves is of no worth: leftists insist that, although Stalin called himself a Communist, he was not so. Fine, two can play at that game; Stalin was no Communist because he did not behave as one, fair enough. McVeigh did not behave in a libertarian manner, ergo he was not a libertarian. Libertarianism explicitly forbids the initiation of the use of Force (which McVeigh committed), attacks against civilians in time of armed conflict (likewise) and collective punishment (ditto.)

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Timothy McVeigh was no true Scotsman! Classic.

Originally Posted by Willravel, responding to The_Dunedan

Not in the least. He strongly believed in the second amendment, he believed in radically small federal government, he believed that military expansionism was wrong, he believed in individual liberties, and was strongly against taxes. I can't imagine a better description of a libertarian. The fact that he became radical does not change his core political beliefs.

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Again with the ignorance. You are clearly totally unfamiliar with the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism, preferring to fill in the gaps in your knowledge with sound-bites and prejudices. Not very liberal-minded or well-informed of you, is it? A typical Collectivist, you see everything on group-vs-group terms, never bothering to descend to the level of the Individual.

Originally Posted by Willravel

Show me a libertarian that believes in a large federal government propped up by a lot of taxes where collective rights are protected and the military is expanding and I'll gladly admit I was wrong. Until then, I invite you to read the issues pages of the Libertarian Party:
Issues | Libertarian Party

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

None of which has jackshit to do with Timothy McVeigh's ignorance of, and non-adherance to, the Non-Aggression Principle. Whatever someone -calls- themselves is of no matter when they not only don't fit the label but act in ways which are diametrically opposed to that label. The Non-Aggression Principle defines what it means to be libertarian, not the issues page of the Libertarian Party, and until you're aware of what it says and means on a philosophical level this discussion is fairly pointless.

Originally Posted by ratbastid

There's more than one kind of libertarian, Dunedan. You're obviously a Rights-Theorist Libertarian. There's also Consequentialist Libertarianism, and other kinds. Sadly, you don't have sole claim to True Libertarianism, as there is no such thing. As you and I have already agreed on this thread, libertarian/authoritarian is a spectrum entirely separate from liberal/conservative. Which means a person can be 100% libertarian, and fall ANYWHERE on the liberal/conservative spectrum. Which means there's an infinite range of possible political and philosophical views that are ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with Libertarianism. Including Timothy McVeigh, Idaho militia crazies, etc, etc, etc. Including you.

I know it's unpleasant to be lumped with the biggest domestic terrorist in US history, but there it is. You're both Libertarians. You don't get to fiat him out of the tent because you disagree with his particular flavor of libertarianism.
This is inaccurate. You should do some more reading about the varieties of libertarians out there. You'd be surprised.