How exactly do you define a libertarian?

So, how do you tell bigots apart from activists ? =P

well,....

you agree with activists and disagree with bigots.

simplz

Juan:

Also, the fact that some actions are theoretically compatible with libertarianism doesn't mean they can be classed as libertarian. Case in point, racism. While private property and free association imply that one is free to be a narrow minded bigot, it doesn't follow that bigotry and racism (pseudo scientific collectivism) are libertarian.

Juan:

Although an scenario I'd consider is small 'communities' (towns ?) where a majority of conservatives or a majority of progressives boycott dissenters basically because of some sort of mob psychology. While the majority can do that without violating the NAP, I wouldn't say that such communities are libertarian in a broad sense.

Juan:

I'm saying that the attempt at imposing uniformity, even using allegedly non-violent means, is clearly totalitarian.

Both right-wing conservatives and left-wing conservatives want 'homogeneous communities' where dissidents don't simply exist and/or are boycotted into oblivion.

I sense some possible inconsistency here.  You claim that the actions of those who non-violently attempt to persuade others to act or be a certain way cannot rightly be construed as libertarian; you also clearly hate bigots and religionists, i.e. think that they ought not be bigots or religionists; in opining this you attempt to non-violently persuade people to act in accord with how you see fit, trying to create a uniform belief in society; hence by your own premise, you are unlibertarian. 

Cookie-cutter individualism can be really quite constraining to individuality when cast in this light.  This is why I prefer to define libertarianism singularly as the NAP.

Solomon:

I sense some possible inconsistency here.

Many things are possible - that doesn't mean they actually exist.

You claim that the actions of those who non-violently attempt to persuade others to act or be a certain way cannot rightly be construed as libertarian;

I gave specific examples. When you say 'persuasion' I imagine a friendly chat or a discussion at best. A whole 'community' of zealots boycotting dissidents is not just persuasion, it's a sort of moral lynching.

you also clearly hate bigots and religionists,

You clearly are free to read my mind...or believe that you can read my mind.

i.e. think that they ought not be bigots or religionists;

Are you purposely misrepresenting what I said ? What they ought not to do is boycott people.

in opining this you attempt to non-violently persuade people to act in accord with how you see fit,

I just looked up "persuade"

"to induce to believe by appealing to reason or understanding;"
"to make someone willing to do something by reasoning, arguing, repeatedly asking"

So, guess what ? Boycott is not persuasion.

...trying to create a uniform belief in society;

Yes, the uniform belief that people should be left alone...if you want a libertarian society.

hence by your own premise, you are unlibertarian.

Uh oh. You've tried to twist my position into the funny sophism that advocating laissez-faire is unlibertarian. Good job. Not.

Cookie-cutter individualism...

I don't know what cookie-cutter individualism is. I mean, I know perfectly well what you mean. You're using a smear term. Reminds me of conservatives whining about how 'commercialism' undermines 'family values'...or something.

This is why I prefer to define libertarianism singularly as the NAP.

Your choice, but not a totally consistent one IMO.