Please note that I use the term "libertarian" both for lack of another and because it is what others use. I realize that it has been greatly abused.

Kevin Carson says that "...hierarchies are repugnant to libertarian values...". Jim Davidson says "...that if you are a racist, you are not a libertarian, if you are a sexist, you are not a libertarian, if you are against equal freedom for gays, the transgendered, the polyamorous, you are not a libertarian, if you discriminate against people because of their choice of religion, you are not a libertarian, if you think people from other countries should be rejected because of their choices in clothing, culture, religion, or behavior, you are not a libertarian..." A while ago there was a troll who said that if you believed in a deity you could not be a libertarian. I know someone personally who holds that position. I am sure there are many other things (X) that someone, somewhere, considers anathema to their personal values and therefore has decided that those who believe (X) are not libertarian.

I view this as incorrect. I view libertarian values as very narrow. A libertarian is someone who does not violate the rights of others. Those rights are narrowly defined as Life, Liberty, justly acquired Property.

If someone decides not to serve us in their restaurant because I am Latin and my wife is Chinese, they have not violated our rights. If, because I am Latin, they will not come to my aid while I am being mugged, they have not violated my rights. If they write an op-ed piece for the local newspaper exhorting their neighbors not to sell us a house because we are a mixed-race couple they have not violated our rights.

Therefore it is possible for them to be libertarian. The only thing that our philosophy requires is a negative. It requires us not to violate the rights of others. It does not require us to approve of others, to protect others, or to in any way support others. It does not prohibit anyone from using non-coercive measures to prevent someone from moving into the neighborhood, for whatever reason.

Would someone who holds racist/sexist/anti-religious/etc views be the best representative for the philosophy? Probably not. If you wish to positively influence people, it is best not to exhibit negative behavior in general. Libertarians who are pursuing a political agenda should probably be very careful when they nominate some one to run for office and when they speak in public. But this does not mean that people who hold abhorrent views cannot be libertarians.

The danger is that once we expand beyond the narrow view we can effectively add anything. As we saw when Ron Paul was running for POTUS. Many libertarians found religion, and started calling all of us who were not supporting RP heretics, claiming that anyone who did not support him was not a "true libertarian". Note that none of us violated anyone's rights. We simply did not take the positive position that the "true believers" required. This was, and still is, wrong.

It is not like the narrow view does not leave plenty of room to argue. There is a whole body of legal theory and discussion that deals with detaining people (depriving them of Liberty) when a crime has been committed. Also depriving them of Life in self defense. What are the circumstances where killing someone is valid? In the area of Land ownership we have a broad range of views, all of which support Property Rights, but view "justly acquired" rather differently.

So, for me, libertarian values are very narrow. This is what makes them attractive. This is what makes it possible to base a society on them, because they do not demand people be super human, they do not demand universal love, they do not demand any positive action or belief, they only demand the non-violation of rights.