The definition of "libertarian" is fluid. It doesn't mean anything anymore.
Not after the libertarian party. Now it means social liberal fiscal coservative.
To be libertarian will always be minarchist or anarchist only, IMO.
There is a constitutional difference. Don't get me wrong I like the constitution and wish we abode by it but libertarians are typically more extreme than constitutionalists (not the Gary Johnson libertarian, but a real one)
constitutionalist - states rights
hardcore libertarian - states don't have rights, people do
Here's a good copy pasta
"Many of Ron Paul's supporters are constitutional conservatives but would be offended to be called libertarians. Constitutional conservatives believe that the Federal Government possesses only the small number of powers delegated to it in the constitution, and that all other governmental powers are invested in the state governments. So, constitutional conservatives are very libertarian at the federal level. However, many of the constitutional conservatives believe that the states have almost unlimited power to enact whatever laws they would like. You will often hear constitutional conservatives say that the state governments were intended to be 50 laboratories in which public policy experiments may be tried. Thus, I think most constitutional conservatives would say that the people of a particular state may choose to have any type of government they want: minarchist, totalitarian, theocracy or whatever they want. The idea being that people can then move to whichever state matches their ideal government best.A libertarian is someone who believes that the government has a few specific tasks to perform (deontological libertarians and consequentialist libertarians will have some disagreements about exactly what those tasks are), and that it should not be engaged in any activities outside those tasks. A libertarian would agree that the best form of state government is one limited to the small set of specific tasks that government needs to perform.
Therefore, I would say that whether one is a libertarian and whether one is a constitutional conservative are completely independent questions. It is possible to be both a libertarian and a constitutional conservative: this would be somebody who thinks the federal government should be very strictly limited to the constitution, and who thinks that the best form of state government is also libertarian, but who thinks that each state should get to decide for itself what sort of government it should have. It is possible to be a libertarian but not a constitutional conservative: this would be somebody who thinks the federal government should be strictly limited, but also that all the state governments should be strictly limited as well (in other words, states do not get to decide for themselves how libertarian they want to be). It is possible to be a constitutional conservative but not a libertarian: this would be somebody who is libertarian at a federal level, but thinks that each state should decide what form of government it would like to have and who does not think that the best form of state government is libertarian (e.g., they might want a pure democracy or a theocracy at a state level). And then, of course, it is possible to be neither a libertarian nor a constitutional conservative which is the majority of the population.
The majority of the non-college student Ron Paul supporters here in Iowa are of the constitutional conservative but not libertarian variety. The people at the top of his campaign here would absolutely love to institute a theocracy at the state level if they got the chance, but they are true-blue libertarians at a federal level. It makes for a very, very uneasy alliance.
tl;dr Constitutional conservatives are libertarian at a federal level but are for states deciding on their own form of government. Libertarians want government strictly limited at both state and federal levels."
haha
