“Libertarian.”You’ve probably encountered this term before. But the word gets tossed around so often by so many diametrically opposed pundits — like Glenn Beck and Bill Maher — that it’s hard to pin down a reliable definition.Contrary to popular belief, libertarianism isn’t some political flavor of the week. It’s not a label for the “Ron Paul Revolution.” It’s not a flock of nerds who fawn over the effigies of some obscure Austrian economists. And it’s certainly not a “get out of jail free” card anyone can use on a small set of controversial or personal topics.For years authentic libertarianism has been buried beneath layers of morally depraved philosophies and misguided leadership.But, alas, the Holy Grail has been discovered. And its truth is so simple even small school children grasp it.Of course, I’d love to tell you. But that would break the first and second rule of libertarianism: “You do not tell anyone about libertarianism.”  So instead, we’ll play a quick game of “Who Wants to be a Libertarian?”Here’s your million-dollar question: Should violence and coercion ever be used to settle social problems?A.     NoB.     YesC.     A and B; only governments should be able to initiate forceIf you chose A: congrats! You’re a libertarian. If you chose B: I’m sorry; evidently you’re both mentally retarded and incorrigibly evil. If you chose C: I’m sorry; keep trying to tie your shoelaces backwards and play again.Trivia aside, libertarianism is simply a label for a set of consistently held moral principles grounded in the philosophy that violence never solves social problems. It’s based on taking a reasoned, philosophical approach to complex moral problems — or working from first principles — rather than resorting to political “pragmatism” or coercive statist “solutions.”Most importantly, true libertarianism realizes morality is universal and applies to all individuals. Hence, no man-made institution called “the government”— which is simply a conceptual label for a small group of individuals who claim both legal and moral authority within a geographical area — can possibly hold the transcendent moral power to initiate force.In this sense, voluntarism — the logical extension of libertarian philosophy — isn’t the rejection of all authority. It’s the rejection of any involuntary and absolute authority that rules by way of an unsigned, self-incriminating “social contract.” Sure, you might get called “a damn idealist!” by your friends, colleagues or political science professors for holding such unswerving moral scruples but that’s a small price compared to what free-minded revolutionaries have been paying for centuries.Besides, you can always take the devil’s advocate approach: if people can’t be trusted to run their own lives and settle problems peacefully, then they shouldn’t have any democratic voice and a small subset of them definitely shouldn’t be granted absolute power and supreme legal authority.If your parents had bought a litter of bloodthirsty pit bulls to protect you from stray neighborhood cats, you’d call them insane and incompetent. Ironically enough, the same misconception applies when statists argue, “We must create an all-powerful mafia-like monopoly to protect individuals from violence.”Some might even call this Godfather-like system of institutionalized crime “anarchy.” If so, “anarchy” isn’t just some abstract idea we should fear. It’s the reality of our world, where trillions of taxpayer dollars are squandered, fanning the flames of foreign intervention,         economic distortion and any other government-induced threat.So who’s really the idealist? The reasoned libertarian or the dogmatic statist?Ultimately, the choice is simple for anyone who seeks truth: you can take the red pill and put your trust in well-grounded, empirically valid philosophy rather than devoting your blind faith to abstract concepts and self-incriminating institutions.Or you can take the blue pill and desperately cling onto the idea that a small subset of people called “the government” will magically solve complex socialproblems through legalized coercion and absolute power.Pragmatism might be advantageous for the select few in power.But just remember — principles are sexy. And the truth…well, you know the rest.Scott Burns is a 20-year-old economics junior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_sburns.____Contact Scott Burns at [email protected]