Clarification on Libertarianism

I have already mentioned libertarianism several times on this blog in just a few posts. This is a reflection of my current interests (watching the unfolding GOP primaries), but I want to make a clarification at the outset that I am not a libertarian, neither pragmatic nor ideological.

Now that I've said that, let me give two quick, personal, unofficial definitions.

Ideological libertarianism. This is a political philosophy based on the non-aggression principle or something similar, such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism. It is not necessarily utilitarian, which means that it places personal freedom high enough that it might not matter to such a libertarian if their policies led to worst results than other political philosophies.

Pragmatic libertarianism. This is the view that libertarianism offers the best solutions to political problems. It doesn't take a stand on the non-aggression principle or any other overriding view of human relations; it simply states that, given the alternatives, libertarian government is the best we have. It is thus more or less explicitly utilitarian.

A few years ago I flirted briefly with pragmatic libertarianism. I never took ideological libertarianism seriously because I came to the conclusion that it logically reduces to anarchism. Absence of coercion in human relations sounds nice, but it is unworkable in principle if followed strictly... unless you are an anarchist.

Finally, I have always been attracted to agrarianism, but only as a romantic, and over the past year I read some Marxist theory and followed the blog of a Christian-turned-Marxist. I do think that capitalism is fundamentally corrupt, but I have serious doubts that there is a solution that, if an attempt were made to implement it, would not make things much worse. Thus, I tend to be a realist on politics, and I have a strong distrust of revolutionaries.