That’s what this piece advocates:

Libertarians are frequently viewed as either old, white guys who like to complain about taxes and big bureaucracies or a bunch of college kids who wax philosophic in their dorms rooms, quoting Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek but not doing much else.

Both generations are pigeon-holed, all too often, as heartless businessmen or curmudgeonly know-it-alls who like to debate.

Yet there’s an emerging trend among young libertarians, one that began to crystallize recently at the sixth annual international Students for Liberty conference, and that is a call for a kinder, gentler libertarianism of sorts – as well as a call to action: don’t just talk about concerns, do something about them.

“You will never argue your way into anybody’s heart,” said Magatte Wade, a Forbes 20 Youngest Power Women in Africa and TED Global Africa Fellow. She spoke at the event, which drew more than 1,400 to Washington D.C. in February.

“We don’t want another damn book,” she told the crowd, noting libertarians like to sit and write and talk, but the time now is for action.

Her speech highlights the main shift of libertarianism, whose members no longer want to be stereotyped as grumpy, intellectual free-market maniacs.

As a grumpy intellectual free market maniac, I don’t want to be stereotyped either.

Who does?

The interesting thing is that libertarianism of one sort or another seems to be the majority consensus among young people.

While the fundamentals in support of a free society, liberty and freedom continue, the sentiments at the conference showcased that young people do not wish to be seen as left or right. A more understanding, transcending Libertarianism prevailed over typical ideologies.

Certainly the conference highlighted frustrations and concerns young libertarians share about big government, over-taxation and overregulation.

“A huge frustration that was relaid to me from a majority of the students I met was the issue of taxation,” Chelsea Close, a senior at University of North Texas, said in an interview. “They do not understand where our money is going if their roads are still damaged, our deficit is just increasing, and their already tiny paychecks are getting even smaller.”

No wonder libertarianism is under attack by both sides.

But right now I’m feeling positively negative!

I have this pet theory that many people don’t vote for, so much as they vote against.

It is certainly true about me. I have a lot of problems with many of the things on the right, and I cannot call myself a conservative even though the usual tests say I am 80% conservative. As I have said many times, I hate the right, but hate the left more. Much more. Being philosophical sort who takes a broad general view of things, I am better able to set aside the qualms I have about conservatives than many of my friends who are ruled by their emotions. The point is, when it comes to voting, I don’t vote for Republicans so much as I vote against the left.

Republicans and conservatives are so successfully stereotyped as anti-gay and pro-drug war that I wonder whether many of the young people  who vote Democratic are not in their minds voting for Democrats so much as they are voting against Republicans.

Whether it is possible to test out this theory, I don’t know. Maybe a poll could ask people whether they voted for one side, or against the other.

I realize my whole theory sounds negative in the extreme — as if I am suggesting that modern American politics is driven by the power of negative* thinking. But what if it is? Most people just hate politics, and those who vote are no exception.

But if politics is a net negative, and if political decisions are based on negative thinking, shouldn’t that be studied carefully by those who want to win?

Or should it only be studied by those who want the other side to lose?

* What I am saying should not be confused with negative campaigning, although the fact that negative campaigning turns off voters may shed light on how they vote. Think about it. What happens if they reject a a candidate for running a negative campaign? They vote against that candidate, right? Negative = negative.