I was referring to the etymology of the words. A "libertarian" is one who espouses personal liberty, or freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own and consume illicit substances. The logical opposite, or "authoritarian", would be someone who believes in a strong, Big Brother-like state to protect us and look after us--essentially protecting us from ourselves.
A central tenet of sustainable libertarianism has always been the prevention of fraud. This requires an informed public, and functions even better with an educated public.
Another central tenet of sustainable libertarianism is being safe and secure in one's own person and property. This means that externalities imposed on a person must be either compensated for or prevented. Again, "You can sue them after they kill you" is not serious option.
Ignoring these two points - as modern people calling themselves libertarian often do - is not libertarian. It's stupid.
Libertarianism is not about legalizing marijuana. Legalizing marijuana is merely a side effect of desired policy.
For example, making a constitutional amendment that declared that no item found in a person's possession shall be used as evidence against them, and that the consumption of chemicals that do not cause externalities shall not be prohibited.
Authoritarianism, however, has several key traits.
The universal refrain of authoritarians is anti-intellectualism. The entire point of authoritarianism is to subject yourself to another authority.
What they say goes, and most importantly, you cannot countermand them. You cannot disagree with their authority. If an intellectual source disagrees with the authority, it is the intellectual source that is wrong - because the authority is perfect.
Authoritarianism cannot function without that structure in place. You can only trick people into authoritarianism by convincing them that you are the only authority they should consider. This is a bit dangerous, because it naturally requires that you lie to your audience at times, and either they wise up and leave you, or they become less competitive among their wiser peers. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." - in order to capture a country, you actually have to do it pretty quickly.
Note - I'm not referring to the authority itself. A libertarian socialist like Noam Chomsky can have authoritarian followers. People who consider the words of Mises or Rand to be gospel and perfect in nature are even more authoritarian than those they claim to oppose. Most leaders who cultivate authoritarian followings tend to be narcissists, however. Many leaders are themselves narcissists or sociopaths. "Power attracts the corruptible." and all that. But they have a very hard time building things, as a rule.
So you need keep that in mind with the 'protecting us from ourselves' mantra. Most liberals certainly want marijuana legalized. The ban on scientific studies of it is certainly an authoritarian stance by the government - but it's an old one and getting weaker each year.
On the other hand, most liberals oppose pumping toxins into the groundwater. Preventing someone from doing that isn't authoritarian - that person intends to impose externalities on others and needs to either pay for that or be prevented from doing so.
You can see that a lot here in California, where city councils are keen on outlawing sugary sodas from school cafeterias, and increasing "sin" taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol.
After the raids during the Republican National Convention across the river here, peaceful Bush protesters being arrested, the suspension of habeas corpus and warrantless wiretaps, you're focusing on taxes and corn syrup?
First off, sin taxes should generally be aligned to the externalities they impose. That is actually the logic behind many of them.
Secondly, removing corn syrup drinks from school cafeterias would only be authoritarian if
1) It was imposed on private schools as well, or
2) Was done against the will of parents in the community. Which would be rather hard to do at the local level, or
3) Banned students from bringing it in themselves.
We seem to be headed toward authoritarianism, especially with the complete Democratic sweep in our last election.
What authoritarian expansion of power did the democrats commit that the republicans did not support?