There's more than one road to liberty

Reason magazine has a great piece by Sheldon Richman on the theme of 'thick' versus 'thin' libertarianism. It's worth the whole read, but this comment on the article grabbed my attention in particular:
Because there are two ways to arrive at libertarianism - two distinct methods.

One method is to arrive at libertarianism by way of doubt. You can say, "I don't think anyone can overcome the Hayekian information problem in economic policy. I also don't think anyone can ever conclusively devise an exhaustive set of moral norms. Further, I think that the people who occupy government positions are incredibly fallible, and we need to diminish their ability to impose their fallibility on others, by procedural and other means."

But the other way is to arrive at something that looks a lot like libertarianism by way of certainty. (The Objectivists are the best known example of this.) You say, "I know exactly what is right and wrong, and among the set of things I know to be right are the propositions, 'Government should be small and limited' and 'Individuals possess the following set of moral rights'."

Both of these groups can contort their views to fit into the straitjacket of the NAP. But the second group will have a lot more demands to make. Richman may not be an Objectivist, but he's in the second group.
To the extent that I align with libertarian philosophy, it's from the doubt angle. And personally I'm super skeptical of the certainty crowd. That's not to say you can't reason your way into a philosophy (plenty of philosophers have done it), but it's tempting to assume that because it only requires pure reason, it's simple to do. And all should beware the seemingly-easy path.