Early on, as I studied the principles of liberty, I was reluctant to call myself a libertarian. Libertarians are fringe, they are backwards, and they shouldn't be taken seriously. These were the types of things I understood "libertarians" to be. I had a friend that called himself a libertarian, and did so proudly. That grew on me, and so I finally reached the point where I was comfortable with that title, and used it often. I don't have any reservations about it at all at this point. Other titles that would accurately describe my political philosophy are "voluntaryist" and "anarchist".
"Anarchist" carries plenty of weight. And many dangerous people have erroneously called themselves "anarchists", and so tainted the word. But the point I wanted to make here is that people whose political philosophies can accurately be titled as libertarian, anarchist, or voluntaryist should not for a second be ashamed of them. On the contrary, people whose political philosophies promote and rely on the use of force, the likes of which include liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, yes those people should be the ones ashamed.
My political philosophy can be described by 5 words we all learned as children, "keep your hands to yourself.". That's it. It's that simple. But the implications are enormous. It would mean no more use of force except in defense of person or property. It would mean an end to economic regulations, currency manipulation, taxation, welfare schemes, government-provided goods and services, intellectual monopoly, and military imperialism, among other evils. It would, in my opinion, mean an end to violence and the beginning of true, lasting, world peace.
I am not ashamed of my political philosophy. It's founded on voluntary trade and social cooperation, not coercion and violence. If you are not a libertarian, you are the one who should be ashamed.