Think it's high time this was discussed. I think it's important to distinguish between the two ideals. First off: libertarians are political and not financial ideals. Neo-liberals like thatcher, Reagan and Greenspan were expounding a financial policy. Libertarians believe in a real free market, not one dominated by world banks, Cartels, global corporations and the like, they believe that there must be a clear break between Governments and business. Neo-liberals believe in THEIR version of a free market and peddle the idea that a true free market cannot exist, instead they propose their ideals of a free market which is one in which, Governments, global banks and global corporations get together too fleece the population exactly like a dictatorship does. So. Central banks, banking Cartels, monopolies, are things that are supported by Neo liberals. There is an issue here which is unresolved. Neo liberals tell the population that they are free market believers when they are not, that plays to those who believe in the ideals of a free market. However, when pushed on true free markets they then refute the possibility as if it is some crazy space theory and then they play the socialists by telling how they will impose severe regulations etc etc. Because of this, true libertarianism and Austrian Economics has had almost zero influence on the world and has been carefully manicured by those who would twist the message to suit there own ends. Having watched a film about the Greek situation and also what happened in Ecuador I believe it's worth understanding how very different Libertarianism is and how it offers something different. Any time it is watered down it isn't libertarianism, that's what Neo liberalism achieved. Essentially the only thing in common is the letters 'liber' apart from that they are essentially poles apart.