Actually, the first text on utilitarianism that I've ever read was Utilitarianism, by JS Mill.

Only because his version of utilitarianism doesn't fit with libertarianism doesn't mean that all forms of utilitarianism don't fit with libertarianism.

I actually reject taxation.

How does this make me a non-utilitarian?

Most libertarians and paleoconservatives will argue that most forms of taxation are not something that is beneficial to most of society.

My point was that many libertarians will concede to the fact that the lower classes won't benefit as much under libertarianism as they might under socialism.

Of course, libertarians counter that socialism is not beneficial for the vast majority of society, but only the poorest of the poor, while a libertarian society would benefit almost everyone, economically and socially.

So could you please provide an example where libertarians argue against taxes on principle and not on the fact that they believe that abolishing certain taxes would be beneficial to society?

I think you're confusing this with the fact that libertarians believe in individual rights outside of economics. Either way, both are "utilitarian" in nature, in that they support the idea that individual liberty both inside and outside of economics would be beneficial.

And you do realize that all utilitarians are not machines that believe the exact same thing?

Since you do make reference to Bentham, Mill, and Mill "Jr.," I suggest you take a long hard look at Ludwig von Mises. Von Mises was himself an economist and philosopher who was a libertarian and utilitarian.

To be fair, there are certain "schools of thought" of libertarians who argue that we should believe and protect individual rights for the sake of those rights.

However, many libertarians believe in their ideals not because "we should just have them," but because they believe that following these rights would create a much happier society.

You're coming from the perspective of utilitarianism being a political ideology as well as a moral theory whereas I'm coming from the perspective of utilitarianism being just an ethical theory.

I'm saying that libertarians and others use this basic utilitarian concept, and go on to say that their system of government and economics fulfills this concept, while you're saying that libertarians can't be utilitarians since utilitarians favor taxation (meaning that you're considering utilitarianism to be more than an ethical theory).

Utilitarianism is purely an ethical/moral theory. It's goal is to create the greatest amount of happiness, good, utility, or whatever else you want to call it for the greatest amount of people. Its goal is to create the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of pain and suffering possible.

Utilitarianism is not a political ideology. It is not a political movement.

It is true that the vast majority of utilitarians are in favor of taxes that would be rejected by most libertarians. However, this doesn't mean that utilitarianism and libertarianism are mutually exclusive.

That's the problem though - what a libertarian calls individual liberty and what a utilitarian calls individual liberty are quite different.

Well, libertarianism has never developed a particular ethical theory from which to work from, unless you consider the non-violence pinciple to be just this, though I think the non-violence principle, from the libertarian perspective, is more concerned with rights than with physical violence.

Yes, a (political, as opposed to metaphysical) libertarian could be, ethically, a utilitarian. What I'm saying is that saying libertarians are utilitarians is misleading and inaccurate. This is especially misleading because utilitarianism, as a political ideaology (whether this is in the tradition of Bentham or JS Mill) is quite different than libertarianism.

Utilitarianism was developed as a politcal ideaology by Bentham; he was particularly interested in prison reform. JS Mill was especially politically active, expanding his utilitarian moral thoughts into the realm of politics.

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, though, if we take the general libertarian viewpoint, and the general utilitarian viewpoint, to reconcile them takes some effort.

You can reconcile almost any two perspectives. Despite this fact, we should be careful when we speak of them as being in agreement as they are not generally so.

True.

But nevertheless, many libertarians use utilitarian arguments to support their beliefs (i.e. a true free market would lead to great improvements for most people).

What sources do you have saying utilitarianism was founded as a political ideology?

I was originally taught that utilitarianism was only an ethical theory.

I've looked all over the internet, but no where can I find a statement claiming that utilitarianism was founded as a political ideology.

It's obvious that Bentham argued for certain political ideas through a utilitarian viewpoint (such and such policy would increase the general utility of the nation), but never have I heard of utilitarianism being separate from philosophy as a political ideology.

Libertarian viewpoint: Individual Freedom

Utilitarian viewpoint: The greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people

Reconciliation: Individual freedoms would cause the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people.

It's not that hard. What is hard is trying to claim that utilitarianism is a political ideology in itself.

You have consistently failed to show how they are not in agreement.

The only way that you could do this is to prove that utilitarianism is a political ideology, which it isn't. Many utilitarians, from Bentham to Mill to von Mises to Singer, have had differing viewpoints on diverse issues. You simply cannot lump all utilitarians into a cohesive ideology, when utilitarianism was meant to be a consequentialist moral theory.

I'm not sure why you are so appauled by the fact that libertarianism and utilitarianism have fundamental differences, nor do I know why you have gone out of your way to hide that rather simple point. Whatever your reasons, your style (which amounts to perversions of other's claims and shifting claims of your own) has drained me of any motivation to further discuss this particular topic with you.