When I describe myself as libertarian (or anarchist or otherwise use the terms) I mean: I think that authority of humans over others is fundamentally unjust unless the relationship is genuinely voluntary.* In this respect I think large sectors of the left are in advocation of an unjust social arrangement: a platonic set-up, ruled by wise philosophers; and would say that Bakunin (along with John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, inter alia) was right as far as his critique of marxian socialism went irrespective of his moral or ethical character (I don't think much of Lenin, but agree with him when he says, "One can never be radical enough; that is, one must always try to be as radical as reality itself."). (I think that slavery is criminal on principal also.) If this is a dogmatic or quasi-religious stance then I plead guilty...and would urge others to sin in the same way.
A note on politics: I believe that all formal intuitions (governments, corporations, etc.) exists primarily to serve power. This was true of the Church, e.g. The Gnostic gospels where libertarian in that they reject human authority on religious matters. The nascent Church did everything in its power to destroy these texts (unsuccessfully it turns out).
If anyone disagree with me on principle I would be interested to here why. I am not interested in whether or not Mikail Bakunin or Bertrand Russell, or anyone else was a saint or not (that was never a claim I made to begin with).
NB: Most of my principles have been well defined by Wilhelm von Humboldt in "Limits of State Action".
*Even parent-child relationships off exceed the bounds of what is legitmate in, my opinion.