The generous view of Tucker Carlson is that, faults aside, he is at least a principled libertarian. Carlson himself is the most vigorous advocate for that view of Tucker Carlson, but he undermined it badly during today's Washington Post online discussion with a series of comments about his hometown:

Tucker Carlson: I love Washington. My wife and all four of my children were born in Northwest. I hope I never leave. But let's be honest: The city's not ready for democracy, much less statehood.

...

Katy, Tex.: Non Palin question. Considering that the Washington, D.C., crowd continues to elect Marion Barry to publicly paid posts, why does anyone think it is a good idea to let them elect a full-fledged representative to the House?

Tucker Carlson: Of course not. It's insane, not to mention unconstitutional. As a resident of the city, I'm happy to have taxation without representation.

So, Carlson is content to have 600,000 American citizens subject to taxation without representation because he doesn't like the way those citizens would vote if given congressional representation? That isn't principled libertarianism, that's run-of-the-mill unprincipled Republicanism.

(And that “unconstitutional” bit is nonsense, as Carlson well knows. The District of Columbia could certainly be granted statehood, and the two Senators and a Representative that would go along with it. Even if one stipulates that there are Constitutional hurdles to congressional representation for DC residents, the Constitution comes equipped with a handy remedy: the amendment process. That's how DC residents gained the right to vote for President, after all. One might expect a principled libertarian to take the stance that if the Constitution mandates taxation of US citizens without representation, the Constitution must be changed.)