Well, as I said, extremism and fanaticism defy logic. Point being, it's not an open-and-shut case - there seems to be sensible arguments on both sides of this subject which I consider not very important, but interesting.
For the sake of interest then I will point out that the goals of a movement do not matter concerning tyranny, as much as the means. All utopian movements which avow use of the state as the means of achieving their end, will naturally and logically lead to an oppressive state if taken to the extreme.
Conversely, libertarianism avows the destruction of the use of the state. Taken to its extreme, libertarianism might be said to end in anarchy, but it cannot end in oppression by the state.
It is logical to say over eating and weight loss may both lead to death if taken to the extreme, but it is not only illogical to argue that weight loss will lead to obesity if taken to the extreme, it is completely impossible.
To me this is a fundamental, logical case to instill into the political argument, because one of the Left's few successful propoganda ploys is to scare people with the idea that NAZI control lies just over the horizon from libertarianism.
As I said, an all powerful state is a multi-headed Hydra, but individual liberty is a narrow pathed alternative. What exactly was the difference between living under Hitler or Stalin? Very little except for the fact that the NAZIs hadn't yet had time to build their internal security organs to the same maturity as the Soviets. Now look at the U.S. Constitution as written in 1776 with an eye to how it compared to monarchy, and imagine taking it to the extreme (no central government, or no government at all). Perhaps not good, but certainly not state tyranny.