The linked post on Reason's blog provides a perfect example of why I've become disenchanted with Libertarianism as a political movement in the United States and why I think that it actually undermines the purpose that it supposedly serves. Ostensibly, Libertarianism is concerned with individual liberty. Individual liberty is not a partisan issue. The Republican party is associated with small government and low taxes, values that Libertarians share. It is also associated with efforts to curtail first and fourth amendment rights, the criminalization of recreational drug use, restrictive immigration policies, and a variety of other policy positions that Libertarians abhor. Real Libertarians cannot, therefore, call themselves partisan Republicans. The Democratic party is associated with defense of individual rights and civil liberties, values that Libertarians share. It is also associated with regulation of economic activity and redistributive social engineering, policy positions that Libertarians abhor. Real Libertarians cannot, therefore, call themselves partisan Democrats. In fact, the famous Nolan chart presents libertarianism as exactly orthogonal to the left-right divide. A Libertarian political movement, insofar as it is unable to successfully promote its own candidates for office, would be most effective at achieving it's goals if was politically independent, and willing to lend its support to any politician, on the left or the right, whose policies are consistent with its values. Both parties might court this Libertarian voting block by putting policies on the table that are attractive to it and which further the interest of individual liberty, and by avoiding policies that Libertarians abhor. Both mainstream political parties have something to offer Libertarians in this respect, and individual liberty would benefit from providing an incentive for both parties to move in that direction. Instead, the Libertarian movement is consistently partisan conservative. Libertarian writers and bloggers regularly devote column space to reenforcing the idea that conservatism is good and that liberals are bad. This messaging echos the partisan messaging of the Republican party, and serves to reenforce the idea that members of the Libertarian movement should, first, be loyal Republicans. The linked post provides an example, which starts out as a diatribe about misinformation in the news media regarding the Zimmerman trial, but reveals its true agenda in it's conclusion, arguing that all criticisms of conservatives for promulgating misinformation must be set aside in light of the misinformation that liberals are promulgating about George Zimmerman.
Liberals and disenchanted conservatives who decry fact-free ideological narratives, true-believer hysteria and willful reality-denial on the right should take a good look at the left’s Zimmerman Derangement Syndrome. Some far-right blogs have trafficked in bad information of their own, using Martin’s marijuana use, past fighting, and teenage social-media bluster to portray him as a thug and even spinning bizarre theories about his possible drug dealing the night of his death. Yet this instance, their misdeeds are dwarfed by far more mainstream liberal “faux news” (meticulously documented on a dissenting left-of-center blog, The Daily Howler). As a fiction, Zimmerman the white supremacist rivals Obama the Kenyan-born commie Muslim.
Politically independent people have no interest in absolving conservatives of their responsibility for misinformation that they have promulgated simply because liberals also engage in misinformation and that is also a problem. Politically independent people distrust partisans on both sides. The only people who are looking for a rationalization upon which they can absolve conservatives of their sins are conservatives. Only a dyed in the wool conservative would think "its ok that the ranks of my political party are filled with liars, because the liars on the other side are even worse than we are, so the lies that we tell are OK by comparison." Why is a partisan conservative view being presented in a supposedly independent political forum devoted to the furtherance of individual liberty - not the furtherance of the Republican party's political goals? Better yet, why aren't members of the Libertarian movement calling out this obvious example of political partisanship? In fact, numerous comments in the associated thread support this partisan view, demonstrating that the readers of Reason are just as partisan as the writers. For example: What's sickening is how the liberals are showing their true colors, and when that is pointed out, they don't care. Moral relativism is their disease.
Hope that you never, ever get on TEAM BLUE's radar for something like this... Reality is totally irrelevant, and once The Narrative has been formed, it's over. The sheep will receive their marching orders, and you will be completely vilified and there is no redemption whatsoever. Since they are animists, anyone they do this to becomes totemic and to them, a source of pure evil. This why they are perfectly happy making death threat even as they call themselves tolerant or whatever delusional shit they actually think about themselves.
If the ranks of the Libertarian movement are swollen with partisan conservatives, is the movement really about promoting the cause of individual liberty or is it really about promoting the cause of conservativism and the interests of the Republican party? People who are naturally conservative, but who also care about individual liberty, might be persuaded to become politically independent voters. They might be persuaded to vote for Democrats like Ron Wyden, who take action on issues that matter to people who are concerned about individual liberty, such as domestic surveillance of Americans by the NSA. By reinforcing the message that liberals are bad and evil, its possible to keep some percentage of these people voting for Republican candidates, even if they might be attracted by a Democrat's stance on a particular social issue. Therefore, by constantly reinforcing a partisan conservative message, the Libertarian movement ensures that Republicans remain Republicans and do not consider voting for a Democrat. The Libertarians also, conversely, ensure that Democrats remain Democrats. Democrats who enjoy their party's support for individual rights might find themselves attracted by the Libertarian movement because they think that a particular attempt at economic regulation has gone too far - for example, the ban on large sodas in New York City or the ban on happy meal toys in San Francisco. What they find when they reach the Libertarian part of the internet is a bunch of partisan Republicans who hate them and anyone like them. This is sure to quickly repulse them back into the waiting arms of the left. In other words, while having the appearance of existing as an independent political movement concerned with individual liberty, in practice Libertarianism serves the interest of the status quo - keeping Republicans voting Republican and Democrats voting Democratic, and fooling the few remaining independents into propping up third party candidates who haven't a prayer of winning. In other words, what could be a formidable movement for individual liberty in the United States, which could use its collective political weight to bargain with both parties on a variety of valuable concessions, is effectively broken up into pieces and neutralized. Why Libertarianism is Something of a Sham | 
