Sarvis a Libertarian? Nope

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In polite society at least, questioning the fundamental claims that people make about themselves is rather frowned upon. If a person says that he is a Catholic, then one is expected to believe that he is a Catholic, even if there is no evidence for this whatsoever. If a person says he is a conservative when he clearly agrees with not a single conservative position, we are likewise expected to smile and nod grimly. “No, you’re not!” is not a socially acceptable response to erroneous self-description, alas.

There is some virtue in this convention, I suppose, even if it is just that it helps to keep the peace. But there is an awful lot more virtue in the integrity of our political language and terminology. This is to say that if we lose the capacity to demand that words and actions remain linked, then we will lose our ability to discuss current affairs with any meaning. And that, I’m afraid, will be disastrous.

Sarvis a Libertarian? Nope | National Review Online

My favorite quote from the entire article:

Suffice it to say: That a politician is not a Democrat but is nonetheless critical of the social policies of a Republican hardly makes him Murray Rothbard.

I personally couldn't care less that somebody who is obviously not a libertarian is running under the Libertarian Party, because the Libertarian Party has proven over the years that it's not interested in spreading the libertarian message so much as coming off as being "moderate" and "electable." This has clearly been a losing strategy so far, but it seems to be the one the Libertarian Party is set on following until the inevitable end.

Most importantly, however, is who cares what party one runs under? They don't actually mean anything. Political parties have no actual values aside from getting elected. If one wanted to make a vanity run, as Sarvis obviously does, then running under the Libertarian Party makes sense.

Also of interest:

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race | TheBlaze.com

 

[Interpol]

I need to read more about him, but I had thought he was Libertarian the whole time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I personally couldn't care less that somebody who is obviously not a libertarian is running under the Libertarian Party, because the Libertarian Party has proven over the years that it's not interested in spreading the libertarian message so much as coming off as being "moderate" and "electable."

Who is responsible for ‘spreading’ the libertarian message, then?

And it’s quite possible the libertarian message has already been ‘well spread,’ it’s just that few are interested having heard the message, understandably and correctly so.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I personally couldn't care less that somebody who is obviously not a libertarian is running under the Libertarian Party, because the Libertarian Party has proven over the years that it's not interested in spreading the libertarian message so much as coming off as being "moderate" and "electable."

Who is responsible for ‘spreading’ the libertarian message, then?

And it’s quite possible the libertarian message has already been ‘well spread,’ it’s just that few are interested having heard the message, understandably and correctly so.

It's every libertarian's responsibility to spread the message as they see fit.

As to your second point, I'd say Ron Paul's popularity in 2008 and 2012 prove that to be incorrect. Once libertarianism was given a big enough platform through his Presidential campaigns many people were attracted to the message. That tells me there are plenty more out there.