My point, I think, still stands. The definition of libertarian is not changing because of these people. If you look up the definition, it's still what it has always meant. I don't deny that these people are using the word, but sooner or later, someone is going to pick up a fucking dictionary and say "well, wait a minute, you guys aren't actually libertarians".
There is only so long they can play that game before someone calls them out. I don't believe for one moment that they will be able to influence the definition of the word in the slightest, and as long as that definition remains alive on the Internet, they aren't going to hijack Libertarianism as a movement.
Besides, despite there not being many Libertarians in elected positions (though there are some, so I reject your assertion that they aren't even on the track), there are plenty of famous Libertarians in other positions of "authority" (John Stossel and Andrew Napolitano, as Fox News contributors are very good examples, given that they are speaking to the very people you think are hijacking the Libertarian cause).
There is only so long they can play that game before someone calls them out. I don't believe for one moment that they will be able to influence the definition of the word in the slightest, and as long as that definition remains alive on the Internet, they aren't going to hijack Libertarianism as a movement.
Besides, despite there not being many Libertarians in elected positions (though there are some, so I reject your assertion that they aren't even on the track), there are plenty of famous Libertarians in other positions of "authority" (John Stossel and Andrew Napolitano, as Fox News contributors are very good examples, given that they are speaking to the very people you think are hijacking the Libertarian cause).
