Why Libertarianism Fails (Opinion)

Hm. To be fair, the modern Libertarian Party doesn't stand for the foundations which it should embody. They violated the NAP long ago. Johnson himself is so far removed from the concept of Libertarianism that he should be considered Democratic. However, that last sentence is just my opinion.

I believe myself to be a Libertarian but those principles would make me more of a classic liberal, or perhaps somewhere in between. In reality, I understand completely that full Libertarianism would not work as a full model. You can't privatize everything, it just wouldn't work. Eliminating the government to the point of being non-existent is as laughable in concept as it is in execution of principle. The main focus of the NAP is a great idea, I believe, but completely untenable because you'd have to trust in everyone else to not be a dick and abide by the same rules that you embody.

Personally, my view is that Libertarianism should re-embody the NAP from a base perspective, embrace populism and national border strength, and compromise on a reasonable balance between social programs (in example, roads) and private industry. Keep America as it's own soveriegn entity, grant additional freedoms to the people of this nation, and keep government regulation/interference to a reasonable level. The exact line for reasonable would be discussed of course but taking a hard stance on this is a good way to alienate people as we saw with the 2016 elections. Is this Libertarianism in the original sense? No, of course not, but it's closer than what is currently being touted as the LP.

Granted, this is all wonderful to talk about but I hold the position that the LP is merely controlled opposition at this point since the positions they officially hold are so far from Libertarianism that it's simply laughable.

Libertarians can be libertines (and some also are simultanously), but they don't have to be. Libertarians can abstain and even protest libertine practices - they just can't advocate for the use of Force by the state to restrict libertines.

Walter Block has written a good essay on the relationship between libertarianism, libertinism and social conservatism that may be enlightening to you: https://mises.org/library/libertarianism-and-libertinism

As a political philosophy, libertarianism says nothing about culture, mores, morality, or ethics. To repeat: It asks only one question, and gives only one answer. It asks, "Does the act necessarily involve initiatory invasive violence?" If so, it is justified to use (legal) force to stop it or punish the act; if not, this is improper. Since none of the aforementioned activities [prostitution, pimping, and drugging] involves "border crossings," they may not be legally proscribed. And, as a practical matter, as I maintain in Defending the Undefendable, these prohibitions have all sorts of deleterious effects.

What is the view of libertarianism toward these activities, which I shall label "perverse"? Apart from advocating their legalization, the libertarian, qua libertarian, has absolutely no view of them at all. To the extent that he takes a position on them, he does so as a non-libertarian.

Just because a libertarian may refuse to incarcerate perverts, it does not mean he must remain morally neutral about such behavior. So, do we favor or oppose? Support or resist? Root for or against? In this dimension, I am a cultural conservative. This means that I abhor homosexuality, bestiality, and sado-masochism, as well as pimping, prostituting, drugging, and other such degenerate behavior.

I don't see libertarianism as an attack on custom and morality. I think the paleolibertarians have made an important point: just because we don't want to put the pornographer in jail doesn't mean that we have to like what he does. On the contrary, it is perfectly coherent to defend his right to engage in that profession and still detest him and his actions.

In order to better pinpoint this concept, let us inquire as to the relationship between a libertarian and a libertine. We have already defined the former term. For our purposes here, the latter may be defined as a person who loves, exults in, participates in, and/or advocates the morality of all sorts of perverse acts, but who at the same time eschews all acts of invasive violence. The libertine, then, will champion prostitution, drug addiction, sado-masochism, and the like, and maybe even indulge in these practices, but will not force anyone else to participate. Are libertarians libertines? Some clearly are. If a libertarian were a member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, he would qualify. Are all libertarians libertines? Certainly not. Most libertarians recoil in horror from such goings on.

What then is the precise relationship between the libertarian, qua libertarian, and the libertine? It is simply this. The libertarian is someone who thinks that the libertine should not be incarcerated. He may bitterly oppose libertinism, he can speak out against it, he can organize boycotts to reduce the incidence of such acts. There is only one thing he cannot do, and still remain a libertarian: He cannot advocate, or participate in, the use of force against these people. Why? Because whatever one thinks of their actions, they do not initiate physical force. Since none of these actions necessarily does so, the libertarian must, in some cases reluctantly, refrain from demanding the use of physical force against those who engage in perversions among consenting adults.

If Libertarians presented themselves as people who seemed intellectual and respectable, they would gain popularity as they would seem like a more viable respectable option.

Thomas Sowell, Stefan Molyneux, Rand paul and Ayn rand have the image of being respectable intellectuals (even if you don't consider their views respectable, their image arguably is).

Having government owned infrastructure (like roads) isn't the same as the holocaust. Having some (common sense) environment and workplace safety regulations isn't equivalent to Hitler gassing the Jews. Of course, reasonable Classical Liberals would understand this. Extremist ancaps would autistically screech about me even uttering those words and how they're the same as communism.

You're making a strawman argument here. No one reasonable, including ancaps, makes the argument that roads are the same as gassing people. Whenever you make up an argument that no one said it's a strawman argument.

Besides while you're right that many are idealists quite a bunch of libertarians supported Trump and were perfectly willing to make sacrifices. They'd might had preferred rand paul but knew that Trump had better chances of winning and doing things.