I think you misunderstand.
In the US, the Libertarians (as opposed to the libertarians) are right-wing, speaking economically. The libertarians, on the other hand, are right-wing, centrist, and left-wing, but always anti-authoritarian. I have no problem with the second; the first, in my carefully considered opinion, has little to do with real libertarianism, because it ignores a large and important source of authority: money. I am a left-wing libertarian; make of that what you will. I see being economically left, i.e. collectivist, as a separate thing from being anti-authoritarian; it's not my expectation that we are mature enough in general to be collectivist without being authoritarian, so I must shape my opinion to reality and support those who are as left as I have the opportunity to vote for, without being so authoritarian that they raise my hackles.
I consider Libertarianism to be essentially ignorant, because it ignores the power of money, and therefore succumbs to the very same authority it professes to object to. The people who have that source of power would need to be Libertarian as well, in order for it to work, and they are not; in fact, they are primarily authoritarian, as even the briefest survey of history by all but the most biased observer will show. It is not, in fact, in their interest to be anything else, and for this reason Libertarianism can never work. Small-l libertarianism, on the other hand, is a reasonable position for just about anyone, rich or poor, to take, and is to their benefit either way. It can never be fully achieved unless people become much more mature than they are now, but it is a goal to be striven toward.
What I find is that many Libertarians think the only way to be libertarian is their way, and I object to that strongly. I think there is ample evidence to suggest that there are other ways, and further evidence to suggest that Libertarianism is not the best, or even a, way to achieve liberty- which is, after all, the goal of libertarianism.
So if you accuse me of not being a Libertarian, I will confirm it; but if you accuse me of not being a libertarian, I will deny it.
If you are politically sophisticated, you will recognize a libertarian, left stance as anarchism. Not the anarchism of rebellious adolescents who want mommy and daddy to stop telling them what to do, but the mature anarchism of "no rulers, not no rules." Examination of how most people behave will rapidly convince one that it is difficult to get to such a state; only twice that I am aware of in modern history have humans even approached it, once in Spain prior to Franco, and once in Argentina in the last decade. Neither was in any way perfect, though the Spanish came closer than anyone has before or since. Furthermore, the efficiency of action of a group who follow the instructions of those among them best equipped to understand how to accomplish a task is undeniable, so perfect absence of authority is unachievable in the real world; absence of authority that is not limited is the best we can ever hope for.
Tyranny by those in power must be controlled; so too, the tyranny of the majority. Limits must be placed on power at all times to ensure liberty. There is a country in which, at least in theory, such limits exist; it is not the only such, but it was one of the first. It has such limits written into its most important and overriding law, its Constitution, which directs the form and details of its government. I am pleased to live in that country; it is, as far as I can see, as close as one can get to true anarchy in this world at this time. Imperfect as it may be, it's as close as I can get to my ideal. My best course of action, IMHO, is to remain a citizen of that country, and work to enhance my liberty along with everyone else's, and work also to oppose any diminution of that liberty, whether by the populace or by those currently in power.
So when you say it is "unnecessary," perhaps you do not understand what I seek to accomplish, and perhaps if you did understand it, you might disagree less or even not at all. But to do that, you must first understand; and that, it is clear, you do not. Perhaps this will help. Perhaps not. Time will tell.
As far as Billo Lielly goes, his authoritarian agenda (he obviously enjoys exercising the power he has as a result of popular acclaim by those who have not considered the ultimate goal of those he supports, which is not their liberty) makes me despise him; the rest is window dressing. Is he consciously aware of the goals of those he supports? Immaterial; he is their tool whether he realizes it or not. And he is well-paid for it, in both money and power.
When a known Libertarian supports someone who is as authoritarian as O'Lielly, I cannot help but note that the individual seems more dedicated to right-wingness than to libertarianism, and considering the name of the party, that seems to me to be either stupid or disingenuous. When I observe that this opinion seems not uncommon, and so note, it appears that you consider this an attack; if so, it is more one against those who profess to be Libertarians than against Libertarianism itself, though as I have stated above I have no love for Libertarianism.
And as far as topicality goes, well, it seems that supporting Billo Lielly might not necessarily be entirely, well, Libertarian. Perhaps you think differently, though perhaps not.
Sure.
It's about implying you were a combatant in the Falklands war when you were there as a reporter. You know, little things.
