Words mean things. So many different, contradictory things to so many different people. Similar words describe wildly diverging ideas, too, and this creates confusion. Let's take a look at libertarianism as a philosophy versus the Libertarian Party.
Small-'l' libertarianism is the philosophical descendant of classical liberalism with an emphasis on liberty, personal responsibility, non-aggression, and voluntary association. Critics would describe libertarians as a bunch of incels who worship Ayn Rand. As I see it, such caricatures indicate only an unwillingness to engage with the real idea because it exposes the internal contradictions and authoritarian foundations of the two mainstream parties.
The Libertarian Party and its members are the Big-'L' Libertarians. The party was founded to promote the libertarian philosophy in the political arena, but it has met with... limited success at best. I have become convinced that governments are always inherently corrupt due to the psychological and economic incentives of central power, no matter how noble the intentions of the people who participate. Further, power always seems to draw the most corrupt and malicious people from whom we are told government is established to protect us.
As evidence, I present the recent New Hampshire Libertarian Party mess. June has been chaotic for them. A new party caucus was formed in recent years to promote Austrian school economics and principled libertarianism instead of trying to play the populist game for another 3-5% presidential voter turnout, Being Republican Lite with nods to Wokeism obviously isn't going anywhere, and the Mises caucus is advocating aggressive denouncement of such milquetoast nonsense. As such, they have managed to actually revitalize many state parties as they got significant votes for party positions. In New Hampshire, the party chairmanship was assigned to a more "progressive" libertarian as a token of solidarity only for her to stage a coup attempt.
She and her cronies accused the free market advocates who follow the Jewish economists who barely escaped Nazi a manhunt of being Nazi sympathizers because they reject woke progressive nonsense. "If you're not with us, you're a literal Nazi," apparently. At any rate, in apparent collusion with the national party chair, the New Hampshire chair attempted to create a new state party with new bylaws which mysteriously appeared out of nowhere, a new board, new oaths, and so on. It was a completely insane spectacle. And it was all for the perennial also-ran party, not something significant. Why? I would suggest it is again an example of political power, even as ephemeral as a minor party chairmanship, incentivizing sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism, and self-aggrandizement at the expense of consistent principles.
Is there any point then in playing the political game at all? My instinct is to say, "no," but there is one caveat, and it's a big one. Most people around the globe, and perhaps even more so in the US, worship political pageantry and power. I don't think liberty can succeed by trying to seize the reins of power, but the electoral process can allow a unique platform to present principle to the public. The Mises Caucus is probably wasting their time and money on such an effort, but maybe they're onto something, and I am too cynical. There's always the possibility a vibrant, consistent, principled alternative can reach the remnant seeking something beyond the false dichotomy of the two-party duopoly. Hell, Ron Paul's campaign in 2008 played a role in breaking me free of mainstream partisanship. Jo Jorgensen even seemed to spark some interest when the Republicans re-ran Il Douche, and the Democrats ran the septuagenarian warmongering police-stater Biden as a compromise candidate.
We can't win liberty through Libertarian politicians, but maybe libertarianism can be promoted by making noise where people might have a chance to hear it. I won't be playing that game, but I wish the best for those who do, provided they can avoid the pitfalls and corruption they wade through.