Mostly answering wrt the US Libertarian position, since I don't know if too many other countries have a significant explicit party in this domain. ##### Racism (by some of its members) [The Hill oped - blames it on racism](https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/3680007-the-libertarian-party-is-collapsing-heres-why/) He probably has a point in practice, but I would not say racism is a feature of Libertarianism per se. >In May, the party was taken over at its national convention by the so-called Mises Caucus, a far-right group, some of whose members have been associated with racist and antisemitic ideas. The caucus is named after the libertarian economist **Ludwig von Mises, whose philosophy was pretty crude (as I explained in the book) but who firmly condemned racism.** > >On Martin Luther King Jr. Day this year, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire tweeted (in a later deleted post) that “America isn’t in debt to black people. If anything it’s the other way around.” Caucus members have called for violent repression of antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters. ##### [ party platform - Positions that do not appeal to too many people](https://www.lp.org/platform/). >Parents should have control of and **responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.** > >Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. **Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system.** > >To further that end, we call for the **repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.** > >Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services. > >We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state. It's not hard to see how some of these are **not** going to be very appealing across the US ideological landscape (the last 2 are going to be unpopular with religious conservatives). Reform of pensions for example is a political live-wire *everyone* avoids. Seems to me that US Libertarians are stuck in the same kind of rut Germans Greens wrt ["fundis vs realos"][1], with the fundis being in the ascendant *within the party, but unappealing outside of it*. People often talk about big-L Libertarians - those are the people who are not getting elected. It's also interesting, when you talk to hardcore Libertarians individually, how *regulations* will be replaced by *legal arbitration and contract law*. The benefits of replacing regulation by litigation is not an entirely convincing argument. ##### [Donald Trump and foreign policy][2]. For those libertarians hoping to get in via the Republican back door, times are tough, with the Reps ditching much of their small-government roots lately. > There are areas, certainly, in which Trumpism and libertarianism will peacefully co-exist; school choice, as evidenced by Trump’s selection of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, is one example. Deregulation is another. But by and large, they cannot be reconciled. Where libertarians champion the flow of people and capital across international borders, Trump aims to slow, or even stop, both. Where libertarians advocate drug legalization and criminal justice reform, Trump and his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, seek a return to law-and-order policies. Where libertarians push to protect the First and Fourth Amendments, Trump pushes back with threats of banning Muslims and expanding the surveillance state. And where Mulvaney has dedicated his career to the argument that dramatic fiscal measures are needed to prevent the United States from going bankrupt, Trump campaigned unambiguously on accumulating debt, increasing spending and not laying a finger on the entitlement programs that make up an ever-growing share of the federal budget. And their avowed goal of isolationism can seem naive at times. >Polling suggested as much. In November 2013—when Rand Paul was riding high—43 percent of Republicans said U.S. anti-terrorism policies were going too far in restricting civil liberties, while 41 percent said they weren’t going far enough to protect the homeland, according to Pew Research. In September 2014—during the immediate aftermath of the Foley and Sotloff execution videos—those figures were 24 percent and 64 percent, respectively. The shift in sentiment would only accelerate. A separate poll in September 2014, commissioned by CBS News, found that 39 percent of Americans favored sending U.S. ground troops to Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS, with 55 percent opposed. ##### Do they really have no success? However, as an influence on politics in general, especially in the US, small-l libertarians, advocating for a smaller state, do have some influence within the Republican party. And, really, cutting red tape, axing corporate subsidies and promoting individual liberties are views that are fairly popular in general. Balancing budgets may not be all that popular, but there are intergenerational equity risks with running near-constant deficits. In short, applying a watered down version of libertarianism when deciding on laws, regulations and policies can be viewed as helpful, by some. Which is, to some extent, not that dissimilar how Green parties struggle to get elected on their own ticket, but manage to get quite a few of their principles adopted by mainstream parties. **Pure big L-ibertarianism on other hand is unpopular because it is a [reductio ad absurdum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) position with obvious shortcomings in its practical application and ethics.** [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/sep/21/uk.libdems20051 [2]: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/libertarian-politics-success-failure-donald-trump-era-214847/