Except they have a library of extremely rigorous literature showing how taking normal definitions…

Would this rigorous literature of yours in include alt-right terms like “Cultural Marxism”? You do realize “Cultural Marxism” is just another way of saying “Cultural Bolshevism,” a term invented by the Nazis. Do you see George Soros in every shadow and behind every wall? The next thing will be you quoting some red-pill, alpha-beta nonsense. You even parrot the alt-right line on multiculturalism which is unfounded footle. For one, immigration does not cause crime. You are supposed to be an anti-authoritarian. Yet you support isolationist and white nationalist views. Hmm. Will you tell your audience you are a “classical liberal” like so many other libertarians have said in the past? How can I take anything you say seriously? Maybe you do not actually hold these views, and it is all “political cross-dressing.” Just call yourself a far-right conservative and be done with it. Do not deceive people by telling them you are a libertarian when nothing about you is anarchistic, humanistic, or anti-authoritarian. Calling yourself libertarian is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

“ Also, you literally cite in this article MULTIPLE articles where libertarians are talking about how to communicate to people that we have similar goals and values to different factions in different situations.”

You have some real funny ideas about communication, or you are just being obtuse. Talks of converting, of proselytizing people is an example of communicating ideas to people, but it is a one-sided conversation. It is not, as you say, communicating “to people that we have similar goals and values to different factions in different situations,” not even close. “Political cross-dressing” where the person doing it dresses up his far-right ideas as left to moderate without ever revealing his actual politics is totally not deception (sarcasm). It worked for the Clintons when they sold the Democrats neo-liberalism and the Third Way; it should work for libertarians, as well. Again, it is totally not deception; it is just politics, which is basically the same thing.

I put “political crossing-dressing” in quotes because that was the term used to describe the strategy in the Reason article. For the longest time up until the present day, the term “cross-dressing” was considered a form of deception. The article was written in the late 1970s. So, the term still carried negative connotations. Libertarians back then were definitely calling for using deception against people, and the strategy has been normalized overtime.

“Effective political cross-dressing requires that one be fluent in the major political languages — of the left, the right, the feminists, the John Birch Society, the socialists, the ecology movement, and so forth.”

Let us learn the lingo without delving too deep. We as libertarians just need to pretend we understand these people to gain their trust for conversion purposes. No need to have an actual dialogue. Yeah, … totally not deception. Pfft.

A group that wants clear, honest communication does not tell its members to use “tricks” on people, to “convert” people, and/or market sales pitches to people. No tricks, no pickup lines, just be yourself. Libertarians cannot do that because their survival is at stake, or so they say. They are quite the drama queens. There was an article on Lew Rockwell’s site where he claims to be a “guerrilla for freedom” and tells his followers, I mean readers that the big bad government will “gag” him if they do not give him money.

Also, nice job completely bypassing the story about libertarians intentionally deceiving “the Left” into thinking they are on the same side concerning the TSA. Gotta avoid those arguments which make your side weak.

I never explicitly said, “Libertarians are all F****** LIARS!!!!!” That is a straw man. You say that because you really have nothing of substance you can argue against me. You either ignore everything I have been trying to tell you, or you are too thick to understand. Everything you just said is bollocks. Libertarians parrot almost word for word John Birch Society conspiracy theories. You say you are a follower of Mises. Yet you seem to ignore the fact Mises believes we would all be better off as asocial, antisocial “savages.” The argument goes like this, “Government and society are tyranny because they FORCE the individual into social cooperation with others. Oh… yeah, and taxes are bad; fees good.” That is as far as your so-called rigour gets you. The rest are just really bad rationalizations to support such a shallow premise based on some feigned indignation.

The libertarian-right’s founders were just as procrustean as you claim the US federal government to be.

LaFollette wasn’t the only pro-market writer with a soft spot for a dictatorship of the left: As late as 1970, you could see a future president of the Mont Pelerin Society writing kindly about Lenin, Tito, and Mao. — http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/17/the-mad-dream-of-a-libertarian-dictator

I am pretty sure you know what the Mont Pelerin Society is and who founded the society but just in case you have not a clue.

“The Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) is an international organization composed of economists (including eight winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences), philosophers, historians, intellectuals, business leaders, and others committed to their understanding of personal and political freedom.[2] Its founders included Friedrich Hayek, Frank Knight, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, George Stigler, and Milton Friedman.[2]” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society

But wait, it gets better.

[M]any myths about the dictatorship still circulate, mostly among conservatives but also sometimes among libertarians. I periodically hear it claimed, for example, that Pinochet was a reluctant ruler who stepped down from power of his own free will, a Cincinnatus who did what he must to set the stage for freedom. (Here’s George Reisman: ‘General Pinochet was thus one of the most extraordinary dictators in history, a dictator who stood for major limits on the power of the state, who imposed such limits, and who sought to maintain such limits after voluntarily giving up his dictatorship.’)” — http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/17/the-mad-dream-of-a-libertarian-dictator

I remember Peter Schiff in an interview describing medieval, monarchistic Britain as having greater freedom than we have under modern democratic governments. Well, there you go.

Look. I get it. You want to look smart and pass yourself as some enlightened, rational intellectual. It is great marketing. Just call yourself libertarian and pass yourself off as a edgy, radical thinker while parroting stuff other followers have said. Consumerism to the max and all that good crap! No need to do any work or actually address the movement’s problems.

“REASON gets into slightly more sophisticated marketing strategies to help explain libertarianism’s appeal to a generation raised on consumerism. The strategy is called “left drawer/right drawer” and its appeal is that it impresses the consumer and gives him the sense that merely “wearing” his libertarian ideology makes him appear special and unique — not for the political substance of the ideas so much as the impression it creates on other consumerist imbeciles, thanks to its mix-‘n’-match fashion….” — https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/lying-to-liberals/

To each his own, I say.

I can tell I will be just going around in circles with you since you are such a true-believer. This will be our last correspondence. Take care.