Over at Inkandescence, I’ve concluded what began in Part One and Part Two of my series discussing the Libertarian Party and why, despite my formative preference for many libertarian thinkers and principles, I cannot support the Libertarian Party.  In my most recent post, I deal with arguments from party politics and from pragmatic efforts to leverage the Libertarian Party to achieve policy goals different than those its current leaders espouse:

So far, every reason I can adduce for attempting to ignore the utterly unconscionable elements, and the philosophically incoherent elements, of the Libertarian Party platform has always been a better reason to keep pushing forward those elements within the GOP that can and have made effective changes, while also shoving back at worthless fellows like Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, and maintaining my freedom to criticize the GOP when it’s wrong.  And under current circumstances I have been regularly calling for the defenestration of GOP leadership, so a fortiori what will I do with the current and longstanding Libertarian Party leadership?
…
We seem to be left with a Catch-22:  While the Libertarian Party remains ineffective, any argument against “protest” or “symbolic” or “identity-group” voting, made in terms of consequential political compromise, seems to favor leveraging sympathetic elements of a viable party rather than hoping to simultaneously change and boost an ineffective party that is wrong on top-shelf issues; and should the Libertarian Party become viable, its being emphatically wrong on the top-shelf issue would make it unconscionable to support it.

(source: Why I failed to be Libertarian, and why we still need a better way – Inkandescence)