Note: I'm a registered independent and little "l" libertarian.
I supported the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan based on utilitarian principles -- I felt (and still feel) that less people will die and less pain would be inflicted by the use of violence in those areas) I find that the careful and appropriate use of force by the state does not conflict with my libertarian views.
There is no such "vast majority of independents who have strong libertarian leanings" outside of LP propaganda, just a small fraction of "independents" who don't want to admit they consistently vote for one party or the other.
(Oh, yes, and a tiny, tiny fraction of libertarians, some minority of whom care about the LP.)
Really? Last I checked both major parties in the states heavily competed for about 20% of the electorate who self-identified as independents.
Can't comment much on "fake" libertarians, though. I haven't seen much evidence that they either vote the same way each time or not. It might be that different candidates draw out different groups of these middle-grounders.
I'm not much on big-L libertarianism, mainly because so many of them are all over the board on policies, usually taking the core ideas beyond where they are practical. Libertarianism is best practiced when it has a healthy respect for the social contract, such as the use of national force on occasion.
As for "fake libertarians", I really don't know whether you are or not, and I'm not highly concerned - though many of your lines are reminiscent of the typical Team Red "if you guys were just a little closer to our ideas, you'd do such much better" shtick.
The simple truth is that actual, consistent libertarians predominantly opposed the war. I'm no more interested in historical revisionism on that point than I am in revisionism on the war itself.
Nice link. True, but perhaps a little overstated. Independents are who they are -- if they routinely vote one way or the other I'm not sure that takes away from their self-identified independent status. Seems like splitting hairs to me.
I'm not interested in revisionism either, and looks like you've failed to make any kind of point at all here. I was simply providing another piece of anecdotal data for your discussion -- which I've done.
I supported the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan based on utilitarian principles -- I felt (and still feel) that less people will die and less pain would be inflicted by the use of violence in those areas) I find that the careful and appropriate use of force by the state does not conflict with my libertarian views.
So there's another example for you.