A Kantian is perfectly capable of being a Libertarian. This is in fact the route taken by Robert Nozick. The LP's agenda shares more in common spiritually (if I may use the word) with the philosophy of selfishness, but it's hardly a necessity.
Which is to say that this: "If you do not have "selfish ways" then you are in no way whatsoever, in any form, a Libertarian. You have failed the first check."
is nonsense. A rather good example of the genetic fallacy.
Ahh, another party heard from. Imagine that.
You can attempt to redefine Libertarianism (notice the capital 'L') all you want, but you did stipulate Rand had a big hand in the origin of the whole mess, thank you.
What you proceeded, then, to say, was that Rand wrote the party off for abandoning one of its roots. Now, I don't dispute that. What you didn't address is who got to define "Libertarianism" in the fashion referring to the party.
Rand did have a hand in the formulation of the original Libertarian Party (Note to Cleon, I'm talking about the party here, not the philosophy), even if she disavowed it, and unless I have been stunningly misinformed, she certainly included ethical selfishness in the package.
As much as I am not a devotee of Rand, I think she gets to do that, she's the mother of the whole thing, and she speaks as an author.
Now, you argue around context and cherry-pick your own definition. Perhaps this is due to misunderstanding, perhaps you are taking whatever the Libertarians say about themselves this week, I don't know. If you are to clarify this, constructive debate could ensue. We may even agree, modulo these semantic issues.
If you accept the position-of-the-moment, selfishness is not necessarily explicitly required, however it is still IMPLICITLY required in order for the system to have even a ghost of a chance of working. To me, that proceeds directly to your next point, which I will address in a minute.
I will, however, digress to the question of ownership of the idea for a minute.
We're presently at odds over the question of who gets to define Libertarianism. I think Rand does. You appear to disagree, based on the definition you offer.
In that, perhaps there's no right answer. I choose Rand, and see the Libertarian Party as devolved from Objectivism, while omitting important facets of the philosophy along the way, you appear to choose to think it evolved from Objectivism, with new and different properties.
I see it as degenerate, philosophically, you would seem to see it as having evolved.
So it goes. We appear to disagree. If you would like to take a position beyond controverting others, perhaps we could discuss this. Until then, I must regard you as simply intruducing heat into this fusion reactor.
_________________________
The problem with Libertarians is the assumption that their "limited" government will, somehow, remain a neutral arbiter. They seem to allege that "big" government has become captured by special interests, but their "small" government won't. It's special.
Ahh, yes, "The problem".
If you said 'A really big problem', well, yes, we'd agree, but it's not the only fatal problem that Libertarianism has, and in fact I submit that your "The problem" arises from a more basic problem, one that it shares with capitalism, communism, socialism, and most other 'ism's, and that is that it simply fails to take human nature into account.
So, while I agree your problem is a big one, I think it's rather arrogant of you to proclaim it as "The problem". I rather think that Libertarianism, as put either by Rand or the Party, has a whole menu of problems to address.
A while ago, there was a rather nasty debate about the tragedy of the commons. In this, game theory suggests that there is, in fact, no good solution involving even enlightened self-interest. Unfortunately, the discussion fell into accusations of "liar, liar, liar" as so many of these Shanek threads seem to do.
Agree in principle. Your defintion of freedom is loaded (i.e. confusing liberty with the free-market).
