The obvious sarcasm in your comment, which conveys to the reader that you are unshakably certain as to the validity of your beliefs, only completely bewilders one who reads with an iota of skepticism. The reason the sarcasm is bewildering is due to the fact that it indicates you are wholly convinced of something for which you have thought very little, whether about the issue or about your presentation of the issue. Yes, I know that we live in a sound byte culture, but does it not seem foolish to deride the notion that a member of the ACLU is running as a Libertarian without adequate explanation as to why it is worthy of derision? After all the name of the organization is the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union. Sure the ACLU has taken on some questionable causes using questionable methods, but overall the organization is a champion of those things that Libertarians, themselves, seek to protect. To imply WITHOUT ELABORATION that a libertarian’s membership in an organization which advocates civil liberties is tantamount to a death wish is downright silly. A person reading your comment who knows nothing of libertarianism and only the full name of the ACLU would not be bewildered by the sarcasm, but will be convinced by the confidence it implies. They will then incorporate into their worldview the idea that libertarians must not be in favor of civil liberties, which we know is diametrically opposite of the truth. Of course, elaboration on how the ACLU’s practices sometimes contradict its central purpose would have removed the self-important tone of your comment, which it seems is what you were seeking. I’m asking for the sake of dispersing good information and to prevent the spread of bad, that we take just a little more care to explain our positions rather than foolhardily submitting them as if they were gospel. We would not want a less skeptical person to get the wrong idea.
As for Mr. Barr one has to ask, if his intention was to preserve civil liberties was the ACLU really the only vehicle?