Over-diversification, as I posed to Lchris in political theory, is an apparent "strength" to him or her (don't know which by the name). Thus, I speak of over-diversification being the cause of a poor theorectical basis for the philosophy of libertarianism.
It appears to lack glue and cohesiveness. The libertarianism, say, of The Cato Institute and of a site like LewRockwell.com appear different outside of the non-initiation of force idea. Which one is the most indicative of libertarianism? If it is up to the interpreter, then you must admit that all interpretations of libertarianism are correct.
If not, which definition is correct? And what is this called? Circular-reasoning.
Over-diversification, therefore, makes libertarianism weak in its ability to gain any headway in its success of seating its members in seats of Congress, which is the point of any political party and its philosophy. Otherwise, it is just mass theorizing. And this is not surprising, seeing that as you mentioned Amazon.com weakened itself by overreaching.
You can't be good at everything.
The non-initiation of force idea is the single core, ideal and principle of libertarianism. It is in the details of its practical application that you notice the disagreements between the Catos and Rockwells.
Is there a single uniting principle of conservatism, other than to "conserve" something? Does it matter what is being "conserved"? If not, then I would say it is not libertarians who are over-diversified.
Over-diversification, therefore, makes libertarianism weak in its ability to gain any headway in its success of seating its members in seats of Congress, which is the point of any political party and its philosophy.
"Libertarianism" is not the same thing as "the Libertarian Party". The article was not discussing the goals of a political party.
I'm a "he" fyi. If anything, libertarianism has a more specific meaning than either liberalism or conservatism. You might find the non-initiation of force to be vague, but it's at least a basic principle by which you can analyze issues against. Can you come up with a more satisfactory definition of conservatism? Adherence to traditonal values? Maybe, but traditional to whom and when? George Will and Patrick Buchanan are both considered conservatives, but they disagree on many issues. The same argument could, of course, be levelled against any ideology or religion (Catholics, Methodists and Mormons all claim to be Christian...etc.), as you'll always find people who interpret things differently.