Here's the problem...
Much like the GOP has been co-opted by non-conservatives, the Libertarian party has long been co-opted by (for lack of a better term) neo-liberals...who's sole purpose is to use the party's platform to advance drug legalization.
Now I am all about ending the War on Some Drugs. This farce has been used as a vehicle to strip the basic rights of privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and property rights (read: Civil Asset Forfieture) from Americans for almost 40 years. It should be ended immediately, and all non-violent drug offenders freed from prison immediately in conjunction with that end.
The problem with the Libertarian Party, is that to a lot of the party high ups, this is the ONLY issue, and serves as the PRIMARY criteria by which they choose their candidates. Dozens of recent LP candidates have had absolutely NO small government credentials on their resume', but somehow they manage to be nominated solely based on their stance supporting legalization / end of the drug war.
A perfect example: Kevin Zeese. Does that name sound familiar? See this thread from a couple of days ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2402460/posts
Three years ago, this guy was the Libertarian Party nominee for U.S. Senate from the state of Maryland, based solely on his anti-drug war stance. The Green party (hardly small government) also gave him their nomination in the same election. He chose to run on the Green ticket.
If you look at the Libertarian Party platform, you'll see a lot of things....small, efficient government is also still there. However, like another major party we're all currently very familiar with....the so-called platform doesn't mean diddlum squat - when you look at the candidates they've been nominating. I'd hold up Bob Barr as another prime example - big government statism didn't phase him a bit when he was a drug warrior.
The party is totally out of touch with those of us who believe in liberty above all other things. That's why it basically has no base, and won't, until it is taken back by those who actually do believe in the principles of Libertarianism - which is actually better described as 'Classical Liberalism':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
An excerpt:
Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy. The ideology of the original classical liberals argued against direct democracy "for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law...classical liberals believe that "an unfettered market" is the most efficient mechanism to satisfy human needs and channel resources to their most productive uses: they "are more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government...Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
The above describes my political philosophy almost perfectly.