You are clearly NOT a libertarian, if you think that is a first principle -- or any principle -- of the ideology. You've mistaken populism (and a rather knee-jerk version thereof) for libertarianism; a self-misidentification so incoherent that I'm almost too stunned to respond. But only almost.
The first principle of libertarianism is the maximization of individual liberty. Libertarians believe that individuals (and voluntary associations of individuals) ought to have complete freedom of choice so long as their actions do not impinge on the liberties of other individuals. Thus libertarians are all about REFUSING to characterize any valid exercise of liberty as "hypocrisy".
And thus libertarians are also all about distinguishing between just law and unjust law based on whether the principle of liberty is therein protected and furthered, or restricted and usurped. Yet here you are actively defending law which restricts liberty; in this case the use of voluntarily donated private funds in furthering the political advocacy of the donors.
My point is this: LAW MUST BE APPLIED TO EVERYONE, EQUALLY. IF NOT, THE HELL WITH THE LAW!
But you do not choose, "the hell with the law," and instead insist that the law be applied simply because the law managed to make it into the code. IOW you actively refuse to make the distinction between just and unjust, valid and invalid law, which is central to libertarianism. Instead you hold that the law is the law is the law, and must be applied. This is authoritarism; the polar opposite of the ideology you claim for yourself.
In addition you ignore the point I made previously. That not only is the law unjust in the first place but, even were we to grant it valid, it was applied unjustly.
It is central to EVERY philosophy of liberalism (i.e. libertarianism, conservatism and non-radical, center-left liberalism all included) that laws must be predictable. Law must be written and applied such that all citizens can know in advance what actions will be in violation of law. That principle was outrageously violated in this instance. There was no way in hell that any reasonable individual could have predicted in advance that the channeling of these political donations would be considered "money laundering". Even the prosecutors weren't able to predict that, instead changing the charges when the original indictment failed!
If the law can be arbitrarily reconstrued in such fashion to ensnare a targeted individual, then it can potentially envelop in criminality ANY exercise of liberty. When that happens the law, which is supposed to be the guarantor of liberty, instead becomes the servant of tyranny.
HEY! I’M NOT DEFENDING THE LAW! ALL I’M SAYING IS THIS, IF DELAY BROKE A LAW OF THE LAND ... HE MUST SUFFER. Who cares about that shitty law, anyway? Now. Do the same with other corrupt politicians.
Of course, libertarianism by its name means that libertarians like me seek freedom to live the way they want it, as long as their freedom don’t infringe/curtail/hurt the freedom of others.
Most of all, we are for limited government, which is at least closer to “no government at all”.
Democratic Party was originally the house of the libertarians. Not anymore. Socialists and communist took over that Party. What a shame! Many libertarians are anti-socialist. Nowadays, we find Republicanism and conservatism as more friendly to our way of thoughts, than socialism.
Yes. Libertarians hate hypocrites. Normally, we swing vote depending on the level of hypocrisy of the R or D nominee.
In the last election, many libertarians still voted for Obama because the R nominee was a certified hypocrite. We were cool with Sarah but that’s not enought to counter the poison that was John McCain.
But not anymore. Obama is the biggest hypocritical President ever. More hypocrite than big-government Nixon himself. Before, Obama had a clean card with regards to DC corruption. Now, he’s the leader of all corrupt men in DC.
Notes about libertarianism:
1. We are not “dogmatic’. We hate “ideologues”. I used the word “principle” but it’s inadequate. Libertarianism is more of a psyche.
2. We are free people.
3. We hate the elite people in the government.
4. We kick a government official’s ass. Especially if proven “guilty”. Delay fits that.
Modern example of a libertarian: MUSE’s lead vocalist Matt Bellamy. Listen to Muse latest album: RESISTANCE! The song “uprising” is kinda cool to me! I’ve been listening to that when I went to vote last November. But Bellamy is just one example - he’s a Geoist, but I’m anti-tax. Being “free” makes libertarians too difficult to define in terms of “ideologue”.
[Sadly: We really hate bible-thumpers! But we admire and cherish those Christians who really follow Christ, a true Servant-Leader and “slow in judgment”, like what he did to Mary Magdalene*, right?]
*Magdalene, for me, represents the common people. Delay, on the other hand, is a typical Pharisee. Sorry! Even Christ lashed out at the Pharisees.