Because libertarian views are typically some flavor of anti-authoritarian, and — although for at least cosmetically different reasons — both mainstream US political parties are very much authoritarian.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-a... may be relevant to you, but I think http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/05/democra... sums up part of the issue nicely. "Because if you and your friends can parrot Marxism and get it together to capture the State, Marxism gives you: (a) money; (b) power; and probably (c) women. Whereas if you and your friends can parrot Rawlsekianism and get it together to capture the State, Rawlsekianism gives you - what? Philosophical satisfaction? So: which of these creeds would you expect to be more popular with the masses?"

Libertarian views have never had influence ever. You get it in rhetoric but rarely in practice. Rare cases of real libertarian action...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

...are met with violent government force. This won't change, ever.

First point: Wasn't the American Revolution largely about the overreaches of the British government? What about the sentiments of isolationism in the US with respect to WWI and WWII? (Apologies to non-US readers; all my examples are from US history because I'm most familiar with it.)

Second point: Even if your comment's true, you didn't answer the question -- is there a reason that "libertarian views have never had influence ever," or is it just a coincidence?

New Zealand had a libertarian revolution in the 1990s, although it's walked back a lot on that recently. One of the few cases of non-violent positive change like that.

Politicians believe in government -- generally powerful government. There is no place for a powerful, forceful, government in libertarian philosophy. Why would politicians or those who support their actions have an interest in a philosophy that is at odds with their beliefs?

> Politicians believe in government

Interesting insight. I'm thinking you're saying that people who choose a political career are a self-selected sample of people who believe government is an effective tool.

But what if there are people who are alarmed at the growth of government power, and decide to pursue a political career because they want to make stopping it their life's work? Your line of reasoning would say -- "but such people would believe that government is ineffective, and wouldn't choose a political career as the most effective way to implement the changes they believe are needed."

The problem is that I don't buy it. I also don't buy that people who've already chosen political careers will never switch their views, if the government gets repressive enough.

Political views first have to be popular with people before they are popular with the political party they are in. Libertarian views are not popular with people.

To the extent you're right, I have to ask (rhetorically) whether libertarian views are unpopular because they're disagreed with, or they're unpopular from lack of exposure.

Years ago, I worked for a company that sublet a room in our office to a friend of the boss's, with whom I had a number of long and wide-ranging conversations. In one of those discussions, he showed me an article he'd just read, about a then-recent survey of US high school students in which some 85% of them believed it was illegal to start a third party in the US political system.

I thought that statistic was disturbing enough, until I got to the article's main point: asking whether that was due to a failure of the American educational system, or a frighteningly subtle success of something else?

libertarian views are unpopular partially as a result of intensive subversion.