Words don't make libertarians – actions do. The Dread Pirate Roberts may have talked like a libertarian, but he acted like a thug.
Don't call it "Cyber-libertarianism" when it's only "cyber-drug-dealing".
Don't call it "Cyber-libertarianism" when it's only "cyber-drug-dealing".
Also, please don't follow the Wikipedia link motif. It's extremely trite. If you have a point to make, please use your own words. As you start typing, you may even get a chance to re-examine your own thoughts (I always do).
I support neither drugs, libertarianism nor the Silk Road, but I don't like to see people judging who can or can't be a libertarian based on their own moral preconceptions. The only thing that matters in the definition is how much the individual in question has furthered the goal of more liberty.
I am judging him according to the same principles he said to defend, since he acted exactly like someone who didn't care about them, and was only interested in his personal monetary benefit - even if that meant torturing and murdering others.
Unless you postulate that "He was defending the Liberty of people to say one thing and do the other, regardless of any laws". Then I would have to agree with you.
I'm not saying libertarianism has the same flaw (though personally I think it's a recipe for neo-feudalism) but it does rather complicate the idea of a strict definition for a political group.