Political parties are bourgeois institutions that only work in favor of the state and it's corporate sponsors. To support a party in the U.S is counter-productive, especially since the U.S is a two-party state anyway, proving that there is no real democracy apart from the puppet show that comes by every four years. They're inefficient and outdated forms of control, as with capitalism, for they only support the hierarchy in question. Real democracy belongs to the people, not puppet representatives.
Because "Libertarianism" is a form of socialism, similar to that of anarcho-syndicalism. The term was first used by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque to describe his political beliefs (or libertaire as it's said in the French language) in a letter he wrote to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857. The term "Libertarian" itself has long associated itself with anarchist-communists across Europe and the Americas.
The "Conservative Libertarian" that Schemer claims to be is a ironic misuse of the word. The Libertarian Party only adopted the name when they founded their party in the 1960's, almost a 100 years later. The "libertarianism" Schemer preaches religiously is mirrored only to another form of corporate fascism with survivalist tendencies. This isn't the first time the right-wing have adopted leftist terminology in order to alienate and obtain followers. "National Socialism" and "Anarcho-Capitalism" are other unfortunate doublethink terms that are thrown about with false meaning by the bourgeoisie.
The name is a bit of a joke. The organizations lobbying for increased copyright, patent, etc laws tend to portray all opposition to them as being just "pirates", so some of the people opposing increased copyright took the name and ran with it.
It varies just like anything with the word "socialism" in it does. It could be watered-down communism or just democracy in places other than the main government.
Personally, I believe in economic democracy over centralism, which means instead of corporate leaders making the big decisions, the stakeholders would. This means the employees, customers, and the public at large could decide things like means of production, and supply and demand. Instead of corporate leaders making choices that may destroy jobs, give them excessive amounts of wealth or otherwise be unethical, the public would decide what is best for the company based on what it needs, and what they need. I support a similar ideal for workers - instead of a company deciding things like means of production and labor division, the workers as a whole would.
DemSoc is what liberalism isn't, economically. No private property (not to be confused with personal property), no capitalism, no hierarchy and social classes. The public would be free to know exactly what is happening in the corporates and firms around them.