Here, I will make the case that the whole point of Ron Swanson-the-character (as played in Parks and Recreation) is to discredit libertarianism, by creating a propagandistic, vulgar and venal narrative of libertarians and libertarian ideas.

The writers of the show create this stereotype of incompetence, hypocrisy, complete lack or contradiction of principles, unempathetic selfishness and malice. Then, on top of that, they have the stereotype be played by a goofy character that nobody would take seriously. Then, on top of that, they have the character utter all the stereotypical false arguments that ignorant people generally (but falsely) ascribe to libertarians. To top all of that off, not only is this cardboard stereotype sold as a "libertarian", libertarian ideas themselves are portrayed in the absolute worst and most unprincipled possible way too.

(If you're having trouble visualizing this, pretend for a second that Parks and Recreation is actually written by creationists, that it is set in a biochemical lab, and that Ron Swanson is an evolution defender. Do you think that the writers of the show would portray the facts accurately? Or is it more likely that they would use the character to take constant pot shots at evolution?)

The narrative "works" insofar as the average TV-viewing slob who watches this show, will mostly get his conclusions and stereotypes from the shows he watches. Thus, he will hear "I am a libertarian" from a person, and he will immediately jump to mentally and emotionally associate that person with Ron Swanson, very effectively suspending rational thought on the spot, and making it almost impossible to have a serious conversation about libertarian ideas with him. It's a double whammy -- when any of these average people hear any libertarian idea, they will already have a mental "file" on the (venal) stereotype of the "libertarian", and they will already have their "own" (false) conclusions on the idea itself.

Of course, this result is not really a conscious and deliberate conspiracy on the part of the writers; it's just a byproduct of the writers' own cultural malicious stereotypes and prejudices.

In this sense, this TV show is no different from TV shows from a few decades ago that planted the "ching chong ding dong" stereotype of Asians in the American collective mind, or the TV show HOUSE planting the idea that atheists must be miserable or flawed in some way.

Funny how one hour of dumb entertainment a day can completely counteract all the efforts invested by libertarian thinkers.
But well, the media had that one figured out a long time ago. And this is why writing more papers or making more logical arguments won't work -- all the people who could conceivably be persuaded that way, will have already been "inoculated" against ideas that just might change their mind, if they gave them a second's thought.

Why can't we have nice things? Because "ooohhh, libertarians, ching chong ding dong gummint!".