Austrian Addiction

I recently presented an argument how Libertarians can work with the government to bring about change. Presidential candidate Badnarik believes the only way to get policy to go our way is through, and I quote, "bloodshed". No wonder the party has failed so miserably.

This is not to discount the obvious laws and media blackout that have kept the political party down, but the party is failing to produce politically feasible policy, and by politically feasible I mean a severe lack of public support. Right now party support of anything is inconsequential.

I agree that the party should never back down on its values, and should always stand up for its issues. BUT, if the purpose of this party is to bring in soldiers for a violent coup, count me out. Life in the US is not that bad.

There are a lot of people in this country that are happy with the way things are. If we plan to change it, we need to prove it to them. This means sometimes we will have to compromise.

We cannot simply eliminate welfare, however just it may be, simply because the American people have not seen the market work its magic. What's wrong with merely proposing welfare cuts? Yes, we can still identify it as stealing, we can still recognize its strain on the poor and disabled, but claim that these cuts will prove that the market can make up the difference.

Ron Paul, a republican, shares many of our Libertarian ideals and has been praised by none other than Michael Badnarik himself. The only difference between these two men is that while Badnarik is evangelizing and certainly helping the libertarian cause, he is contributing nothing politically. Paul is still preaching libertarian ideals, but he's making political strides at the same time.

If the party truly believes that violent overthrow will be the eventual answer to the federal menace, be honest about it. Otherwise they're no better than the feds.

Obviously, the libertarian movement must continue to push its message in its pure form. At the same time, I believe it is essential for us to recognise politically feasible plans that make strides toward our goals.

Karl,

I would tend to agree with you. The only thing I would want to bring attention to in your comment is simply precision of language. To often to people not hold true to the ideals you mention in the name of political strategy. The blend of ideal and policy you mention welfare "cuts" rather than abolishment in practice while supporting abolishment in theory rarely occur. It seems people parallel there policy initiatives with identicle argument. "My proposal does X which is exactly what is needed and nothing else." It's like a vested interest problem. If people could focus energy in the direction that you mention I agree liberty would be easier to accomplish.

The main problem is that lots of different people have lots of different opinions and perceptions as to what the appropriate role of liberty is or should be in society. Politics has no way of coordinating these preferences into efficient outcomes that make everyone happy without making someone unhappy. Keep up the good work Karl.

Dan