I mean what I quoted from the article verbatim! Indeed,liberty is not the only value; that is why advocating liberty is useless before values are changed (the author's "cart before the horse argument"). Indeed, politicians appeal to the median voter; that is because they know better than those who appeal to extremes (the author's advocacy of the "Golden Mean").
Your best-effort approach and success of the Libertarian Party (or libertarianism as a whole) are one and the same. Both doomed to disappointment as long as extremism is advocated, according to the author of the article.
All this being said, we cannot discount the fact that a good number of Libertarians feel that the Party is not supposed to be successful, since success would be diametrically opposed to what is perceived to be the anarchic nature of the LP. A convoluted combination -- political party and anarchy (the author's discussion of blind spots in otherwise brilliant discourses).
So, I continue to encourage emphasis on calm, reasoned communication with the general public, explaining why libertarianism would be to everyone's benefit. Not an easy task, but in my opinion a necessary one if we wish the LP/libertarianism to be taken seriously.
Our problem is the opposite.
We keep nominating people who are not Libertarians at all.
In 2008 our Libertarian candidate for US President was the most
Anti-Libertarian person in US History, Bob Barr, author of the Defense of
Marriage Act, DOMA, and leader of the campaign to impeach President Clinton
over a blow-job.
How could we possibly nominate a person like that, but we did!
There are many other examples, especially in New York. Libertarians also
often nominate one-issue candidates such as legalize marijuana candidates
who are against us on every other issue.
I'm among the libertarians who feel we should put the Non Aggression Principle front and center, because that's what it's really all about. However, the Larken Rose video made me wince. I think it very much *is* possible to be libertarian on some issues and not others. That's exactly what the Nolan Chart teaches most people who take the quiz -- that they are libertarian on some issues and not others. Does any human being who spends much time on this planet completely and without exception adhering to *any* philosophy 100% of the time? I have my doubts. Nobody's perfect, and nobody's all evil either. I understand that Larken Rose is seeking to get more people to become libertarians who consistently advocate and uphold the Non Aggression Principle, and I applaud his motivation, but in this instance I don't think what he's arguing is reflective of reality in its shades of grey.
Regarding the word "radical", I likewise appreciate your desire to not see libertarianism tarred with a term that many view as a pejorative. Nevertheless, I contend that this term and others like it (extremist, idealist, etc.) are important to reclaim and fight for. "Radical" does not actually mean anything negative -- all it essentially means is "something very different than the status quo". If the status quo is very bad, then radical change is both good and necessary! As Krishnamurti said, it is not a sign of good health to be well adjusted to a sick system!
If we allow people who are very statist, or those half-hearted reformers who favor tinkering around the edges rather than striking at the root, to denigrate words like "radical" and "extreme" in the public consciousness, we put advocates of freedom at a disadvantage by putting truth on the side of our opponents, since any proposal for sweeping change can *accurately* be described in such terms, by definition!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))