Before I go any further:
Is it safe to say I can just go off this:
Again, “the truth of that assumption is not obvious to me.” I suppose if you want to play semantics and dwell on what “spread of ideas” means, you could argue that. But if you want to honestly talk about what matters, it is the adoption, and more specifically, the implementation of those ideas. I honestly could not give a shit whether people identified as libertarian, or even knew or understood the ideas of liberty…so long as those principles were abided by. That is what is important.
And if you ask me, the most effective and efficient (aka fastest) way to have these ideas adopted and implemented is to have an “irate, tireless minority” active in rolling back the institutions of big government…as “knowledge without action is empty and useless.” Simply “spreading ideas” is not going to do much to affect change. The change comes when people take that knowledge and do something about it. And the fastest way to leverage the knowledge of that minority is to have them active in the public sphere.
For one thing, you’re more visible. You’ve got a bigger microphone. And you’ve got more respect. People will listen to a Congressman over some Joe. Like it or not, that’s how it is. Even lowly House Representatives get on television. Therefore, being active in the arena makes it more likely that people will not only listen to what you have to say, but consider it. More people will hear what you say, and they are more likely to take it with greater and more serious weight…and therefore you have a greater ability to reach people with those ideas.
That’s number one. You’re in a better position to spread the ideas in the first place. Number two is, you are actually in a position to actively change something with those ideas in mind. If you’re a local county clerk, or a mayor, or a legislator…your actions can directly influence the growth of government. Gary Johnson vetoed over 750 pieces of statewide legislation. All by himself. That is “making a difference.”
Sure, you could just say “ah politics is no good, that institution shouldn’t even be there in the first place” and go around trying to get people to agree with you, without ever actually trying to do something about it yourself. And yes, it’s theoretically possible, that over time, if you get enough people to agree more and more that government interference is unnecessary, that people would become less and less interested in government doing things and eventually it would just “die out” because no one would vote and no one would run for any office, and everyone would just be largely libertarian and not be insistent that the government do this and do that.
But in my opinion that is lazy and incredibly naive. There is no possible way you would be able to convince enough people of even minarchism (let alone anarchism) to where the state would just shrink through basically indifference and attrition. There is just far too much power to be had, and far too much to be gained from political entrepreneurship. If you limit the movement of liberty to just “spreading ideas”, it will go nowhere.
Obviously the ideas are the core piece. You need the ideas if you’re going to have anything else. And those ideas have to be communicated. But just look at where this movement came from. A lowly House Representative, speaking about it and voting it and introducing it in legislation. Yes the education is important. But my point is the change is going to come from what these educated people do with that knowledge. And currently they seem to be doing the wise thing…that is, moving into positions of influence.
You can affect change much faster and more efficiently if the people with the knowledge are active and effective at utilizing the system to their advantage. Again, do you really believe Ron Paul could have had anywhere near the influence he’s had, and would be where he is now, at the helm of a revolution, if he had just stayed an obstetrician? The ideas have spread the way they have in large part because of the position Paul held. Sure organizations like the LvMI have been there to offer intellectual support and a refuge of resources and camaraderie for people of the persuasion…but where did all these people get the idea to start searching for this information in the first place?
Where did these libertarians who are taking over local townships and county seats and the like get the motivation and the inspiration and the belief that they could make a difference (and the confidence that they were right and the established powers were wrong)?
I think you can unequivocally say that largely comes from Ron Paul. And I can pretty much guarantee Ron Paul would have been at most only a little more influential had he stayed in the Libertarian Party than if he stayed out of politics all together.
So my point is, you’re concerned about just “spreading the ideas”. I’m more worried about how to get those ideas adopted and implemented. And as the article articulates quite well, the 3rd party route is a losing strategy for doing this. Almost as ineffective and meaningless as simply trying to convince people that government is illegitimate so they shouldn’t be voting, shouldn’t run for office, shouldn’t pay their taxes, and should defend themselves if agents of the state start coming to collect.
Also:
Define “effective”,
For the purposes of this thread: concrete results from a non mainstream political position, groups, or aspirations adopted and / or accepted by the mainstream, particularly in relation to the two major parties
- Concrete Results: Verifiable results gained by the goals of the political platform of the political ideology in question. A secondary desirable trait would be the results would be associated with said political ideology.
1) The libertarian message hasn’t been a part of the Republican platform since…well, ever. I don’t understand where you’re getting the idea that they are the same, and thus requiring a “split”.
Wether or not that is true isn’t my point at all. My point is Ron Paul is in the Republican Party and there are growing liberterian sentiments and sympathies in America in general - prehaps due to Paul’s location (as a major GOP canidate), and some other cultural factors there is now a (relative to the past) a strong (stronger) liberterian influence in the GOP.
I don’t know (meaning I have no clue) if that will hold or not - nor do I know if it will or will not split, or if a split is desirable. This is because, as I have already stated I am in no position to asess that situation. I am saying a split would not be surprising - and if it happened, I would imagine those involved would have enough sense to do it because it is their most obvious choice as the best and most practicle thing to do.
I do not see a split as “inevitable”, good, or bad - it is just to be a tool that can and has been used in the past by political outsiders. It isn’t inherently wrong, counter productive, or stupid. That’s it - I can’t defend it - just as I can’t defend “Hijack the Republican Party here and now” as the best option - as I have no qualification to do so (this was my first point). If the Republican Party is ripe for taking, it will probably be done in a way closer to what you are saying.
However, I can say as an interesting historical note: many of the more radical inner transformations of the two main political parties coincide after a start up third party gains some steam. I don’t see how this can not be ruled out as a complete non option.
