We need someone in the cab to take off the throttle and begin putting the brakes on the ‘tyranny train’ now. Once we get it stopped we can begin arguing about how far to back it up.

This itself strikes me as a call to tyranny. Talk of ‘the masses’ and ‘someone in the cab’ seem fairly straightforward admissions that we do, in fact, think we can govern ‘the masses’ better than others.

Well, we cannot. The ONLY way to stop tyranny is with the willing and conscious participation of people who are prepared to take charge of their own governance in a meaningful way. anything else is just a change of masters.

It’s precisely this air of “This is a CRISI! No time for things like education and willing participation!! We need to TAKE OVER! And Then we’ll make everyone free!” that represents the greatest danger to revolution. Letting ourselves be stampeded by this sort of argument falls right inot the hands of tyrants and want-to-be tyrants.

The closer to real tyranny we are the more pressing the need for education is. An uneducated people WILL be tyrannized; people who have understanding will not let themselves be. We need to educate – ourselves and others – while we are still free to do so.

Changing hearts and minds with real education (primarily the education in how to think critically) is the only real revolutionary force that cannot be corrupted.

We need someone in the cab to take off the throttle and begin putting the brakes on the ‘tyranny train’ now. Once we get it stopped we can begin arguing about how far to back it up.

O.W.

My good friend Susan Hogarth: The point of a political party isn’t simply to ‘win elections’. It is to place representatives of that party in office (which little fact someone needs to tell LNC representative and Republican fundraiser Bob Barr, by the way).

George: We need to do both. And you somewhat need to do them at the same time. See my book “Stand Up for Liberty!” available for free on the http://www.cmlc.org web site.

Quite honestly, I don’t even think we’ll achieve minarchism in my life-time.

We won’t. We had the closest thing to minarchism 200 years ago but have digressed into a full-blown fascist police state ever since…

Certainly. Certainly.

I don’t expect that we will achieve anarchism in my life-time, so the whole question of anarchism is a moot one for me—at least politically. Philosophically, I very much enjoy discussing the topic.

Quite honestly, I don’t even think we’ll achieve minarchism in my life-time. But I do think we can make progress, can move ourselves in the right direction, and that’s my only political goal.

I haven’t read this whole thread, and don’t have time to right now, but this one looks interesting. I hope I remember to come back to it.

Cheers,
Alex Peak

The point of a political party isn’t simply to ‘win elections’. It is to place representatives of that party in office (which little fact someone needs to tell LNC representative and Republican fundraiser Bob Barr, by the way).

In order to win elections, we Libertarians must have the support of people for the things we represent. In order to have their support, we have to educate them about what we in fact do represent.

There are no shortcuts. This is a war of ideas, not a series of silly battles.

A political party is an organization that is bent on winning elections

So are the Repugs and Dems… why don’t you go join them if you strive to be just like them?

Why don’t the anarchists in the LP just join the radical caucus in the LP and just shut the hell up.

Why don’t the reformists in the LP just join the retard caucus in the LP and just shut the hell up.

You write:

“Fair enough. But if Restore 04 loses by a sound margin we will then have a consensus in the other direction.”

Not that I can tell.

The only “moderate” platform I’ve seen put forth is my own suggested “World’s Smallest Political Platform,” and it seems to have very little support. So little, in fact, that I don’t anticipate even trying to bring it to the floor for consideration.

The 2004 platform was pretty radical. The purported follow-on Restoration Caucus drafts are pretty radical. The “Pure Principles” draft under consideration by the platform committee was reasonably radical. I haven’t kept up with where that has gone on to at the latest, though.

There are things I didn’t like in all of those platforms. There are things I do like in all of those platforms. Hell, I like the marriage plank in the 2006 platform.

I suspect that the 2008 platform will be reasonably radical. I don’t expect there to be anything in the 2008 platform that would make me run screaming away from the LP.

More importantly, I’ve never seen ever hold their tongue in the LP, so this accord must have been dead a long time ago.