Romanticizing the Past

It is unwise for advocates of individual liberty to romanticize the past as if it had been some kind of "Golden Age of Individual Liberty", at least not when speaking before women and blacks. And come to think of it, not when speaking before white males, either. And gays. It is true that Americans have less liberty today than in yesteryear with regard to taxation, but Americans have more freedom today than before in other areas, such as with regard to sexual freedom and rights for women and racial minorities. Freedom will never be there in some kind of "pure" form. A more prudent attititude to take would be to assume that there never has been and never will be a "Golden Age of Individual Liberty" and to advocate policies for their effect in the here and now.

Rush Limbaugh and Privacy

Rush Limbaugh is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation involving his alleged "doctor-shopping." The prosecution would like to get his medical records to prove their case. To stop them, Rush Limbaugh has raised the issue of his “right to privacy”. For a conservative to talk about a “right to privacy”, especially with regard to alleged illegal drug use, is truly ironic.

Paradigms: Agreement/Disagreement versus Obedience/Disobedience

A person is most likely to vote for a candidate whose ideas they agree with. Yet radical libertarians do not accept agreement as a rationale for voting for an LP candidate. For if a person accepts the idea that a person can agree with libertarian thought, then that person must also accept the idea that people can disagree with libertarian thought. This is something radical libertarians do not accept. To their way of thinking, the one true ideology is either to be obeyed or disobeyed, but it is never to be agreed or disagreed with. They do not approach politics within the agreement/disagreement paradigm. So radical libertarian write as if there existed unanimity amongst the people. The voters like having the freedom to disagree, so they respond to this attitude with a NO.

Sentiments and Temperament

A moderate libertarian believes that life in the U.S. is not as good as it could be. A radical libertarian believes that life in the U.S. is awful. The voters will identify with the people whose sentiments and temperament most closely match theirs.

I Believe in Democracy. Do You?

You are a democrat if you believe that people will always disagree as to what the law should be, that the violence that can come from this disagreement is undesirable, and that competitive elections are a peaceful way of managing this disagreement. You are an opponent of democracy if you believe either a) that the source of law is not from the minds of human beings such that what the law should be is not to be determined by human beings or b) that the law can be determined by human beings and that unanimous agreement as to what the law should be can be achieved by removing from society the source of disagreement thereby removing disagreement from society.

Private Property Initiates Force

The cornerstone of radical libertarian thinking is the idea that private property does not initiate force. Consequently, the radical libertarian believes that he or she can simultaneously believe in private property while opposing the initiation of force. But since private property does in fact initiate force, radical libertarianism must either be rejected or at least be grounded on some other principle.

Radical Libertarians: Infantile

Radical libertarians do not believe in converting people or winning votes; they just believe in fighting the state. They have the level of maturity of the toddler who stays at home each day with his stay-at-home mother. No complex interactions between humans are involved; therefore, no deep consideration of their coordination is necessary. The child's entire universe lies within the confines of the home. The thing the child is fighting is his mother (the state), who forces him to take naps and stay out of the curtains.