You: Not working is defined here as not winning elections. But the idea of the founders of the Libertarian party was to use it as more as an educational tool. We still need far more people to become real libertarians before there is any hope of any meaningful change.

And just how successful has the LP been as a “educational tool” in the past 30 years or so ? Not very much, I would argue. If I am going to give my support to an organization designed to educate the public on the libertarian point of view on political issues, I would go to the Cato Institute long before I’d ever consider the LP.

Me: “I haven’t voted Libertarian in years, and don’t intend to waste my vote again.”

You: Oh, so you believe your one vote will decide some election?

No, I just don’t choose to provide support to pointless endeavours like the LP

I’d sure like to hear a couple of examples where this is the case.

A disgrace.

” We did lose on the pledge issue, but the vote was much closer than the last time this came up.”

Soon we will have Libertarians who officially favor the initiation of force!

“Fringe politics does not work in the United States. A political party must appeal to a plurality of voters (effectively, at least 40%) in some districts in order to win elections.”

Not working is defined here as not winning elections. But the idea of the founders of the Libertarian party was to use it as more as an educational tool. We still need far more people to become real libertarians before there is any hope of any meaningful change.

And if you are against fringe politics, the Republicans are always taking new members.

“The fact that candidates that support the LRC agenda were rejected by Libertarian Party members only serves to demonstrate how out-of-touch the Libertarian Party is with reality.”

No, the fact that many Libertarians still think solid principles are more important than (maybe) winning a few extra votes speaks well of them. Those people who think “libertarianism” lite is going to get a political majority in the near future are the unrealistic ones. People can get half assed “pseudo-libertarianism” from the major parties.

“The Libertarian Reform Caucus is working to reform the Libertarian Party, to turn it into an effective tool for increasing liberty.”

No, it’s watering down principles, welcoming umnprincipled people who support aggression and trying to be a variation on Republicanism.

“Appealing to the tiny minority of freedom-lovers who want no government at all, or something very close to that, is a recipe for failure.”

Yes, we should appeal to the “freedom lovers” who support drug prohibition, foreign intervention, the draft, illegal abortion, the war in Iraq, taxes, and maybe tiny reductions in the size of the state . Maybe we can appeal to rapists, pickpockets and child abusers as well.

“principles are fine and good, but sometimes they don’t actually make sense in the real world.”

Yes, not using agression against people makes no sense in the real world. Rape, theft and murder make sense.

“I haven’t voted Libertarian in years, and don’t intend to waste my vote again.”

Oh, so you believe your one vote will decide some election?

principles are fine and good, but sometimes they don’t actually make sense in the real world.

The LP and the anarcho-capitalists share in common a much more internally consistent political philosophy, but one that doesn’t work

The LP as it has existed up until now is a political nonentity. I haven’t voted Libertarian in years, and don’t intend to waste my vote again.

I respect your choice to stick to your principles, but I don’t think it will ever lead to anything meaningful.

My apologies, then. The Reason piece made it seem otherwise. Any additional details would be appreciated.

We did lose on the pledge issue, but the vote was much closer than the last time this came up.