ok. well I think i have the various anarchists types now under my belt. I think many of them, I'm thinking of the anti-authority anti-globalist type protestors today, are confused themselves as to exactly what they are for or against and why.
"Early in his life he called for weakening the state, later in life he favored its strengthening, as the best means to move forward."
Have never heard this before. Can you elaborate?
"For example, the number one strategy in use with in the LP today is to hide the LP principles so as to better reach out to conservatives."
IHMO they are doing almost the opposite. (although I guess it depends on perspective) Polling MUST show that there is a huge demand for much more limited government then the Bloated Republicans are for, but with a strong military and foreign policy. Yet their Presidential Candidate was against the Iraq war and danced around conspiratorial 9/11 theories and blamed American for meddling in the Middle East etc.. Sounded almost like Michael Moore... And why do they keep bringing up this kookiness about a silver/gold standard? That has no place in politics and is junk economics anyway - so in that case I can at least commend them for sticking to principle, as some really seem to believe a silver/gold standard etc... is that right thing.
If they had a charismatic standard bearer, someone to really unite the party, and a sensible, comprehensive blueprint of what they believe and how they can achieve it, I think over time (20 years) they could actually become the majority party in America (if the Republicans don't steal their popular ideas first). I think the admittedly diverse factions in the lib party should 'settle' around a few core principles which they could build a foundation on and ignore some of the other minor more controversial issues.
In as far a the two Marxes, I see no reason to strain my memory on it, as it was not actually necessary to the point that making the government weaker or stronger, in advancing a political philosophy is a matter of strategy and not philosophy.
In as far as Libertarian principles go, opposition to the Iraq war, claims of a 9/11 conspiracy, want for a return to a silver/gold standard, are positions that can be independly argued without mention of principle. There are far more conservatives holding these views than libertarians. The old conservative movement may not be as vocal as it once was, but they are still around, and by far out number libertarians. Free Republic has banned more of them than it has libertarians. At any rate, a close look at the so called libertarian arguments relating to any of these issues will show most all of the arguments being made are with explanations that do not include libertarian principles.
I more than agree that the LP needs a "sensible, comprehensive blueprint of what they believe and how they can achieve it." But not just one. The LP needs several competing blueprints. I do not agree however that the "diverse factions in the" LP "should 'settle' around a few core principles which they could build a foundation on and ignore some of the other minor more controversial issues." First off the LP already has a core principle on which a foundation has already been built. Controversial issues are the fuel that generates the internal competition necessary for a movement to dynamically grow.
In as far as a "charismatic standard bearer" goes, the LP should never put its trust in people. As a self described party of principle, ideas and information is where the party should put its trust. Personality politics is always dangerous to both peace and liberty.
Finally, the notion of becoming a majority party in America is equally dangerous to both the Libertarian Party, as well as the nation as a whole. For the LP, at this time in its current stage of development, such thoughts are completely out of touch with political reality. Attempts to advance such notions will result in the LP increasingly compromising its principles as it enlarges itself with losers and complainers from the other parties. Such people bring with them a want for revenge against their prior party affiliations, while having little or no concern for the principles on which the party of principles was built. Besides, the LP has always been about education and bringing about a libertarian society. For the Libertarian, it does not matter if its done by Republicans or Democrats. Its Libertarianism we want. Not a big powerful party for the sake of a party. If the LP in the future becomes the vehicle of change at the election polls, fine. But this should never be our primary goal.
Additionally, thoughts of becoming a major party has started to materialize the LP as a spoiler party. Worse, it has manipulated us on to the line, as a Democratic Party cavalry unit specializing in rear area operations behind the the Republican Party defense lines. If this continues, the Democratic Party is going to increasingly win elections, and when they don't the winning republicans will be more and more like them. That will make the LP a danger to the entire nation, with out it ever reaching 15% popularity.