Originally Posted by Undertoad

Now if Paul is smart he will not argue with any of the above. It makes perfect sense in every way and is an accurate description.

But it doesn't make sense at all as a strategy.

The LP in fact acts as a net negative to the "liberty cause". It is a poor advocate for its own "philosophy". Why is that?

A) It is a poor substitute for a philosophy, even a political philosophy. Real philosophies address much more than the non-aggression principle addresses. For example, the NAP doesn't directly address the question of abortion, national boundaries, etc. Real, hard political issues and the NAP provides no guidance at all. Maybe a framework but no guidance, ya follow?

B) As a principle, it is so VAGUE that it has been interpreted to mean wildly different things. Some feel it permits an activist foreign policy, some don't. Some feel it requires 100% anarcho-capitalism, some don't. Some feel it must be implemented entirely overnight - no matter what the result - some feel it can be gradually rolled in. Some feel it permits modern environmentalism, some don't. Is this any way to run a political party?

C) The utter failure of the LP as a political engine is seen as a failure of the movement. Although polls show a good quarter to third of people are generally libertarian in nature, the party's 0.5-1% results delegitimize the entire movement. With all due respect to our present company, there are more transsexuals in the US than there are LP members. Of course, the transsexuals have an even harsher core entrance requirement.

D) Some people are just not good public advocates and should not be encouraged to head out into the public square to make their points. In the case of the LP, this is roughly half the candidates. They are not "crisp advocates for the liberty cause". They are "loony whack jobs attracted to a contrarian movement". People hear them and freeze in fear. This delegitimizes the entire liberty movement.

I could go on.

Now many thinkers, such as the Objectivists, see that the LP is promoting a competing philosophy and not a political party and refuse to become involved with it. What's that you say? The Objectivists are not Libertarians? But WTF? They can't possibly be more closely aligned, right?

The LP is a net negative to the liberty movement. Now that you've read it here, think about that, while you look at what happens over the next few years. Watch what you see. It's not only the Objectivists. Does CATO work with the LP? Never! Why does political success happen only to people such as Ron Paul, Gale Norton, etc. after they LEAVE the LP? Because the LP is a net negative.