User talk:Leucosticte/Julie Borowski

Since I'm an anarchist, I'm completely outside of caring about the argument about whether libertarians go with third parties or try to influence the GOP, but the quote here from Borowski is very naive and wrong. The establishment of the Republican Party would much rather keep libertarians inside the GOP tent, but in ways that marginalize them. I don't say that as criticism of the GOP establishment. It's simply what is pragmatic for them. They want more numbers inside the big tent for general elections, and they know that there aren't enough libertarians to nominate a truly libertarian-leaning presidential candidate. To them, libertarians are simply a minor fringe group to be managed. Anyone who says that the establishment wants libertarians to leave the party doesn't understand party math and pragmatic thinking. I have no beef with Borowski as a person, but she has no idea what she's talking about here.
 * "Since I'm an anarchist..." Does the rest of your statement necessarily flow from that first part? I'm sure there are anarchists who ponder which party would be the best to vote for in order to bring about anarchy.


 * If one assumes that non-participation is the best way to fight the establishment, I would think it's more important to avoid participating in taxpaying than in politics, but it's like any other means of fighting the establishment: it only achieves the desired result if enough people get on board. Prison is also rather unpleasant; all other things equal, if some magical creature said "You can abolish the state by eating either these these brussels sprouts or this ice cream cone," I'm going with the latter because it's more pleasant. Nathan Larson (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2013 (MSK)
 * David, I'm sure you're right about this, but it's certainly understandable that someone might get the wrong impression from the Republican establishment. Sen. Lindsey Graham makes the case regularly for why libertarians should "get out". I suspect that, in some heavily Republican areas, the better strategy is to get rid of them, rather than struggle with them for control of "their" party. I'm sure this isn't the case elsewhere, but some states have a fairly clear battle for leadership in the party. Scott
 * What a random politician (even someone such as Graham) says in public has very little to do with what the overall establishment sees as its best interests. Graham is a nutcase with a bullhorn for a mouth, but that doesn't make him represent what the real party establishment feels, in my experience. Individuals such as Graham come and go, but the interests of the party are more cold, rational and long-term.


 * Nathan, I was only pointing out that I don't have a dog in the fight. I've been on both sides of the debate about whether minarchists should go third party or GOP. I was a state vice chair of the Alabama LP and then I spent years in the GOP, so I understand both points of view. I'm just trying to make sure that it's clear that I'm approaching the question from a point of disinterest at this point.


 * Oh, on your other point, I pay taxes because there's a gun pointed at my head. I wouldn't pay any at all if I could get away with it without consequence. But until there's a change in the social/economic situation of the world, I see no reason to sacrifice myself in some serious way that would serve no purpose, IMO. Although I once believed in the idea of causing societal change, I now believe that we're simply waiting for the right time. The best we can do is be prepared when the inevitable social and economic collapse happens. I see political activism as a waste of time, money and effort, but everyone decides for himself what's worth doing, so I don't typically argue with those who try to pursue it.


 * Well, not a gun so much as a pair of handcuffs. They TYPICALLY don't fire upon those who passively (rather than actively) resist. Arrests of victimless offenders can be a catalyst for political conversation, and inspire others to follow in those footsteps, but not always, and the costs can be high. Nathan Larson (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2013 (MSK)
 * The gun is metaphorical, but it's real, too. The details aren't really important to me. The fact is, I can be forced to obey or spend time in their jails (or be shot). I see no good to come out of doing anything other than obeying — and I only obey because of the gun, ultimately.
 * The gun and the sense of futility tend to deter one. But if it could accomplish something sufficiently useful, maybe you'd feel differently? There is a wide spectrum between the two extremes of "does no good" and "achieves everything we want". For most people it would have to be pretty far toward the "achieves everything we want" end of the spectrum before they'd consider it. Nathan Larson (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2013 (MSK)
 * I think I understand what one person can reasonably accomplish politically or socially, either through the system or through disobedience or whatever. It's not worth spending my life going down that path, in any way. The system isn't ready to change. So in the meantime, I talk about what's important to me, some of which (at times) relates to political ideas. For me, what I'm doing is the right way to go. But I don't object to others doing whatever makes sense to them.
 * Borowski is clearly out of her element in talking about this. Having been through a campaign in Virginia where literally hundreds of Republican hacks attacked us (the Libertarian Party) daily, I can say she's way off on this one.
 * I like Julie very much. I wish her many years and even more visibility than she has already achieved as a spokesperson for liberty. I do think that worrying over whether libertarians should work in the Republican Party or be active in the LP represents misplaced energy. I used to be very active in the LP and still have many friends in two states' LPs (Alabama and North Carolina). I wish them all the best, but I don't think their efforts are ever going to amount to much in terms of real-world results.


 * For me, the best course of action is to 1) prepare myself as best I can to weather the economic/political/social collapse that I believe is coming, 2) plant whatever thought seeds I can that might cause a few people to reach for libertarian rather than force-based solutions to the crisis, and 3) investigate, encourage and participate in (where possible) the development of voluntary institutions to replace the statist ones that have brought us to this point.


 * To lean on a hoary cliche, it won't matter if you're sitting in a Libertarian, Republican or Democrat deck chair when the Titanic goes down. The iceberg is dead ahead, in my opinion, and even unanimous agreement that the ship needs to be turned would be too late in coming now.