Benhazin (Khary Sudan) wrote:
B) With Lib.s hardly able to be elected dog catcher we can argue like medieval monks about how many angels can dance on the head of a pen. It's dumb. (B
You have to distinguish between 1) radicals arguing that the LP must dogmatically promote the One True Answer to how many angels can dance on the head of a pen, and 2) inclusivists arguing that reasonable Libertarian candidates can disagree on the precise answer and still be effective messengers for liberty. You also have to distinguish between A) the arguments that inclusivists use to defend candidates against such radicals, and B) the message that inclusivists say candidates should pitch to voters.
B) Einstein was a hell of a mathmatician but he did not and could not build an atomic bomb. That took Oppenhiemer and Teller. Enough of the mad scientist-philosophers and their theories. We need practical application of hard science. (B
Right, and the discipline of political economy has become much more of a science in the decades since the worldview that became LP dogma was etched in stone by Rand and Rothbard in the 1950s. At least Oppenheimer and Teller were working from E=mc^2. We're stuck with A=A and personal secession. You can't even build a firecracker from that, much less build anything powerful enough to bring down the nanny state.
B) We need political engineers and technicians who can win the hearts and minds of our citizens. (B
And we need to stop taping a bullseye on their back that says things like "privatize all streets and pipes" and "stop enforcing all tax laws tomorrow".
