yes. shifting definitions or changing definitions are the tools of charlatans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAWr98im...

I think if you read the article clearly, they are not committed to individual liberty. They are committed to utilitarianism. I have noticed this in the Von Mises group

So much for CATO... I so tire of the absconding of language, of labels, terminology. The deliberate misuse and latching on to words and twisting their meaning always means obfuscation of truth. It makes it most difficult to clearly express one's self. It is a tool of the dishonest. It was the same for the Hamiltonian's that called themselves federalists forcing the Jeffersonian's to adopt the anti-federalist label in order to make distinction. The distortions are deliberate. When one moniker becomes less palatable or less popular because you are unmasked, elude discovery of true intent by pilfering another... Liberal used to be good, then the statists adopted and destroyed it. Now they are progressives... and on it goes. The Nationalist, statists must cover their tracks by trickery, infiltrating and blurring. Dastardly and deceitful. Why can't those that wish to rule just be honest? Because too many of us would see them for the tyrants they are! Lust ut dominor!

Now we must discern between the divisions of Libertarians even more so.

Let me fix that for you.

Not so. Libertarians share a commitment to individual liberty, but vary in their philosophical backgrounds, depth of philosophical knowledge and commitment to reason.

If Objectivists were the only advocates of freedom in the political arena, the liberty movement would be much smaller and much less influential.

I have a very different take on this matter. I am willing to compromise (to a rather extreme degree) in order to gain some political leverage. I think that the politicians who have switched from being explicitly Libertarian to naming themselves Republican (or, potentially, Democrat) are on the right track: the Libertarian party is a political non-entity and is likely to remain so for a long time. We need some sort of real-world incremental gains against the encroachment of socialism/communism in order to promote an agenda that places value on the individual.

I think that we can be righteous and ineffectual or we can compromise and make incremental gains. Perhaps we can change the minds of people who have only heard of 'social justice' and never had anyone say to them 'you have value for your own sake - but you must stand up and claim it'...but we have to be visible to these people first. The path to that is compromise like hell and win a bunch o'elections.

Sigh.

Jan

I liked the comparison of early libertarians to Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin. They were three of my role models.

Clint Eastwood: "Everybody leaves everybody else alone."

Jan,
perhaps we've had too many people compromising because like a Cruz or Paul standing for principles makes a clear difference. Romney did not win by getting closer to democrats. That said, certainly there will be specific political issues where compromise needs to happen. NOT losing rights, however
k

excellent points

this comment got more points than my post!

see my comment above. You can compromise on a specific political issue. But ou cannot compromise on your underlying philosophy

good points. However, Rawls is more of a socialist perversion of libertarianism than an attempt by socialists to move towards freedom. You can erode freedom by small bits and half-truths but not the reverse.

I believe it is because Libertarians attempt to short cut philosophy. For instance, reason is not important to them. They believe you can have a free society without the metaphysics and epistemology of reason.

Well....there goes the neighborhood.
A.R. was right when she didn't want any association with Libertarianism. Instead of evolving into a political entity that an Objectivist could vote with, it is instead, devolving into the very thing it was created to overthrow. Too bad.

I don't know, but there was a rift between CATO and Koch a couple of years ago http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...

Hear hear

Dangerous. Very dangerous. This has nothing to do with protecting individual rights, and more to do with a guaranteed result. Rights and guaranteed results are incompatible.

Sounds like CATO has failed in its reason for existence... I just received something in the mail to join; I'm extremely grateful I read this before I chucked my hard-earned money into what has apparently become a well-camouflaged shill for looter values. Bah Humbug!.

I meant to say Professor McCaskey

It seems like it's saying: "We're at risk from these moderate libertarians. If their movement keeps growing, there will be so many of them that we'll find a country where there is no strong party promoting limiting executive power as the Whigs do or limiting intrusiveness and size of gov't as the pure Libertarians do. If we don't stop these moderates, we'll be in a world of primarily Democrats and Republicans who act like they hate each other but agree that gov't should be large and intrusive-- a scary thought."

Although I don’t agree with the Rawlsian libertarians, their presence on the philosophical and political scene doesn’t really bother me. Any system of ideas diffusing throughout a culture will tend to spawn variants and become less monolithic as time goes on - it’s a natural process. Ayn Rand’s influence is still very much with us and continues to grow. At least four viable Republican presidential hopefuls have cited her as a major influence on their values and their vision for America. This would have been unthinkable a mere decade or two ago.

+

I think you are too kind. It is nonsense on stilts