Anarchy is not an ideal and not a long term goal for civilization. A wistful willing to settle for a limited government -- which the LP has no idea how to achieve -- while waiting for anarchy to "repeal" it illustrates once again the philosophical corruption and confusion in the LP among its many contradictions.

Rejecting the Libertarian Party as a fringe party full of inept kooks incapable of winning, affecting public policy or even maintaining a consistent position in favor of rational individualism is not "disingenuous".

As I delve deeper, I do come to the conclusion that I have more to learn in the subjects of anarchism/objectivism/minarchism/autarchism before I ought to be arguing for or against any of these systems, but nevertheless, our interaction in this subject matter may help point me in better directions for my search of truth. Your help is greatly appreciated ewv

ewv, I could infer that anarchism is a type of freedom for man, one that need not be achieved by the means of force, but it could not be achieved overnight either. In fact, an individual's insistence to remove the various unsanctioned institutions of government in society today could be perceived as an anarchist viewpoint, especially to those of the perspective of liberals/progressives. Because anarchism wants no government intervention in the lives of men, does not mean it promotes violence in its place, but then again, the marxists would say the same thing about communism, and we have the evidence of how that all played out. I've been reading the machinery of freedom, where a framework is laid out to set mankind on the path towards privatization of all government institutions, where the free market is the deciding factor in how big or small these institutions ought to be as governed by private citizens adhering to the almighty dollar.
Back to your statement that statism and anarchy are a false alternative. I disagree with you on a conceptual level. I believe you conceptualize anarchy only being accomplished by a means of force, while I would maintain that the free market and private institutions could perform the role of government without infringing on anyone's rights. Am I an objectivist, an anarchist, a conservative?

By gosh, I want what I earned! What I deserve!
But in fact I deserve a plus-four (which is a fashion pun you won't get) for being so polite.
Also, you said "Please don't presume that we 'know very little' ...
I was referring very specifically to YOU for your rude, hate-filled, and, yes, ignorant "kooks"!
As someone nicer than I and much smarter than you has pointed out, both the old parties have "kooks" and, frankly, there are "kooks" and, worse, cultists claiming to be Objectivists.
Do we denounce the philosophy? Do we denounce Galt's Gulch? Do ... well, no need to go on. Others, if not you, will get my point.

Obviously no I don't see it.
All "schemes" are dreamed up, even a Galt's Gulch. And cynics and/or pessimists would say of such a "scheme" it is "incompatible with the human nature."
To which I politely say pish and tosh.
The important point, well, one of them, was that we autarchists and voluntaryists and agorists are often, and in my case always, willing to work with minarchists to lessen and end tyranny.
Which, by the way, is a whole lot better way to end it than by whining and sneering at those of us who are making the effort.
Ivory-tower intellectuals, even if they claim to be Objectivists, don't really accomplish much in the real world, which we all claim to believe in. We must actually go into that real world and make some specific efforts.
Thank you, Maritimus, for your reaction.

Hello again Editormichael,
You deserve a -1 here. I did not do it to avoid misinterpretation of that action on anybody's part.
EDIT: added address

Hello, Editormichael.

..."to reduce the government to its constitutional size before we can repeal it completely."

The latter part sounds to me as if you were dreaming of another utopia. Just as communists and many others did and do. Don't you see that these kinds of dreamed up schemes are incompatible with the human nature?

As our favorite philosopher and a few before her, less clearly and less emphatically said: all living things act only according to their nature and cannot act in any different way.

Just my reaction.

I understand and am not in disagreement with you!

Your comment makes me think about how I have dropped out of politics for the past 12 years or more. Both of the dominant parties just were so far away from where I was, philosophically.

Oh, my pleasure. I learned of it via Stefan Molyneoux's podcasts. Give him a listen - freedomainradio.com It's what makes sense to me. One of my favorite quotes is from him, "Wake up. To see the farm is to leave it..."

Thanks Foster; it is helpful to know what the problem is. Watching it a couple of times I drew the conclusion that the Aleppo thing was a setup. The questioner waited until the subject was firmly established elsewhere, and then slipped the change of subject question in with not a word of context offered. Johnson should have picked up on it, and did in time to answer it actually, but once the miss happened the media never once let up on it. No wonder Johnson lost patience with the media a time or two. They are extremely slimy folk.

It must be pointed out that his lack of knowledge about topical issues was probably his greatest shortcoming! Although, it also appeared that he really wasn't interested in actually winning (like he viewed it as a futile endeavor) thus shortchanging his party and its followers. Better candidates, better versed in the issues and the development of a rational (less kooky) presentation would have done his party and the American people a greater service.

What is a shame about your post is that you seem to paint everyone with the same brush. Are there "kooks" in the LP? Absolutely! How about the "kooks" the Republican & Democrat parties? They are manifold! So, picking out and labeling "kooks" for a possible LP tie and not the other miscreants from all of the organized parties is disingenuous at best! As was stated earlier, join the LP and help guide it and perhaps minimize the rush to using the "kook" label!

Gary Johnson is the one who forced us to "vote for the lesser evil". It is unfortunate that common sense should be ruled out in such cases. Johnson had a decent Libertarian reputation prior to this election cycle. He lost me early on because it almost seemed like he had no intention of winning and was just in it for the notoriety!

I think that the Libertarian party has got to get its act together and remember that there is something more than marijuana to rail about. Also, it must take better care of reaching out to people who may be 90% Libertarian but are now forced to vote outside of that organization. For what its worth!

One of the problems in my opinion (we all know about opinions) is that people who believe in the bases of Libertarianism, don't "do government." Unfortunately, as they say, just 'cause you are not interested in politics, don't think politics is not interested in you." Activist libertarian is kind of an oxymoron. I think someone who would run on the plan to sign a new executive order to make null and void all previous executive orders and veto virtually all passed legislation would do well, but that person does not want to be bothered being involved in al that stuff the federal government should not be involved in (but is).

Michael, thank you. And, Yes!!! Isn't freedom the most important issue - perhaps the ONLY issue? Individual freedom. And the government's SOLE purpose should be to DEFEND it! Period. Then, leave us alone!!! Laissez faire!!!

"Minarchy" is typically used to refer to limited government as a minimalist version of statism from the perspective of anarchy as a moral ideal, whether regarded as achievable or not. Statism and anarchy are a false alternative. They are two sides of the same coin of coercion. Limited government is not kind of statism and is not an imperfect offshoot of anarchy as a conceptual frame of reference.

Anarchism promoted as a form of society is a floating abstraction that is not a rational point of reference or basis for anything and certainly not a moral ideal. Yet the 'minarchy' term was cooked up and promoted for that purpose and is used only by a small cadre of libertarians mostly ignorant of or opposed to Objectivism, including those still promoting "anarcho-capitalism" claimed to be implied by Ayn Rand, which it is not. It is not part of our rational vocabulary. Anarchy and its offshoots are not related to Objectivism and have no conceptual or political role in it. The whole scheme is conceptually invalid..

A simple search of the word: Minarchism is a libertarian political philosophy which advocates for government to exist solely to protect citizens from aggression (force), theft, breach of contract, and fraud. This sounds to me like a philosophy modeled after individual rights, would you agree?

The LP is a fringe political party known for it's ineffectiveness in public policy and a-philosophical rush into activism.

As several others have noted on this same page it is in fact loaded with kooks that even some LP activists want to get rid of, not the least of which were its most recent presidential and vice presidential "candidates" Johnson and Weld. Their antics were discussed and denounced several times in this forum.

Telling people who take Ayn Rand's ideas seriously to join in with that zoo is very bad advice, just as bad as when Ayn Rand denounced it starting 50 years ago at the beginning of its inevitable long run of failure. Please don't presume that we "know very little" about the Libertarian Party.

You started well, ewv, but your "organization of kooks" shows you know very little of what you're trying to discuss.

The rational course is to recognize that changing the course of the nation for the better requires replacing the dominant philosophy of collectivism, statism and altruism -- held by and promoted by most of the intellectuals -- with reason and individualism. The rational course is to recognize that no political party based on that will get anywhere before that is happening and that joining in with the infighting of a marginal organization of kooks that understands none of this is worse than hopeless.

My biggest issue with the party has always been that it refuses to make any attempt to purge itself of kooks, or of those who look or sound like kooks in front of news cameras.

But I'm not worried about Johnson's kooky ideas because I doubt he'd get anywhere with most of them. An elected libertarian politician would probably be doing most of the same things as Trump or Rand Paul, except that he'd be more stubborn and less willing to compromise on major rights violations such as the war on drugs.

Okay, so he did not smoke a daily pound of weed while campaigning, so on to the liberal remarks you feel he made. Did you have any specifics in mind?