Recently, the Libertarian Party has gutted most of it's platform down to a handful of planks, with the goal being to expand its voting pool and therefore be more sucessful. The victimless crimes section has been limited only to drugs, opposition to income taxation is gone, opposition to mental health fascism is gone, opposition to the federal reserve is gone, opposition to wage and prices controls is gone, opposition to SS is gone, opposition to public education is gone, opposition to presidential war powers is gone, and opposition to foreign aid is gone. What good reason was there to get rid of the stance against government secrecy? What good reason was there to get rid of the stance on native american rights? We have a group of so-called "moderate libertarians" called "the libertarian reform caucaus" (i think?) that argues that "radicals" are ruining the movement. What's going on here?
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist - but it certainly doesn't take an anarchist to see something terribly wrong with this picture. What is truly ruining the movement is people who want to abandon the very foundation of the ideology for political pragmatism. By presenting such a picture, not only is it entirely misleading as to what Libertarianism actually is, but it threatens to make Libertarianism itself become something entirely different. The point should be to bring liberals and conservatives towards libertarianism through education, but I fear what this functions to do is bring libertarianism closer to liberalism and conservatism. While demonizing the "radicals" that are actually the foundation of the movement itself. Where are the radicals? Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or not!
People who are interested in Libertarianism would be better suited going to Lee Rockwell's website then the LP's, because it appears that the LP is slowly turning into a front for something very un-libertarian. Rothbard wrote about these problems long ago (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html - Do You Hate The State? http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1709 - The Case For Radical Idealism). Rothbard has an important point - you can be a minarchist and be absolutely radical (which describes me quite well) and an anarcho-capitalist with no fire. The people starting to dominate the LP are the worst possible, as at best they are minarchists with no fire. At worst, they are conservatives and liberals that fancy themselves libertarians. If Libertarianism becomes nothing but a euphamism for people who are weary of both left and right, it poses the risk of becoming nothing but "centrism". Someone that is 50% "socially liberal" and 65% "fiscally conservative" on the politcal spectrum is not a Libertarian, they are a right-leaning centrist. But with the FALSE designation of "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" being libertarianism itself, then that's what the movement becomes, centrism.