Not supporting a libertarian candidate who is, in many ways, unlibertarian, does not indicate that you're "politically unserious". If anything, it means you do take your politics seriously, because you realize that they're your politics - they don't belong to whomever swoops in and promises libertopia, nor the first blogger who calls you "unserious" or "unlibertarian". It's admirable, not condemnable, to hold out for a better deal on your political capital than 10 cents on the dollar.
I think Paul's giving libertarians a great deal, but not because LewRockwell.com bloggers say so. The attacks have got to stop, fellas. To hear you tell it, the presidency is the prize, the ultimate aspiration of libertarian theory. Even I'm not that convinced of Paul's messiah status - let alone the overwhelming utility of putting him in a position of authority that makes it worth trashing any coalition libertarians have built over the past few years.
God forbid you have to - GASP - persuade people of your point of view, rather than barking at them until they fall into line. Let's have enough respect for each other and the seriousness of our common ideas not to throw a temper tantrum when people disagree with us. Whatever miscalculations you feel that certain left libertarian individuals are making in their political priorities, they are the individual's miscalculations to make. This is a matter of value judgments and moral balancing: it's not a science.
My hats off to the libertarians who stand by their convictions - all of them. We disagree on Paul's campaign, but we agree that our individual moral prerogatives are far, far more important than some contrived ideological lockstep.
Read this article
