blatham wrote: blatham wrote:
So how would you suggest we pursue our political interests instead?
What "political interests" might be conceived fall out entirely from the modifiers in red.
In any case, and to avoid spinning off into what might constitute morally justifiable government...
Actually, my question was not about morally justifiable government. It was about what practical alternatives we libertarians might have to running for public office.
In your first post you had said: "perhaps individuals (or parties) who hate government ought not to be expected to do it very well." I am one of those individuals, though "hate" is probably too strong a word. But I agree with you that decent people who don't believe in government have little incentive to run it, so my question is, what's the alternative? How do you suggest we, the reasonably decent government skeptics, keep our government small and focused, without running for a government job in the process?
My earlier post that you have quoted above wasn't intended to point towards libertarians (or you) but towards the folks in and around the present administration. Of course, pretty much the whole nest of them have spent the better part of their adult lives as politicians or as party activists. Grover Norquist, classic government derogator, makes for a prime example, having spent his entire adult life from college onwards insinuating himself into the political process so as to direct and control policy. "Government is bad" or "government ought to be small" really means, to these guys at least, "only my ideology and interests define proper governance therefore only I ought to be allowed to govern. And the fundamental thrust of my governing will be to disallow anyone else to get near to power by defunding and disempowering everyone but those who demonstrate on-going fealty." Size of government is quite irrelevant in this equation except insofar as size or complexity might present an increased likelihood of dilution of tightly centralized power (thus the diminishment of Congressional power, thus the diminishment of judicial power, thus the diminishment of international bodies/agreements, etc). Homeland Security fundiing (the topic of your thread) has far more to do with shoring up power bases/alliances than any other claimed motivation.
As to what an actual libertarian ought to get up to politically...
You and I definitely do not agree on the benificence of a largely unregulated business world. Warring selfishnesses too often produce precisely this type of consequence.
Where we do agree on government over-reach into citizen affairs, I think, involves attempts to mandate/enforce someone's notion of virtue in adult citizens' private lives. As I do not mind your shoulder to the wheel assistance in attenuating government moves into this last area, I suppose I ought to suggest that a libertarian such as yourself should operate as either an activist or as a political representative like anyone else. And if you actually achieve any semblance of power and still maintain your position on that other matter, then I'll shoot you.