"Today’s political leaders demonstrate their low opinion of the public with every social law they pass. They believe that, if given the right to chose, the citizenry will probably make the wrong choice. Legislators do not think any more in terms of persuading people; they feel the need to force their agenda on the public at the point of a bayonet and the barrel of a gun." ~ Mark Skousen
The Concept of a 'Perfect State' Is an Oxymoron
Exclusive to STR
And yet it persists. People still are trying to build the perfect 'bridge to nowhere.' I got some criticism over what I wrote about the Libertarian Party's 'reforms' at their recently concluded 2006 National Convention. Okay folks, I hear you. Perhaps I am not the best one to argue about this having abandoned the LP after the 2000 election myself. Fair enough. But some observations from people much older, wiser, and of greater authority than myself come to mind here.
"Once one accepts the notion that initiating aggression is OK under some circumstances,' said Gene Callahan, 'then the case for human liberty has been abandoned, and all that remains is to argue over what degree of enslavement is acceptable."
By abandoning its principles, the LP cannot really be considered the 'Party of Principle' any longer then, can it? Once you agree that the state serves some useful or necessary purpose in human existence, the rest is quibbling over the details of your enslavement and oppression.
By removing the core principles of commitment to individual liberty and anti-statism, what then I wonder do you have left? Nada. And so however many school board members, dogcatchers, and county clerks the LP ticket elects after that seems wholly irrelevant to my mind. I for one didn't enter the political process in order to become (or be elected) a capo in humankind's ongoing oppression, torture and destruction by statist entities.
And that conclusion logically leads to the conclusion reached here by Victor Koman [that] "You cannot end the State by becoming a Statist." That is so self-evidently true (as in 'is its own evidence for') that it seems to me the point requires no further argument to convince anyone thinking rationally about this.
'If you took the most ardent revolutionary,' said Mikhail Bakunin, [and] 'vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself.' One only needs to look at some of the people who already consider themselves libertarians (formally or in principle) and at their feet of clay to see this conclusion is warranted too.
And yet these 'bridge to nowhere' efforts continue. Go figger. Oh well, keep at it, folks. I trust the best among you will conclude that the state is a quack faith healer and give up on it sooner or later. The minarchists, constitutional romanticists, and nut jobs probably never will though, but that can't be helped; to err is human. As my grandfather used to tell me, '[J]ust when you think you have foolproofed something, along comes a better fool.' And history shows us that this is true. But for those that can and will understand this eventually, we'll leave the light on for you.