Although rhetorically, many libertarians come off this way, it’s really no different than most reasonable people who exagerate (probably unintentionally) the purity of their opinion on the left or right during discussion.

For one thing libertarians always say that the market will solve any problems concerning employment and other economic issues. But I’ve never heard of a libertarian that would acknowledge that the markets only solve things that are motivated by profit. In addition market solutions are a feedback mechanism that can take years to resolve things. During those years people would lose their jobs, their homes and in the libertarian ideal world of no social programs what else would happen? Are they expecting a miraculous increase in the salary paid to the least well off so they can save enough money to tide them over? Do libertarians really believe that strongly in miracles?

Uh, how about we start by reforming our ballot access laws? I mean, with all the benefits that the Democrats and Republicans already have, why should we tolerate ballot access laws that have been written in their favor? Requiring third party candidates to have to go out and collect something like 50,000 signatures (Democrats and Republicans don’t have to do this because they have “major party” status) is a barrier that Democrats and Republicans intentionally throw out in front of third party and independent candidates to make it extremely difficult for anyone without a D or R after their name to make it on the ballot.

Instead of going for a purist platform, how about a common sense pragmatic platform? Talk about incremantalist solutions. For example, instead of decriminalizing drugs if elected, go for something along the lines of “not punishing people with less than X oz.”

Basically, a platform that would appeal to more people, and would be difficult to disagree with on principle.

OK, idiosyncrat, I’ll give you that one. But doesn’t the argument that “getting rid of the third option doesn’t improve the quality of other two options” still valid?

In of itself, no, but if the financial and human resources being devoted to that party could be diverted toward impact via a PAC, then yes.

I agree with bellisaurius. The idea feels “dirty”. But short of a voter revolution, which I don’t think is going to happen, that’s how you impact the current political system. Impact it enough, and you have more leverage for further change. Not sure if restricting PACs would be popular with Libertarians, though, since it’s kinda anti-competitive, no?

Let me back off this for a second and throw out a question to those opposed to the idea of using a PAC for impact. If Libertarianism is something you believe in, and the vehicle you choose to advance those beliefs is the Libertarian party, how given the realities of the day do you lift the party from it’s current state of relative irrelevance to have meaningful impact? A sustained effort by a moneybags like Mike Bloomberg or Warren Buffett? (see Perot, Ross — only like, you know, successful)

The idea of having a libertarian PAC makes me feel dirty.

Amen. “Centrists” are supposed to be pragmatical. Why shouldn’t they work on, well, things that work?

Well, considering that I’m Hispanic and have voted Libertarian, I guess the answer is . . . yes.

Just curious superdestroyer . . . When are the Dems ever going to end the War on Drugs? When is Hillary Clinton going to go on record as admitting that she made a mistake in voting for the Iraq War?

Maybe if the Democrats were to grow a backbone on these two issues, they’d earn more libertarian votes.

OK, idiosyncrat, I’ll give you that one. But doesn’t the argument that “getting rid of the third option doesn’t improve the quality of other two options” still valid?

I think that helping a few dozen sympathizers get elected to congress is more cost effective than running hundreds of party candidates who gets trounced in general elections.

Does anyone think that the libertarians are going to somehow win black or hispanic votes in future? Does the lack of a functional Republican party in Mass. cause the Libertarians to have great power?

When the Democratic party becomes the dominate party in the U. S., the Libertarians will be as irrelevent as the Republicans have decided to become.

Consider this. One of the basic tenets of libertarianism is belief in free market economics, and one of the basic tenets of free market economics is competition. Competition, it is argued, forces competing industries to produce better products at lower prices. In other words, if there are only two brands of cereal available on the marketplace, a supporter of free market economics would enthusiastically support having a third choice from which to chose. This new brand more or may not be superior to the existing two brands, but the mere introduction of this new brand creates an incentive for the two existing brands to either 1) improve their products, 2) lower the cost of their products, or 3) do both.

What Mr. Bartlett is essentially arguing is that by limiting our choices to just the two major parties (Republican and Democrat), that libertarians will have a greater chance of having a party that is more appealing to them. With all due respect to Mr. Bartlett, this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what free market economics would predict. If one wants to increase the odds of having a party that supports their views, the solution is to have MORE political parties, not less.

The existence of the Libertarian Party isn’t making the two major parties less libertarian. The two major parties are doing that all on their own. The Democratic Party lurched towards “Big Government” liberalism decades before the creation of the Libertarian Party in 1971. And as far as the Republican Party–it was Nixon’s statist economic, social, and foreign policies that caused liberty-advocates to create the Libertarian party–not the other way around.

Generally, when I hear “libertarian” Republicans criticizing the Libertarian Party, it to complain that voting Libertarian causes a spoiler effect. Mr. Bartlett doesn’t come right out and say this, but give that he is a “libertarian” Republican, one has to wonder if he has this in mind. Given many libertarians’ dissatisfaction with the current Republican Party, what he suggesting they do? Vote Democrat?

Right! Why on earth would you reward a political party for promoting political policies that run contrary to what you believe in?

Until either the Republican or Democratic parties become remotely libertarian, I see no benefit from no longer having a Libertarian Party. If anything, if would remove competition and thus set lower standards for the major parties.

In other words, if you can’t stand either Pepsi or Coke, don’t get rid of RC Cola and then expect Pepsi and Coke to taste any better.

I do often wonder why so many think tanks do not also have a parallel PAC aimed at the same donors to promote candidates who think likewise.

Your ideas just have to be popular enough to make that happen. Which is supposed to be how our system works. Influence isn’t supposed to be something bought by big money lobbyists.

Am I being too idealistic?