RE: A New Dallas Accord to Unify The Freedom Movement
You make some good points. Ultimately, IMO, the libertarian party should be about minimal government. Minimal government means the purpose of government is to protect individual rights and nothing else. Anything more than minimal government moves into the area of ruling people. So when Adam suggests keeping divisive points out of the platform, I believe this compromises on the fundamental purpose of the libertarian party and allows government to continue ruling people.
You ask if we can change enough people to make them refuse a ruler. Maybe, maybe not. I am skeptical. However, if we are to succeed in this, the only way it can happen, IMO, is by providing a clear alternative to the Republican and Democrat parties. A libertarian party based upon the lowest common denominator, that seeks growth and public acceptance rather than debate and inclusion of its principles, even if they are divisive, is not a clear alternative - it's more of the same.
Government has never been very good at protecting individual rights.
How can it be when it is, by definition, a coercive collective? The smallest minority is one. Governments cannot protect minorities. It has never happened, and it never will happen. This is why his plan is a peaceful dissolution of the federal government.
I'm all for governance, but it needs to be entirely voluntary. As soon as someone's will is forced upon another, the system is tyrannical and should be fought against. We can and should have a society based on mutual consent, peaceful interaction, and voluntary agreements.
Those who want to be ruled make it easy for those who want to rule to have the system we currently have however. How do we, those who do not want to be ruled, stop them from trying to rule us?