As a counter to the idea that it is a valid strategy to work for by arguing for ever slightly less injustice instead of demanding a total cessation to injustice, I reprint an older article of mine that is also archived under "Political Strategy" in the toolbar above. And, yes, the reprint is occasioned by this weekend's nomination of libertarian-around-the-remote-edges Bob Barr as Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. The article's conclusion (which refers to libertarianism proper and not specificaly to the LP): If libertarians do not present clear and explicit libertarian ideas, who will? These ideas may be accepted or rejected, but they will live or die on the basis of what they are instead of what they are not. It would be tragic if the one clear voice for freedom in our time did not have enough confidence in itself to speak up without apology.

CONTRA GRADUALISM

It is 1858 and you are living in a Northern town. A man has arrived at your door with papers documenting his ownership of a run away slave whom you are sheltering. The slave throws himself at your feet begging to stay while the slave-owner reasons with you. Being philosophically inclined, he comments on the political and social necessity of preserving slavery for the time being. He assures you he is opposed to the institution, but that without it the economy of the South would shrivel and crimes of passion by blacks against whites would abound. Slavery must be phased out. When the black man is educated and able to support himself, then he will be freed.

If you reply, "There is no moral or practical consideration that overrides this man's right to his own body," you are an abolitionist.

If you reply, "I am opposed to slavery, but the consequences of immediately ending it are disastrous; therefore, I return your slave for the transition period," you are a gradualist.

[ Read the rest ... ]