It's a question of rhetorical sensibilities, not principle

In doing what I do, what I like to do, which is to advocate my political philosophy to those who might otherwise not hear it sensibly explained, I believe I've learned something. Now, during this Presidential election season, I believe it's important that we libertarians act through the political party it a way that will acheive the best results.

It is my view that most Libertarians do not understand that the other political parties, having no principles by which to guide thoughts about the perfect government or ideal society, never advocate anything other than individual actions and sets of actions that extend naturally from the status quo.

When the LP advocates the “ideal” libertarian government, they risk isolating themselves from the vast majority of the electorate, and put themselves at an enormous disadvantage against the other parties, as they are selling ideas and principles to those who have no use for principles and ideas that are far removed from their current situation. They're concerned about the here and now: "What are we going to do about Iraq?" "How come I don't have a job?" "Why is my child's school so bad?".

It’s the difference between standing on the top of some mountain and saying “Hey come over here!” to a person who's no mountain climber, vs. standing with them and showing them the way forward step by step. Most people may not even understand the posibility of the ideal government, but if instead you offer, lower taxes, reforming social security, less foreign intervention, blah blah blah, then, not only are you being more truthful (Badnarik, even if elected could not make many of the changes he proposes in the time he would have), but you would be selling something that people don’t have to use mental acrobatics to grasp, and thus they are more likely to evaluate it’s validity.