The problem with the LP

I just read a good article at Free Market News Network about the foolishness that calls itself the Libertarian Party. Now, don't get me wrong – I find that I agree with the LP much more than with pretty much every other party out there, certainly more than the two major parties. That said, it still is a political party, and as such, unfortunately, involves itself in politics.

The article's author, Carl Milsted, Jr., does a great job at identifying one of my primary qualms with the party, and probably the only reason why I have not joined it: The pledge. It's not so much the words of the pledge that I have a problem with ("I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals") as the fact that giving such a pledge hobbles any progress that is not a sudden and instantaneous leap to a Libertopian society.

Here's an example: Say we have an opportunity, by supporting a particular congressional bill, to reduce the amount of money spent on a particular entitlement program. (This is an extremely simplistic case, since appropriations bills are passed as thousands-of-pages-long documents, supporting thousands of programs, but let's dream for a minute that each appropriation required its own bill.) The program still would exist, and the potential would remain that next year it could even grow. Now, according to the LP pledge, we should not support this bill because it authorizes funding for a government program (which is an authorization of force, since the money for the program comes from compulsory taxes).

This, to me, is backwards. Why would we not advocate for less government when we can? Yes, let's fight to reduce the program's funding even more, or to eradicate it. But if we aren't able to, should we withhold our vote for reducing the program simple because we can't get rid of it altogether?

We can talk about "sticking true to our principles" all we want, until we're blue and purple in the face. But if such obstinance makes us miss opportunities to step closer to our goals – even if it's only a microscopic step – then we have failed both the meaning and the spirit of those principles we claim to be sticking true to.