My reader was not satisfied with the answer I offered in Libertarians and Politics. Here are a few more thoughts.

1. For economic libertarians who do seek to engage in politics, I do not think that the current environment is conducive to success. I use the modifier “economic,” because the same dominant progressive ideology that stifles economic libertarianism is quite friendly to libertarian positions on many social issues.

2. Perhaps one way to change the environment is to engage in political action and failing. The old Goldwater-made-Reagan-Possible theory. I am not terribly sold on that one.

3. I think that public schools are a major problem. Whether you think they make a difference at the margin in terms of student learning (I am skeptical), they probably are somewhat effective at progressive brainwashing. If you don’t believe that, consider what an uphill battle one faces trying to explain the beneficial effects of the capitalist system on reducing poverty, conserving natural resources, and so on.

4. The strong component of progressivism in the identity of intellectuals is another major problem. In order to feel welcome among highly-educated people, you have to affirm belief in ideas that are at best dubious and at worst just flat-out wrong. It takes too much courage these days to question progressive dogma in certain segments of the population, including non-Orthodox Jews

A reader asks,

Don’t libertarians tend to be teenagers (of any age) who want to remain “pure” and righteous and above it all? Don’t libertarians therefore foster a culture of impotence and failure?

The issue is whether or not libertarians should engage in politics. Those of us on the libertarian side of things are inclined to see the political process as a poor way to arrive at decisions. So there is a case for trying to escape from that process and instead focus on work and family. However, to paraphrase Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.

One approach would be for libertarians to focus more on the level of overall theory and principles, rather than on specific policies or candidates. Your goal is to try to convince those around you of the advantages of individual choice over collective politics. I am not sure that this approach overcomes the reader’s concern. I am not sure that the reader’s concern can in fact be addressed successfully.

Joseph Bottum writes,

We live in what can only be called a spiritual age, swayed by its metaphysical fears and hungers, when we imagine that our ordinary political opponents are not merely mistaken, but actually evil. When we assume that past ages, and the people who lived in them, are defined by the systematic crimes of history. When we suppose that some vast ethical miasma, racism, radicalism, cultural self-hatred, selfish blindness, determines the beliefs of classes other than our own. When we can make no rhetorical distinction between absolute wickedness and the people with whom we disagree.

Read the whole thing. The theme of political beliefs becoming a substitute for religion is an interesting one. I think that many human organizations, including corporations, religions, and political parties, exploit our need for tribal affiliation.

James Lindgren reports,

in 2012 a majority of Democrats (51.6%) cannot correctly answer both that the earth revolves around the Sun and that this takes a year. Republicans fare a bit better, with only 38.9% failing to get both correct.

I file this under “libertarian thought,” because to me it speaks to the issue of how romantic one should be about democratic voting.

He writes,

Society needs a coercive mechanism strong enough to keep defectors in line, but fair enough to command the allegiance of individuals, who must share the costs of creating that larger and mutually beneficial social order. The social contract that Locke said brought individuals out of the state of nature was one such device. The want of individual consent was displaced by a consciously designed substantive program to protect both liberty and property in ways that left all members of society better off than they were in the state of nature. Only constrained coercion can overcome the holdout problems needed to implement any principle of nonaggression.

Read the whole thing. He frames it as a disagreement with Rand Paul. However, most of the criticism seems addressed to Murray Rothbard, rather than at positions that Rand Paul has taken.

In my own thinking, I am increasingly leaning toward the view that government over a large territory and population is the problem. Government at a community level (think of a condo association) is tolerable because of the ease of exit. As you scale up government, the benefits tend to decline and the abuses tend to increase.

Co-winner of the first Nobel Prize in economics. The profile, by Arild Sæther and Ib E. Eriksen, is devastating. Frisch became an ardent supporter of central planning. The authors quote him writing

The blinkers will fall once and for all at the end of the 1960s (perhaps before). At this time the Soviets will have surpassed the US in industrial production. But then it will be too late for the West to see the truth. (Frisch 1961a)

To me, the moral of the story is that you can be very confident, highly respected, and completely wrong.