It seems rather important for thick libertarians to confuse the message of liberty. Your guess as to why is as good as mine. They claim they want to make the philosophy more appealing, broaden the audience, etc. Or that the NAP is too simple, not capable of providing benefit in such a complicated world.
I have found it important to respond, even to some of the more obscure posts. No need to guess why – I will tell you.
First, responding affords me the opportunity to continue my own development – to try to write logically in counter-position. Second, voices must be raised – even tiny ones like mine. The posts advocating “thick” will be read. A rebuttal should be out there, to ensure that the true objective (as well as I understand it) is always available for those who care to look.
So why do I suggest that thick libertarians don’t get it? What don’t they get?
Thin libertarians want no part of it; in order that I don’t incorrectly speak for others, I will speak for me: if “thick” is what is needed to broaden the appeal, you can have it. Thick means nothing will change; the elite and the politicians that serve the elite will be very happy with “thick.”
What do I care about broadening the appeal of a philosophy that a) has no meaning, and b) is nothing but more of the same?
If the “thin” crowd stays small, so be it. I’ve seen the so-called Reagan revolution, the useless-yet-supposedly-radical contract with America. I used to believe that the Constitution meant something; that Americans won their independence 230 some-odd years ago.
What about the full-blown, everything goes lifestyle that some of the “thick” crowd seems to want to peddle as part of libertarianism? Heaven help us if we get there (wait – aren’t we already witnessing the fruits of this?).
The oldsters writing such “thick” nonsense should know better. The youngsters should learn how to use a good search engine.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. As this is what you’re peddling count me out.