As hardcore libertarians decry the recent controversy at LPHQ and shake their fists at this horrible and obvious capitulation to statism, one wonders how their ardent advocation of free markets and spirit can possibly have any effect in a world of real power. And while the ED who contributed to this flap is gone, the howling and the frustration is blamed on politics and the unworthy who would continue to participate in it. Yet the examination of why we continue and the nature of that fight must always be examined in context. 
This past weekend I resisted the temptation to hit the Sunday morning political yap circuit in favor of some Netflix online. I came across one of my favorite flicks, The Mission. It is a story about the Jesuit Missions and the conflict between the Spanish and Portuguese colonial powers during the 1750s, near what is now Paraguay and Brazil. Starring Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons, it tells the story of the conflict between eternal love on Earth and the power of the state and church on the people who would promote that love here on earth. In many ways it parallels the hideous contradiction that Libertarian politics has become. At once, it is the unique assertion that a non-violent attitude and approach will always suffer in an arena rife with hypocrisy, hate and acknowledgment that a monopoly of force is the only way to achieve the 'good'. I'm pretty sure George S. and Chris Wallace & Matthews didn't go into quite this that morning.
Unfortunately we as big L libertarians spend far too much time dabbling in POTUS politics. While we have a great track record of getting ballot access for that fight, our ultimate result is always disappointing. Why is it that so many are vested in the grand race ? Perhaps the Ron Paul effort is a good example of the power of one office and the capacity of one to associate with the possibility and hope, rather than the simple idea of courage of one's convictions, let alone a Congressional or local race. Most people acknowledge that little can be done on those levels by one person. Yet, we hold out the hope and the perhaps the folly that one person can do so if they possess the ring of power. Don't worry, Frodo and hobbit references will not follow.
What is this crazy notion that the promotion of non-violent association and cooperation can somehow trump the manipulation and taking of power that has defined the human condition since the primordial ooze changed to tribes ? Is it the Christian ideal of all powerful love and God ? Perhaps, but probably not. But it is a strikingly similar possibility which some who are willing to act within the electoral field (to be fair most, or all, just babble and snip about 'success' as if it some scent of marketing or adoption of attitude), for better or worse. Quite honestly, the fact that the system is so biased towards an either/or, winner takes all system may be an advantage for honest and open libertarians. Hopefully we can tell the truth about the relationship between the state and the individual without falling into the temptations of 'success' or the electoral minefields of tweaking policy and thus the justification of force.
During the reconciliation of the Rodrigo Mendoza (DeNiro's character who kills his brother after an affair with his wife) in the movie, Liam Neeson's character implores their leader, Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons), to release Mendoza of his load of swords and armor that he is painstakingly dragging across the landscape and ultimately up the river's falls. Father Gabriel points out that he thinks Mendoza hasn't recognized his own penance and that they are ultimately part of an 'order' more so than any democracy when it comes to deciding these things. Father Gabriel is later proven correct as Mendoza reaches his epiphany at the top of the falls (the picture at the opening of this entry). Alas, even Father Gabriel becomes subject to his own order (and orders) as the power of the Papacy and Crown come to fore as the Mission is forced to either move or be destroyed.
While never one to play up religion over rationality, I like the intensity and devotion that the Jesuits assert within the larger sphere of simple and often mindless faith. It is more than blind devotion and uncritical obedience. Their calling is truly that of unrestricted love, truth and understanding. It seems like a rare quality amongst the devout nowadays. The ultimate conundrum comes for Mendoza as his old ways and instincts usurp the message of the non-violent Jesuits when confronted with the reality of the impending removal/invasion. As he seeks Father Gabriel's blessing to do so, the Irons character laments;
" If might is right, then love has no place in the world. "
While my own instinct is also to take up immediate arms as the tenets of self defense dictate, it is also with regret and guilt, knowing that the message of non-violence can never be truly embraced in the violent struggles for power and influence in a wild world, even if it is in self defense. This may also be the price we pay as big and small L libertarians in a world replete with fraud and coercion. Perhaps we are less than pure or true in our electoral intentions, but maybe that's OK if we can recognize and acknowledge this. Those that don't or cannot are simply either intentionally blind or ignorant of the greater idea. In the end both men, like some freedom fighters, are cut down defending their conception of right and it's devotion.
I may not support the individual and the belief paradigm of the person that the LP selects for their nominee in a couple weeks. While I've made no endorsement and have painstakingly avoided comment about any candidate and with one exception, public interaction, I do not believe that we can or should try to ' win '. While I'm capable of casting a strategic vote for Beelzebub himself for the purpose of party and unity, it does not obfuscate the fact that I would prefer a real message over a few extra, albeit insignificant votes. Our mission as an honest and decent third party is not about credibility or even party building (although each has its own importance and role of course), it is about the message and spirit of Liberty beyond the implications of a threatening regulatory void and its perceived impact on the world at large. It is about our very nature as individuals and the power of the state to suborn others around us as they see fit. It is about releasing our 'inner thug' and producing and behaving decently because it is the right thing to do. It is not about expediency, vote totals or money. It is not about tweaking policy, platforms or the Presidency.
It is the visceral denial of absolute authority outside our own rectitude and will. Without that beauty, vision and fortitude we are nothing but cannon fodder for the self righteous and corrupt.
I don't think there should be a "message of non-violence". Unless you are talking to unicorns and gnomes. Violence is morally neutral and can be used for very good purposes. It just should not be initiated against another person. Don't feel guilty for recognizing reality.
It's clearly the message of the one priest and one certainly can feel his pain in a world of gratuitous violence. Other than self-defense and self preservation (ie hunting) what would the good purposes be ?
It seems more like reaction than an actual 'purpose'. I suppose my own feeling of guilt over this one moment would be the acknowledgment of the 'beauty' of the non-violence message, which is to say 'love' in the eternal sense (which I have many apriori reservations about). Certainly the DeNiro character finally utilizes violence as a protection of those whom he has come to love. Whereas previously he killed and enslaved the same people.