I've been a member of the Libertarian Party for more than 10 years, and I've flirted with libertarianism for decades before that. But the L.P. has lost its relevance during the present election cycle, so I recently, with sadness in my heart, told my L.P. friend that it's no longer for me. My friend had struggled mightily for years to make the L.P. an engine of change, but in the end it became The LIttle Engine That Couldn't. "Think I can't...think I can't...think I can't..." He wrote a lengthy screed in defense of the L.P.'s criticism of Rand Paul for endorsing Mitt Romney, and I replied thusly:
Well, ol' friend, this is where I get off. Every so often, in the mundane ebb and flow of human events, there comes a decision point, a branch down one or another path of no return. This is it. This election time it's different. It's not a choice of the lesser of evils, it's between half-assed freedom and full-time subjugation. It's Orwell's symbolism: "Imagine a boot stamping a human face--forever." We might yet be able to pull America's chestnuts out of the fire if Romney wins. But if Obama gets another term, it's game over, and get a second passport and an offshore account if you don't already have them.
The Libertarian Party cannot see that. They're used to the familiar game, the role they play. They'll play it like automata, like insects reflexively caring for dead pupae, independent of how the world rolls. They're the Princes of Pompadoodle, the Lords and Leaders of Loserville, clones of the quintessential Nowhere Man. No thank you.
By the way, you might be interested in what Rand had to say about why he endorsed Romney, a man who would audit the Fed, hamstring Obamacare, and make Afghanistan support its own defense. This 18-min interview is worth your time: http://runronpaul.com/endorsements/rand-paul-answers-why-he-endorsed-romney/ The younger Doctor Paul is living in the real world, and so, it appears, has his dad been all along.