Contradictions in conventional political ideologies.

If you want to understand it better consider the political spectrum before the advent of the "Liberal and Conservative" counter-paradigm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory

Liberal in its original term meant free or 'laissez faire'; To revive this proper meaning people now use the term libertarian or classical liberal.

Once [classical] liberals composed the left and Tories the reactionary right. But with the advent of middle-of-road or state socialism, the political movement which were once the proponents of freedom have become advocates of the state; calling for liberal ends via tory means.

From this perspective the libertarian movement is a revival of the old liberal movement -- which explains why so much of it comes out of 19th century philosophy which is now being rediscovered. (Lysander spooner, tucker, etc.)

Since it is so apparent that democrats and republicans (or 'liberal and labor' as it happens to be in commonwealth nations) both really stand for command and control mercantilism with strong communist overtones, I think they should merge. Really their only disagreement is about when and whom to go to war against (domestic as in taxation, or foreign as in war spending bill) and even then I don't see any really dedicated war protesters who aren't libertarians.

 

Actually I think you'll find at all times it was and has always been statist vs statist. Each party represents a different special interest group; and each lies inexorably in its pursuit of the reigns of state power. But you may have noticed the state is still in existence and larger than ever.

If really there were at any time anywhere truly a "party of anti-statists" which could win, would not the state be abolished in that place?

 

If it isn't the case that politics is by definition statists vs statists then why, given the large number of libertarians in existence, is there so little liberty anywhere in the world?

And why too did the smallest and most highly regulated state ever attempted become the largest empire in the history of the world? And indeed why or how did it step onto that path of empire only a few decades after its founding?

From "Our Enemy the State" pg 35:
Keep in mind some terminology Nock uses:
"Political means" -- means by which human beings live at the expense of others.
"Economic means" -- means by which human beings live by the application of labour and capital to land (production).

http://mises.org/etexts/ourenemy.pdf