A friend writes:
Reading Rothbard's "For A New Liberty" again.
Came across a the following passage where he talks about classical liberals losing their radicalism.
"But after achieving impressive partial victories against statism, the classical liberals began to lose their radicalism, their dogged insistence on carrying the battle against conservative statism to the point of final victory. Instead of using partial victories as a stepping-stone for evermore pressure, the classical liberals began to lose their fervor for change and for purity of principle. They began to rest content with trying to safeguard their existing victories, and thus turned themselves from a radical into a conservative movement—'conservative' in the sense of being content to preserve the status quo."
This immediately caused me to think about modern times:
There is no questioning that the Ron Paul movement has achieved more than partial victories against statism (at least in the hearts & minds of millions).
However, as Rothbard's example of the classical liberals shows, such a situation can become stale. And there are plenty of 'conservatives' out there (Rand Paul, Cato, Reason, FreedomWorks, etc, etc) who will undoubtedly pick-up many of the new Paulians out there. And sadly, many can, as Rothbard pointed out "lose their ferver for change and for purity of principle."
I bring this up remind you how important a site like EPJ and The Robert Wenzel Show are. There's a dire need for 'radical' outlets.
There needs to be an interviewer (like you) that grills guests (even other libertarians)...and uproots anything that can cause the movement to go stale. You've caught a bunch of flak about nit-picking...I say keep it up! If people want to hear Molyneux go unchallenged, there are probably hundreds of his interviews out there that will satisfy that.
What happened to the classical liberals can't happen this time around.