Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Libertarians are often accused of being unrealistic or ideological and are forced to give secondary positions, since their ideal is not possible. They are told: high immigration is unrealistic, getting government out of marriage is unrealistic, and legalizing drugs and such is unrealistic.
That’s fine, but it’s unrealistic to think Americans are willing to engage in the kind of war that stands of chance of obliterating ISIS, or even to engage them enough to reduce the threat. Yet, pointing this out causes many conservatives to yell all the louder about how dire things are, as if doing so will make things possible. It won’t.
Keep in mind, I am not an ideologue on this: I’d be willing to engage in war if it had a high likelihood of success, but America isn’t willing to go through with that right now. Given that sufficient war is idealistic, what is the fallback position? Since we aren’t going to have total war — and likely no more than a show of force –what is a constructive secondary position?