Debbie Harbeson is a libertarian columnist in the Jeffersonville/New Albany newspapers. She has recently posted the following comments on this blog, which are worth repeating. I agree with her positions and advice.
Here is her comment from last Thursday:
"I keep hearing how great it is that libertarians have gotten elected to these positions, and that's fine as far as it goes. But now it would be very helpful for people to see and understand what that means. I mean, what are some actions, and positions taken by these office holders that are different from the folks in the other parties who have held these positions?
What have some of these libertarians been doing in these offices that are libertarian in nature? Wouldn't some publicity on this be one of the best ways to help people see and understand what would be different if more libertarians held office?"
And then this comment after I posted Rex Bell's comment yesterday:
" Okay, thanks Rex and Mark, this is a great start!
But it's just a start, because it doesn't give any specifics to understand how any principles are being applied to decisions.
Saying someone "cut about $2000 worth of frivolous spending" is nothing different than voters have been hearing for decades.
What is "frivolous spending?" As we all know, if a person liked the cuts, then they agree it's frivolous, but if someone disagrees with the cuts, then it wasn't frivolous.
So citizens need some specifics. How can you explain the thinking behind these cuts and why the spending was indeed frivolous, and at the same time show how the continued spending on other items is not frivolous.
Were the cuts made by applying any specific principles? If so, then talk about that. This will then help people to see how it's the application of principles, not politics, or favortism, or whatever, that causes libertarians to take action.
If something like this is not done, then there is no reason for people to look away from the other two parties, because they are hearing the same thing from everyone, things like "cutting frivolous spending," without defining what frivolous means."