the type of change that micro sez can't be achieved through the normal political process.
Let's be clear on what I said. I do not mean that radical political change cannot be achieved through the normal political process. It can, however the process is very iffy and can take generations upon generations. I don't know about you, but (if I were a US citizen), I'd see very little point in struggling for the NFA to be repealed in 90 years so one can amble out to the range in a wheelchair and try very hard not to drool onto my shirt as I try to hold the M1921 stead in my arthritic hands.
Additionally, there is a moral issue at stake. If, through your efforts, the NFA is repealed in 90 years, in the interim, people continue to go to prison and have their lives ruined by the act. The very basic main point of libertarianism is that putting a man in prison for owning a shotgun with a 15" barrel is morally repugnant. It is the moral duty of every libertarian, wherever he lives, to work to get such laws (whatever equivalent of them there is) repealed as rapidly as possible, so that people will no longer be imprisoned under them, and so that people who have already been imprisoned can get their lives back.
Maybe I've just studied too much history, but I highly doubt that any sort of "revolution" is going to turn out better for us in the end.
The last one worked out, didn't it? As a matter of fact, history records plenty of successful revolutions.
Wanna repeal NFA and fix the income tax?
See, you don't understand the purpose of the process. The purpose is not to cut taxes so we're paying less money to the government. Paying less money to the government is nice, but it's not the point. The purpose is to make the income tax flat or replace it by a sales tax so that the government can no longer use the differing tax rates, tax loopholes, and tax filing to monitor your behavior and direct it by subsidizing forms of behavior it likes better.
It'll be achieved by a man like Reagan, someone who wears a suit and shaves, and who understands that working within the system makes more sense than trying to fight the system.
How is it that the more people keep talking about Reagan, the more the actual candidates end up looking like McCain?
The problem with 'working within the system' is that the system is rigged. Not in the sense that people are faking the elections or breaking the law, of course, but in the sense that the Progressives have created a variety of 'constituencies' who believe they have a vested interest in prolonging the status quo (unions, teachers, the media, the academia), and the Conservatives are vastly more interested in keeping their ties on than working to create new constituencies.
More importantly, the process of politics – like warfare – is a combined-arms process. Even if you choose to remain a moderate, you still need radicals to do certain things. Moderates are less likely to protest or donate money politically than radicals. There's a reason that Heller involved a Free State Project member and a libertarian attorney – because moderates 'have jobs'. There's also a reason Goldwater's fundraising mailing lists included so many Birchers, YAF members and so forth – and why the Reagan campaign later took over the Goldwater campaign's mailing lists and used them to build its organization.
