How libertarians might prove useful -- and vindicate Calvin Coolidge

Change mostly happens on the margin in relatively small increments. Libertarians are actually making progress at legalizing pot, which is great because the war on pot has long been a gateway drug driving the increased militarization of the police. They've also been making progress getting rid of dumb archaic laws (like those that prohibit sodomy or gay marriage) and fighting against the growth of new incursions against freedom, even if it is a rear-guard action.

Fighting "the regulatory state" as an abstract project seems quixotic, unless you have an actual PLAN for doing so. Besides, when libertarian forces DO try to attack the regulatory state too directly, they tend to get marginalized by the left AND the right, as happened with the Tea Party.

One underlying problem is that we don't currently have anyone as prominent and capable as Milton Friedman arguing the issues. There are some great econobloggers (eg, at http://econlog.econlib.org/ ) but none sufficiently prominent to serve as a counterpoint to Krugman. There are a few libertarian celebrities (eg, Penn Jillette) but they don't have the gravitas to get taken seriously in intellectual debates.

So libertarians should avoid actual, relevant, concrete issues surrounding personal freedom, and that people care about, in order to concentrate on abstract Republican rhetoric (that Republicans have never carried through on, expanding government as much or more than Democrats)? Sounds like a dumb plan.

If libertarians controlled the school systems, then mainstream liberalism would be a fringe movement.

It's so funny, but I have to say it again, libertarians are not a subgroup of conservatives, so please stop talking to us like we are on your side.