maximize the contradictions

Why, in the late 1960s and early 1970s did American Maoists support Richard Nixon for president?

No, it wasn't because they recognized him as the person most likely to grow the central government, socialize the "environment," close the gold window, completely screw up the market pricing system, and make peace with Red China.

Believe it or not, the Reds thought Nixon represented the epitome of capitalist evil. They claimed that only by "maximizing the contradictions" of the capitalist system, would the West finally progress to glorious revolution.

In the West, on the Left, this was the central controversy: did half-measures move The People closer to or further away from real socialism? Sure there were also disagreements on the fine points of theory; sure these caused constant splintering and in-fighting; but they were nothing compared to the much greater split over questions of strategy.

And in This Movement of Ours?

David Friedman said, "There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree with each other about everything, but I am not one of them." (Thanks to Roderick Long for that quote.)

As with the socialists, libertarian controversy seems greatest on questions of strategy. (And disagreements on points of theory will usually express themselves at some point on questions of strategy. See, for instance, the huge rift between libertarian hawks and libertarian doves!)

Even if all libertarian, free-market anarchists can agree on what the general dimensions of market anarchy would look like (we can't!) there always remain, in the meanwhile, questions about what to support or oppose NOW, while the State is still in charge. (The most stark -- and to me, ugly -- of these splits is on the question of immigration policy.)

Rothbard made it clear where he stood on the Maoist question. Don't promote present suffering in the name of future liberty. A 1% tax cut is better than a 0% tax cut, which is still better than any tax increase. On the other hand, don't accept half-measures that only appear to increase individual liberty while actually growing the State. NAFTA, for instance, seems to liberalize trade, while actually putting all international trade under central management. School vouchers seem to increase options, while in fact moving what's left of independent educational institutions ever further under central government control.

So what do we make of half-measures like shall-issue laws for government gun permits, medical marijuana liberalization, or the recent assisted suicide ruling?

Anthony Gregory says his rule is to count the number of people imprisoned for victimless crimes. More prisoners means a step in the wrong direction; fewer prisoners means liberty has increased, however incrementally. I like that rule, as such rules go. It's much better than counting dollars, IMHO, in those situations where both numbers are available. But Sheldon Richman seems to think medical marijuana laws are a step in the wrong direction, as is the assisted suicide law. Where Gregory would point to the declining number of peaceful people categorized as criminals, Richman says that both laws grow the Therapeutic State. You can see the beginning of their exchange on the subject here.

To their credit, there is not much heat to the exchange. Unfortunately, as of this writing, I don't yet see much light, either.