As libertarians, whether small l or large L, I think we all believe in the free market, incl. the free market of ideas.

In the free market of ideas, some are objectively (I hate when I agree with Renzulli!) better than others.

For example, whether your objective is to generate votes, or educate, or open minds or whatever, if the idea is of any value it will produce measurable results.

Furthermore, of those idea (for any given objective) that produce measurable results, some ideas will produce MORE or BETTER results (for the given objective) than others.

If you believe in the free market, should "investors" invest in an idea that produces worse or fewer results than its next best alternative?

Would it be productive for an individual to invest their time in the least or lesser productive alternative?

(I can't believe I have to each Econ 101 and the division of labor to libertarians.  It's pretty freeking sad.)

If you disagree with the line of reasoning above, you are NECESSARILY a collectivist.  If you can follow the line of reasoning above, you are not necessarily a collectivist but you may be.  If you can follow the line of reasoning above and agree with its logical progression, you are NOT a collectivist and are necessarily a free marketeer.  There is one exception to the above analysis which is that you may be a religionist, which does not necessarily exempt you from being a free marketeer (though I think Renzulli would disagree with me there).

If you disagree with the last paragraph you are completely hopeless in your ignorance of free market economics and would spend your time better studying mises.org and not arguing or investing your time ANYWHERE else until you disabuse yourself of your own ignorance.

 The comment below is not directed at the author of the article or his post but to readers.

Nick - if you want more folks to read your commentary, you should learn how to make paragraphs.

Readers - Sarah P. and Glenn B. are not the only folks fragmenting the Tea Party movement. Anarcho-libertarians are just as guilty of trying to coopt the movement as traditional GOP folks like Newt and the neocons.

Successful movements work when there is a simple objective and philosophy. Think about the civil rights movement, probably the single most successful political movement in my lifetime. They were focused on a single thing - enacting laws to make the lives of those with different colored skin better. The anti-war movement of the 1960's and 1970's was successful because of its very simple objective - get out of Viet Nam.

So what's the Tea Party's simple objective? I'm not sure. It started out as a Taxed Enough party which had essentially three objectives - decrease taxes, decrease government spending, and End the Fed. And nothing else. No anti-war philosophy, no Christian overtones, no favoritism for any political party, no mention of the word libertarian, no discussion of social conservative issues like abortion...

But those days are long gone. In my neck of the woods, the Christian warriors have taken control of many of the Tea Party rallies. There is no more talk of End the Fed, but there sure is a lot of praying. Dick Army and Sarah Palin have become the face of the movement. That's bad, but it's not unexpected.

We small and big L libertarians should just let the Tea Party movement fizzle out of its own accord, and worry about trying to actually have an impact at the ballot box instead of doing navel-gazing like libertarians normally do (e.g. Nick's commentary). And if you don't believe that the Tea Party movement will fizzle out, IMO you will be sorely mistaken.

 I hate to say it, but I agree entirely with Don here.

I hate to say it even more, but the reason I agree with Don here is because, in this case, I believe it is due to the FP publisher's view on organizational dynamics and lifecycles.

I hate to say it EVEN MORE (no I don't), but it's for all of the above, why the #7 meetup is basically dead on the vine and why 90%+ of its membership is not involved.

You misspelled teach... :P 

 I enjoyed your insight very much. It still baffles me, but I've learned to never underestimate the depths of  pettiness that so many people seem to cling to.