It's inevitable for us libertarian types to disagree with each other.  We all have our own definition of the perfect society, and the perfect world, and the perfect government, or the perfect lack of government.

Which is all well and good.  Let us each assert our own finely honed definition of perfection.  It is, as Martha Stewart says, "A good thing."  Unless we're spending our precious energies fighting, or slighting, each other, when we could better spend them fighting the common enemy of statism.

It just so happens that my philosophy is incomplete on the road to market anarchism.  That's one way of saying it.  Another would be, as a co-worker puts it, "The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what we've got now."

To my mind, arguing today about the difference between adhering to the U.S. Constitution vs. abolishing government altogether, is a waste of time and energy.  The bloated, blood-sucking monster that is the federal government of 2002 is SO far beyond Constitutional limits that if we were able to cut federal expenditures (not to mention, meddling in decisions that don't belong to any legitimate level of government) by 90%, we'd still be well outside the boundaries prescribed, and proscribed, by the Constitution.  Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to start butting heads over the abolishment of government then than now?

I count as my ally anyone who wants to move in the direction of less government meddling.  I do not look to find fault in subtleties of disagreement; nor do I give up my own visions when they diverge with that person.  We share overlapping motivation; that is what matters.  If we can work together to diminish the many-headed hydra of government, we have done well.  If we instead quarrel over the differences in our respective philosophies, substantial though they may be, we have done poorly.

As a concrete example, let me pick Justin Raimondo.  Every column I read of his makes me cheer.   He has the spirit, the intellect, the basic wild madness of a free man, that gets my blood going.  I love this guy!

At the same time, I quibble with a few of his stands.  He seems to take great delight in savaging people for being gay (I am informed that his attitude toward gays is not, however, exactly as I had imagined).  Not to say the people he picks on (Andrew Sullivan first and foremost) don't deserve savaging.  But of what relevance is their gayness, or lack thereof?

Raimondo is also contemptuous of drug use.  Fine, anyone who does drugs or booze in a self-destructive way deserves condemnation.  But he seems a bit too zealous for my taste.

Finally, on the subject of immigration, we diverge sharply.  He seems to want to close the borders.  I want to ask, "When did YOUR ancestors come to the U.S., Justin?  Would you have wanted the borders closed then?"  I am happy to welcome to this country anyone who is looking to work, not to receive a handout.

I've listed three "serious" points of disagreement with Justin Raimondo.  Therefore what?  We can fight about those anytime.  Preferably not right now, when we share the same immediate goals, to try to check this nation's descent into a police state.

Without in any way compromising our own individual unique visions of the perfect society, I urge all of us to keep in careful perspective the extent to which others are our allies.  Infighting is so, SO easy to fall into, and I can be as guilty as anyone.  It's part of life, and divine in its own way.  But it's a luxury we can ill afford today, when the common enemy seems about to snatch the last vestiges of liberty from us.