to vote or not to vote

It's the old Rothbard vs LeFevre conundrum. Note that I'm not accusing you of partyarchy here; that was settled by the debate between Lysander Spooner and Senator Thomas Bayard back in 1872 and reiterated by David Nolan and myself in 1972. Both were fundamentally against taking power, but Rothbard argued (as you did) that by taking a revolutionary stance, one couldn't get elected and hence the publicity was useful.

LeFevre's response was far more convincing to me: you lose far more credibility by committing such a duplicitous act, even though you are up-front and forthright about what you are doing and why, then made up for by your gains. But not at first. I was seduced by Rothbard's argument when I infiltrated the Free Libertarian Party in 1973. When Rothbard himself stopped scorning the FLP [Free Libertarian Party of New York]and joined the campaign for Fran Youngstein for Mayor, he took the most reactionary positions within the FLP intraorganizational sruggle. That was my first warning that the Radical Caucus wouldn't work. (About the time we met, right?)

The final straw on the camel's back was the letter sent by Bill Westmiller (National LP) to party-opposing Chris Tame who was (and still is) keeping the Libertarian Alliance of Great Britain out of electoral politics. Bill claimed that the LP was all right because I (SEK3) was a member, delegate and on the Executive! I was out within 60 days, after that famed New York convention where Rothbard plunged into despair at the "chaos" we Decentralists had unleashed on the FLP and he stated furiously that I (already sitting outside the convention hall and refusing to vote) was the only one who fully understood what was going on.

The following year I was relocated in Southern California with LeFevre's anti-political activists, unaware that Sy Leon was dropping out, Dana Rohrabacher was selling out, and I would be left in charge of the anti-political wing of Libertarian activists. What a long strange trip it's been.