Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Going into politics

rated by 0 users
This post has 6 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene Posted: Fri, Dec 7 2012 9:09 AM

A friend of mine, an anarcho-capitalist, recently became a candidate of the Israeli libertarian party (Ale Yarok) the parliament. He has a real chance of becoming one of the 120 Knesset members. That's a significant achievement.

However I myself am not really comfortable with this. How can I support a political party? By supporting it I am giving legitimacy to the idea that other people can rule me. On the other hand politics is good for spreading ideas. Unfortunately people are very attentive to politicians, so a lot of the propaganda game is played in politics.

So what do you think? Should I swallow the posionous pill and support his candidacy and the party? Should I help the party by spreading knowledge about it and its ideas? Should I vote for it? How far would you go to entangle yourself with the state?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

By supporting it I am giving legitimacy to the idea that other people can rule me

You're supporting a specific person. Nowhere did you sign off "I allow you to rule me." Even if you did, it's not an enforceable contract.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 88
Points 1,455
idol replied on Fri, Dec 7 2012 1:17 PM

As a libertarian, your friend's entire pitch is that he's going to relax the power that government has over you. It is also my belief that the libertarian party is a means to an end: it is easier to go from a minarchist state to an anarchist state than it is to go from a very large state to an anarchist state. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Sat, Dec 8 2012 10:07 AM

Well, as a politician you live at the expense of the tax payers, which is arguably a violation of NAP. However what bothers me more I guess is that non-radical approach to the abolishenment of the state, that is, trying to minimize its power in small steps didn't work in the past and unlikely to work in the future. You can't destroy the game by playing by its rules.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 88
Points 1,455
idol replied on Sun, Dec 9 2012 3:05 PM

Are you saying that minimizing its powers in small steps didn't work in the past because its powers were not minimized, or because even though its powers were minimized they were never totally abolished?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Mon, Dec 10 2012 11:33 AM

I don't think you can minimize the state using democracy in the long term. In the short term you might, but then after another crisis, war, or period of great wealth, socialists and fascists will rise and convince the public to increase the state.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Dec 10 2012 12:09 PM

There's incredibly few that can play the game and not be corrupted by it.

To stand on principle is to marginalize yourself in the eyes of the power players in politics.

Ron Paul was as close as one could ever come to making a difference on that path, and it was through education primarily.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS