Yes, it is strange to quote Hitler as the title of a thread, however, I think he kindof expresses what I am trying to ask.
Can I ethically enter parliament as a sort of Ron Paul in the UK, and what (do you think) would be the potential gains I could make? Could I legitimately make compromises? Should I attempt to lead Labour or the Conservative party?
Also, who would government assets go to? How quickly could one take government apart from the seat of control? Would a central government have to use force to remove the power of subsidiary levels of government, or would this be unethical?
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Being Ron Paul, and leading the country are two different things. Paul has managed to carve out a small niche in politics and stay there. But he'll never be a President or party leader. Not happening.
No one will let you get within 20 metres of power if they think you have libertarian or populist leanings.
liberty student:No one will let you get within 20 metres of power if they think you have libertarian or populist leanings.
Unless you have a broad constituency of libertarians or populists.
I would suggest building a firm base of support first. I don't know how you would do that, though. Its my understading that Europeans are quite content with socialism. Unless you have a constituency, you have nothing to represent.
liberty student: No one will let you get within 20 metres of power if they think you have libertarian or populist leanings.
If you subscribe to the pluralist theory of government, your best bet is to build a coalition of support. For AnCaps and Austrians, I would suggest:
1) Drug legalizers, fiat-currency haters, libertarians, school voucherers, small gov people, lower tax people, FAIR tax people, anti-imperialists, small business owners, states-righters, some religious groups who view gov as evil [J. witnesses, amish, many evangelicals], gun enthusiasts, pro-lifers, porn industry, sex offenders, prisoners, criminals, corporate tax dodgers, free traders, some venture capitalists, polluters, etc etc.
Go online and you will be amazed at the number of interest groups dedicated to some of these small niches. Start at the grass roots and arrange meetings and build support for a broader voting bloc, then be active in getting out the vote and motivating your base to the polls. Steal ideas from successful political parties in their efforts [example: free rides to the polls, constiuency work, etc] Take advantage of voting apathy, and engage in rampant propaganda and spin.
Good luck.
Ixtellor
Ixtellor:If you subscribe to the pluralist theory of government, your best bet is to build a coalition of support
We don't. He's talking about gaining power, so he can dismantle power.
Ixtellor:polluters
Remind me to punch you in the nose.
Ixtellor:Go online and you will be amazed at the number of interest groups dedicated to some of these small niches. Start at the grass roots and arrange meetings and build support for a broader voting bloc, then be active in getting out the vote and motivating your base to the polls. Steal ideas from successful political parties in their efforts [example: free rides to the polls, constiuency work, etc] Take advantage of voting apathy, and engage in rampant propaganda and spin.
lmao, it's like Ron Paul didn't happen!
It is not unethical. But entering parliament is useless. Ron Paul was never going to win the presidency, I doubt he ever intended to. The idea of the whole RP was to create a libertarian movement. He would never have been elected, and if he was he would have been killed before he even had the chance to make a difference.
What he did successfully, is however, to gather support from various groups and create a libertarian movement where before that was none. He created a movement out of number of different groups. The anti war people, the constitutionalists and other minarchists and conservatives.
Ironically the only reason he was able to do so was because the current state in which the president is seen as god and so much coverage is given to the presidential race.
Now I don't know if the same thing is possible in the UK. I've looked at the UK Libertarian Party and at times have been tempted to join. I'm not convinced by their positions though and the whole thing seems very weak, and not particularly libertarian. Moreover a fringe party candidate isn't going to have much attention, you'd have to run for one of the bigger parties as Mr Paul did. The other thing is that Paul had many other things working for him which would take a while for anybody to do.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student: Ixtellor:If you subscribe to the pluralist theory of government, your best bet is to build a coalition of support We don't. He's talking about gaining power, so he can dismantle power.
1) I don't think you understand pluralism.
2) When minority interest groups (read YOU) want to compete with big interest groups (read Dems, Labour party), they can't compete straight up, so they have to broden their base. So if you want more libertarians in office, you have to broden your base and get more votes. What you do after you get in power is your business. Burn it all down if you want.
liberty student: Ixtellor:polluters Remind me to punch you in the nose.
The fact remains that you and polluters have a common interest. Less or no government. Don't quibble when your out of power, just take their money and their votes and get into power, then do what you want.
liberty student: Ixtellor:Go online and you will be amazed at the number of interest groups dedicated to some of these small niches. Start at the grass roots and arrange meetings and build support for a broader voting bloc, then be active in getting out the vote and motivating your base to the polls. Steal ideas from successful political parties in their efforts [example: free rides to the polls, constiuency work, etc] Take advantage of voting apathy, and engage in rampant propaganda and spin. lmao, it's like Ron Paul didn't happen!
1) I love Ron Paul. He is one of very few politicians who sticks to principle, I find it VERY admirable.
2) He didn't do enough spin and propaganda. He came off kooky just like Kinky did in his Texas Gov bid. In addition he is not a very good public speaker. You need someone more elequant. And I know he didn't do any reaching out to some consituency groups that might have been available. And he made some poor political choices. Excepting money from racists, even having a really good answer for it (and I think he did), does not win votes.
3) If I ever get into political consulting for campaigns, and I am thinking about it, I would love to work for Ron Paul,... just for the challenge of it. I think he could be lieutant gov of Texas to start with, which is FAR more powerful than a lone congressman.
Thedesolateone:Would a central government have to use force to remove the power of subsidiary levels of government, or would this be unethical?
Unethical and inadvisable. The proper function of government, if any, is to protect people; generally speaking, that means lower levels of government should be protecting against the higher levels of government, which are usually more tyrannical. If a higher level of government is powerful enough to dismantle a lower level, then it is too powerful.
At least if people don't like the lower levels of government, they can usually move to escape them.
Right now people can escape the UK and go to France, if they like it better. People can leave England and go to Scotland. (I don't know enough about your present political constitution over there today to know how much if any practical difference that makes; I do know that this was originally one of the nice features of the United States, but it is vanishing and has been ever since Abraham Lincoln, and really ever since the Articles of Confederation were abandoned in favor of the Constitution.) People can leave London and go to Bristol. People can leave their parents' household and establish their own.
The reach of these local tyrannies is limited and easier to escape or to resist. Attempt to fight them from above, and you'll just homogenize the legal system beneath and give people much less chance to resist or escape. Imagine what would happen if the United Nations became a one world government. That's just what happens when a higher level of government is powerful enough to overthrow a lower level.
jdavidb:People can leave their parents' household and establish their own.
This is a fallacious analogy. Parents own their property, as such, to not be subject to the rules, the children need to leave. However, when I buy a piece of property, it is my property, not the governments. As such, they have no legitimate right to make rules regarding my behavior or property.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Actually, it's not a fallacious example -- it's a better analogy for how things should be! With governments, your ability to leave is limited. Generally speaking, with parents, it is not.
Boris Johnson is said to be an LRC reader and was a Tory MP before running for mayor of London.
If you fail to run for MP you should try running for mayor and make sure you run your town as a private community would, to the best of your abilities.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
What I don't get is why Austrian's aren't trying harder to find mainstream ways to reach the majority of the public, be it a Team Fortress 2 game server or things that many normal people would reach everyday. I mean there aren't enough things on social networking sites that are related to libertarianism (ie something that like the IQ quiz that tells you what you are, except it would be the how Austrian are you Quiz).
Ixtellor:The fact remains that you and polluters have a common interest. Less or no government. Don't quibble when your out of power, just take their money and their votes and get into power, then do what you want.
No. You don't get it. We're for strict property rights. Polluters have nothing in common with us. I reject political action but there has to be a line somewhere.
That's the issue with pluralism. In order to "gain power" we're supposed to compromise values until we have a plurality.
That's unacceptable to me. Any libertarians who try not to go the Ron Paul route, and actually expect to take power, are just much my enemy as any statist.
Luis Buenaventura: What I don't get is why Austrian's aren't trying harder to find mainstream ways to reach the majority of the public, be it a Team Fortress 2 game server or things that many normal people would reach everyday. I mean there aren't enough things on social networking sites that are related to libertarianism (ie something that like the IQ quiz that tells you what you are, except it would be the how Austrian are you Quiz).
How did you find us?
Stranger: Luis Buenaventura: What I don't get is why Austrian's aren't trying harder to find mainstream ways to reach the majority of the public, be it a Team Fortress 2 game server or things that many normal people would reach everyday. I mean there aren't enough things on social networking sites that are related to libertarianism (ie something that like the IQ quiz that tells you what you are, except it would be the how Austrian are you Quiz). How did you find us?
Well, I attended a Duke TIP class over the summer (lectured by graduates/professors) for middle schoolers. Previous to the aformentioned event I supported Ron Paul because he sounded like a real fiscal conservative and my number one problem was the national debt, yet my teacher, who was an Austrian, taught us Professor Garrisons powerpoints-these changed my outlook and began my metamorphosis from a typical fiscal conservative (not to be confused with social conservative) to an Austrian myself. So, my change was not even something that many would have been fortunate enough to experiance, yet if it was more mainstream...
I think I am the only one seeing the irony in your post. Quite funny it degenerated so quickly into the usual "Ron Paul yes/no" virtual fistfight.
Let me tell you one thing though. As much as I admire and respect Dr Paul he's a relic from a better past. There's no room for such upright and morally strong characters in present day politics: that he has been able to keep his position to thisa dayspeaks volumes about what an extraordinary person he is. Also you should remember that especially in Europe people from your costituency expect you, upon your election, to "be nice to them". You know what this means: pork barrel as our American friends say.
Personally I doubt someone would be able to get elected on a "less State" platform nowadays: hey, the Government MUST do something about it, "it" being anything from economic problems to pencil sharpeners. The recent frenzy about Obama being able to change the world just because he's sitting in the Oval Office should be a cautionary tale about how much normal people has come to believe that there's no salvation outside of the State and that they don't need to rely on themselves since a bureaucrat will solve their own problems with a magical wand (OK, it's sually a gun and a bag of looted money but stick with me).
I am finding that the present day economic recession is a wonderful occasion to teach people about economics and politics. Just keep it simple, no need to get to Westminster...
Ixtellor:Drug legalizers, fiat-currency haters, libertarians, school voucherers, small gov people, lower tax people, FAIR tax people, anti-imperialists, small business owners, states-righters, some religious groups who view gov as evil [J. witnesses, amish, many evangelicals], gun enthusiasts, pro-lifers, porn industry, sex offenders, prisoners, criminals, corporate tax dodgers, free traders, some venture capitalists, polluters, etc etc.
In other words, the people every body else wants to through in jail.
not smart.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."