5 Reasons to Abandon Politics

[cjm]

This is anecdotal, not empirical.

It's both.

 

[Matt Collins]

Almost nothing the grassroots did was "political" or in the "political system".

Did you sleep through the last 5 years?

Renting airplanes, renting a blimp, tricking out vehicles, donning V for Vendetta masks and waving signs, filling the roadways and overpasses with guerrilla marketing, making Youtube tributes, writing songs, doing Meetups and networking, Ron Paul Christmas decorations, Ron Paul jack-o-lanterns, Ron Paul painted roofs for Google Maps' benefit, running entire Ron Paul radio stations, a "Ron Paul County" project out in Texas, the list could go on and on. We did tons of cool, inspiring, highly non-traditional and, in a short-term electoral politics sense, highly ineffective things. The Ron Paul rEVOLution logo was certainly not calculated to get Republican votes and garner election victory, and it certainly didn't. But it worked for us. Like so much else that we did, it reached a certain kind of person and struck a chord with them and made them do some research and eventually brought them into the fold.

yes but as you noted, it didn't really do anything to win an election which was kind of the whole point of a campaign.

We are winning the intellectual battle, at least currently.

That doesn't win elections or change policy. Only political pressure does that.

Statism has had a 100% mindshare in the past. But now, we have some share. We have, say, 5% and they have only 95%. That's huge! The intellectual battle is fundamental. Think of it like "logistics" in a warfare scenario, or even better, like the economic strength of the warring countries. Without a solid intellectual fight going on at the foundation, go won't attract new young converts to your cause, and your movement will wither and die. Without a large base of backers and believers, you will not win elections.

No, not necessary. Elections are not about changing peoples' minds per se, they are about convincing people to vote for your guy on election day. That's a much lower threshold and easier to attain than trying to modify someone's worldview and underlying philosophy.

Elections are just marketing.

So there's a lot of stuff we can do to further liberty, and certainly electioneering is not the most important, ...Most people are not like you and will be drained by it. They will burn out quickly. They will not like it, because it's conflict, it's drama, it's dirty, it's cynical, and it will eat up their life. So most of us should avoid electioneering and focus on other movement-growing and enhancing actions.

Electioneering and political pressure on issues are the only activities that actually change the policies. I understand people dont want to get involved, yeah it can be a drag, but the only thing for big government to triumph is for good people to do nothing. The more liberty people who do not play in the political arena, the more the statists win.

 

[familydog]

It would be so nice if people would quit with their defeatist attitude, get out from behind the computer, and actually go do something to stop the government from encroaching on liberty.

You can fist pump and slap Rand's ass all you want, but I am not anymore free than I was twenty years ago. I am considerably less free. This is an empirical and measurable fact. Who cares about a couple of kidney punches I didn't receive? I only care about my daily whippings at the hand of your buddies.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's both.

Fair enough. But it's still not sufficient to prove the claim in question.

 

[cjm]

Fair enough. But it's still not sufficient to prove the claim in question.

The claim in question was:

There is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that politiking will change anything.

I could cite more examples of law changes that have favored liberty, but one example is enough to refute this particular claim.

Now if the claim was "There is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that politiking will change anything to my satisfaction" then you are correct. I cannot prove that political solutions will ever satisfy everyone. But I never made that claim. My claim is that politics is an avenue to promote liberty and make society freer. There is plenty of evidence for this. Some say the time and effort required to make small changes isn't worth it. I'm ok with that. Value is subjective. It is worth it to other people. I applaud those who work hard in politics for small changes as well as those that work hard in their personal lives to help their neighbors understand liberty. Both are needed. And if anyone disagrees with this, that's fine, we can agree to disagree.

 

[Matthew5]

So you didn't lift a finger for Ron Paul? That's hard core.

A quick scan of my previous posts would show that I was heavily involved in the RP '12 campaign (both officially and grassroots) and have been volunteering for campaigns since I was 18 (obviously alittle before my public RPF record). I've volunteered for local, state, and national campaigns; heck, I even considered a political office myself (had the paper work and contacts already rolling). I've met with politicians in my work life and have always been active in the grassroots for personal causes.

I've played the game, and the conclusion I have come to is that it's not worth playing.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Did you sleep through the last 5 years?
...
yes but as you noted...

In other words: "How could you be so wrong...yes, you're right".

, it didn't really do anything to win an election which was kind of the whole point of a campaign.

Was it? You yourself said Ron couldn't win, was unelectable. You didn't say that during the campaign, did you? No, you didn't (I did, for the record, say he wasn't going to win right after he lost the strawpoll at the Iowa caucuses). Was that dishonesty, or did you only figure this out in hindsight? Hmm. Anyway, in my view winning was never the only point of the campaign. Of course, I did make sure that we won in my county. There was one Ron Paul supporter there in the stadium in Tampa from Campbell County, Wyoming. So I did my part. I "know how this game is played" or whatever junk some of you guys are patting each other on the back for. As if anyone who doesn't thrive on conflict and parliamentary machinations and power plays like you do is hopelessly clueless and ignorant. Wrong, they're not. They're just different. They're normal, one might say. And yeah, it was a thrill to win, but a far more lasting result will be the network of supporters who got to know each other in the process of winning.

Electioneering and political pressure on issues are the only activities that actually change the policies. I understand people dont want to get involved, yeah it can be a drag, but the only thing for big government to triumph is for good people to do nothing. The more liberty people who do not play in the political arena, the more the statists win.

In other words, I am right about everything and you have either agreed with or been silent on every point I have made, but yet you still disagree with me. And maybe if you put it in bigger font it will be more convincing.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Is dishonesty just a part of "marketing" to you, Matt Collins? Is that what you're about?

Of course, there's no reason for you to answer that honestly either, is there? This is all just a Machiavellian struggle for power for you, huh?

 

[silverhandorder]

Politics has not got us anywhere. I did more for my freedom by improving my economic status then anything that was done since 2007. Networking with people you agree is a good thing. Trying to seize power so you can ram down libertarianism down the throats of the rest of the country is not going to get us anywhere. If it did we would be a libertarian society. The general trend is that over time societies collapse (due to being run politically). We are at the point where we can't do anything to stop that.

 

[green73]

Is dishonesty just a part of "marketing" to you, Matt Collins? Is that what you're about?

Of course, there's no reason for you to answer that honestly either, is there? This is all just a Machiavellian struggle for power for you, huh?

Collins is just a pathetic hanger-on with no credibility. What's sad though, is the vocal few here who are either shills or really do ascribe to Machiavellianism.

 

[Matt Collins]

Is dishonesty just a part of "marketing" to you, Matt Collins?

Anyone who markets dishonestly is a fool, because it can be easily seen through and does more damage than by not marketing dishonestly. And besides, it's not moral.

 

[LibertyEagle]

So, guys, I guess you believe that Ron Paul was wrong all along, eh?

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

 

[Matt Collins]

Politics has not got us anywhere.

Actually it is what has gotten us into the place we're in now, and it's the only thing that can get us out of it too.

Trying to seize power so you can ram down libertarianism down the throats of the rest of the country is not going to get us anywhere.

If you're not controlling the government, then someone else is. Is that what you want?

 

[Matt Collins]

You yourself said Ron couldn't win, was unelectable. You didn't say that during the campaign, did you? No, you didn't (I did, for the record, say he wasn't going to win right after he lost the strawpoll at the Iowa caucuses). Was that dishonesty, or did you only figure this out in hindsight?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Anyway, in my view winning was never the only point of the campaign.

Electoral victory is not the same as "winning". Ron Paul won both 08 and 12 even though he didn't achieve electoral victory.

Of course, I did make sure that we won in my county. There was one Ron Paul supporter there in the stadium in Tampa from Campbell County, Wyoming. So I did my part.

That's awesome, congrats! I wish everyone in every county across the country did the same.

And yeah, it was a thrill to win, but a far more lasting result will be the network of supporters who got to know each other in the process of winning.

I completely agree with that.

 

[silverhandorder]

So, guys, I guess you believe that Ron Paul was wrong all along, eh?



http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

Yes he is wrong.

Actually it is what has gotten us into the place we're in now, and it's the only thing that can get us out of it too.

Which is Ron Paul's son with a diluted platform to fit the mind set of the majority. I like Rand, I like Ron Paul. But I also like Adam Kokesh, Peter Schiff and Stefan Moleneux. And they have a much better approach. Peter is saving people money. Adam is getting people involved in alternative economy. Stefan is teaching people how to actually raise their families and structure relationships that makes you free.

If you're not controlling the government, then someone else is. Is that what you want?

That someone else is going to have to fight with another someone else for that power. Yes I want them to waste their time on that while "liberty" movement outgrows government in power.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

If this thread was a forum it would be called the Daily Paul.

 

[silverhandorder]

Mind blown... Daily Paul is a forum mostly about not participating in politics? Never got into following it with RPF around.

 

[klamath]

Well anarchists enjoy it while you can because I really don't think the owner of the RP forums will look to lightly on people actively condemning and promoting the idea to drop out of electoral politics on a forum set up specifically to elect people. It is perfectly fine to be personally disgusted with politics and not want to participate but when it is counter to the objective of the forum something is going to give when the elections roll around.
When you are actively attempting to suppress liberty voter turnout and destroy enthusiasm for candidates Byran is actively trying to get elected don't be surprised if your freedom to use his server space doesn't get curtailed.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well anarchists enjoy it while you can because I really don't think the owner of the RP forums will look to lightly on people actively condemning and promoting the idea to drop out of electoral politics on a forum set up specifically to elect people. It is perfectly fine to be personally disgusted with politics and not want to participate but when it is counter to the objective of the forum something is going to give when the elections roll around.
When you are actively attempting to suppress liberty voter turnout and destroy enthusiasm for candidates Byran is actively trying to get elected don't be surprised if your freedom to use his server space doesn't get curtailed.

This corner of the forest is designed especially for anti-political people. If this had been started in GP or something, I could see why Bryan would be upset.

 

[klamath]

This corner of the forest is designed especially for anti-political people. If this had been started in GP or something, I could see why Bryan would be upset.

If the intent is for a group of dyed in the wool anarchists to have a place to talk about their projects, that is fine but if the intent like this thread title is to recruit new and discourage current liberty voters then it becomes counter to the goals of the forum.
Should Bryan set up a socialist forum that has the intention to discourage libertarian Republican turnout and regularly have those members post negative comments about the candidates Bryan choose to support?