5 Reasons to Abandon Politics

[IDefendThePlatform]

If you posses political power you are a bit more insulated from the government's actions.

If you possess economic power you are a bit more insulated from the governments actions. Most freedom lovers would be better off googling "How to pay less taxes" than googling "How to influence politics" They'd be better off emailing an accountant than emailing a politician.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

And that doesn't accomplish anything other than making us feel good.

It surprises me that you would even say this. Spreading the message of individual liberty and self-ownership is paramount to the success of the freedom movement. The more people who see govt for the illegitimate, violence-based organization that it is, the closer we will be to a free society.

 

[Matt Collins]

If you possess economic power you are a bit more insulated from the governments actions. Most freedom lovers would be better off googling "How to pay less taxes" than googling "How to influence politics" They'd be better off emailing an accountant than emailing a politician.

I would say both.

 

[Matt Collins]

It surprises me that you would even say this. Spreading the message of individual liberty and self-ownership is paramount to the success of the freedom movement. The more people who see govt for the illegitimate, violence-based organization that it is, the closer we will be to a free society.

But the reality is that it doesn't matter what percentage of the population agrees with us, it matters how much pressure we can put on the politicians. Which means, how many people can we mobilize?

 

[silverhandorder]

I'd rather win back our liberty through peaceful political methods, not through a violent conflict.

But the reality is that it doesn't matter what percentage of the population agrees with us, it matters how much pressure we can put on the politicians. Which means, how many people can we mobilize?

Which is better achieved outside the political process. When amazon and google speak up government listens. When mass disobedience occurs government listens. Eventually government will be powerless in the face of those forces. In the meantime 10 hours overtime is worth more for my freedom then 10 hours of activism.

 

[Matt Collins]

Which is better achieved outside the political process. When amazon and google speak up government listens. When mass disobedience occurs government listens. Eventually government will be powerless in the face of those forces. In the meantime 10 hours overtime is worth more for my freedom then 10 hours of activism.

It is far easier to get 100 people to call your state legislator to stop a bill than it is to get 10 people to commit to break the law.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

All human interaction is political. And at the end of the day it's all about power and force (the two are not the same thing).

You are making some big communications mistakes here, Matt, and this post right here is an example of a major, major problem. You are trying to actually communicate, presumably, with the audience here. That means using words in a way that audience will understand. You know, or should know, perfectly well, how the words "political/politics" and "power" are used by libertarians. Yet you are choosing to use them in a completely different way, with completely different definitions. I do not know if it's intentional or not, because I have run into this confusion and miscommunication with you on one thread before. Maybe you're just intentionally muddying the waters to confuse the issue.

Let's assume good faith and review again, though.

Politics, in the sense that everyone on this forum always, invariably uses it (except for you, Matt) means: actions associated with trying to control or influence the state, working within the processes which the state itself has set up for doing so (elections, referendums, signing petitions on the White House web site, etc.). To quote Wikipedia, politics is the process whereby we "choose government officials and make decisions about public policy."

Power, in the sense that everyone on this forum always, invariably uses it (except for you, Matt) means: the power to push other people around aggressively. This word, too, generally has reference to the state, not just random criminals or malfeasants.

So there's the normal definitions.

Do you get it now? Are we on the same page? Can you now use the words "power" and "politics" like a normal Ron Paul supporter, going forward? Then we can have actual communication, see? It'll be great!

It's not that your definitions are wrong. All acts involving human interaction can indeed be thought of and labeled as politics. A boss' influence over his employees can indeed be thought of as power. So too, in fact, can a violinist's mastery over his instrument be considered power. But these are not relevant definitions. They're not what anyone here is talking about! My guess is you've read/listened to a whole lot of self-help books, with a particular focus on empowerment, and are now wanting to give us all a free lesson in all the marvelous things you've discovered from the The 48 Laws of Power and The Art of Seduction. And that's great, but it just isn't relevant to this discussion. And no one's going to learn anything from your terse one-liners anyway. You're just spouting tautologies... to yourself. No one else is receiving your words.

When IDefendthePlatform says that he's swearing off politics, that doesn't mean he no longer wants to be able to influence his wife to do things he likes! When LoneStarLocke explains how he, too, has given up on politics, that doesn't mean he is giving up on being admired and listened-to at work! They are just saying they have decided to quit electioneering. They've decided to stop fighting the state within the state's own approved processes.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

When people say all politics is evil, they are not railing against the woes of "office politics"!

 

[silverhandorder]

It is far easier to get 100 people to call your state legislator to stop a bill than it is to get 10 people to commit to break the law.

How many hours is that to get 100 people calling? At minimum wage how much money could you make for the same amount of time investment? How about at avg wage? How about at your wage?

Now combine an hour of those peoples time.

You can see how the time investment explodes. All that activity can be directed towards making libertarian community more prosperous. Then there will incentive to actually cater to libertarian needs if they are such an affluent society.

 

[Matt Collins]

How many hours is that to get 100 people calling? At minimum wage how much money could you make for the same amount of time investment? How about at avg wage? How about at your wage?

Now combine an hour of those peoples time.

You can see how the time investment explodes. All that activity can be directed towards making libertarian community more prosperous. Then there will incentive to actually cater to libertarian needs if they are such an affluent society.

You're right that changing things is an investment in time, and thus money, no doubt about that. But how much of your wealth will you lose if the government continues to grow like it is? In fact, can you even keep what you make if the government continues to grow? And, then there are personal freedoms... no one can really put a price on those...

 

[Matt Collins]

You are making some big communications mistakes here, Matt,

That's definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

You know, or should know, perfectly well, how the words "political/politics" and "power" are used by libertarians. Yet you are choosing to use them in a completely different way, with completely different definitions. I do not know if it's intentional or not, because I have run into this confusion and miscommunication with you on one thread before. Maybe you're just intentionally muddying the waters to confuse the issue.

Fair enough, but I have already defined these phrases multiple times not only on this board, but in this thread too.

Politics, in the sense that everyone on this forum always, invariably uses it (except for you, Matt) means: actions associated with trying to control or influence the state, working within the processes which the state itself has set up for doing so (elections, referendums, signing petitions on the White House web site, etc.). To quote Wikipedia, politics is the process whereby we "choose government officials and make decisions about public policy."

That's a correct but very narrow view of it, politics is a process by which groups of humans make decisions, whether or not it involves the government. The definition really is that politics is the adjudication of power. Power being defined as being able to get others to do what you want them to do.

It's not that your definitions are wrong. All acts involving human interaction can indeed be thought of and labeled as politics. A boss' influence over his employees can indeed be thought of as power. So too, in fact, can a violinist's mastery over his instrument be considered power. But these are not relevant definitions.

I disagree that these are not relevant definitions.

I think that having an understanding of how power flows in our daily non-governmental interactions is indeed crucial to understanding how power flows within the government, and within our interactions of the government, and those who control the government.

It's all a form of economics, about human motivation. Almost brushing up against praxeology. Having your parents or your boss or your friends coax you into doing something is very similar to having the government do the same. And the reverse works, understanding how power among people within society functions can lead you to be able to manipulate politicians who make policy decisions.

They're not what anyone here is talking about! My guess is you've read/listened to a whole lot of self-help books, with a particular focus on empowerment, and are now wanting to give us all a free lesson in all the marvelous things you've discovered from the The 48 Laws of Power and The Art of Seduction.

lolz, no, not hardly. But I have studied political activism quite a bit in the last few years, how to kill legislation, how to push legislation, etc.

They are just saying they have decided to quit electioneering. They've decided to stop fighting the state within the state's own approved processes.

And when good people do nothing and don't fight for liberty, the statists win.

 

[silverhandorder]

You're right that changing things is an investment in time, and thus money, no doubt about that. But how much of your wealth will you lose if the government continues to grow like it is? In fact, can you even keep what you make if the government continues to grow? And, then there are personal freedoms... no one can really put a price on those...

Currently I don't have much wealth. Any wealth that I will obtain as my career grows I sure as hell will not put it anywhere where it may be in danger. There are safe heavens around the world that are rewarding towards investors and savers.

Matt you may not be able to put a price on freedom but many people do, and so do I. However that does not mean that my approach will make me less free then yours. People with economic power can BUY political power and freedom.

 

[Matt Collins]

Any wealth that I will obtain as my career grows I sure as hell will not put it anywhere where it may be in danger. There are safe heavens around the world that are rewarding towards investors and savers.

But you miss the fact that a great amount of your wealth is already being stolen from you even if you don't realize it.

Every time you pay rent you have to pay property taxes. Every time you buy something the government gets a cut. The government also gets a cut of your income. Your cell phone and Internet costs are heavily taxed as well as your gas and electricity, etc. Not to mention the embedded taxes that raise the cost of doing business (which always gets passed on to the consumer).

And then of course there is currency inflation....

People with economic power can BUY political power and freedom.

Very true. But the reality is that most people will never be able to buy political power or freedom.

 

[silverhandorder]

But you miss the fact that a great amount of your wealth is already being stolen from you even if you don't realize it.

Every time you pay rent you have to pay property taxes. Every time you buy something the government gets a cut. The government also gets a cut of your income. Your cell phone and Internet costs are heavily taxed as well as your gas and electricity, etc. Not to mention the embedded taxes that raise the cost of doing business (which always gets passed on to the consumer).

And then of course there is currency inflation....

I absolutely agree. I can always leave. If they make it hard to leave I can always hide my wealth. If they make that hard I can just stop being productive. I always have a choice. But my choice of action is realistic. Taking over federal government and convincing people who are dependent to be libertarian is not going to work.

Very true. But the reality is that most people will never be able to buy political power or freedom.

Same would apply to their ability to effect change as political activists.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

And when good people do nothing and don't fight for liberty, the statists win.

You keep conflating not participating in the sham known as "politics" with "doing nothing." I don't know how many more different ways I can say it. Agorism is the more effective route. Political action reinforces statism and takes money and time away from building a wealthy, functioning, free society. I'll repost this list to re-make the point that what we agorists are doing, is NOT nothing:

Stop voting
Don't endorse political candidates
Don't participate in any political or civil campaign
Refuse to participate in the hero cult of police and military
Turn your TV off
Homeschool your kids or send them to a private school
Leave or don't join nationalistic organizations (e.g. Boy Scouts)
Don't give to "charities" or funds that support civic organizations (encourage private enterprise instead)
Grow your own food
Barter more
Reduce your debt
Shall I go on? There's lots of little practical steps one can take and it will begin to have a cumulative effect.
Donate the money you would have sent to politicians to liberty-minded podcasters or talk radio hosts like Ian and Mark at FreeTalkLive
Buy some bitcoin
Promote bitcoin usage at your local small businesses and with friends
Instead of handing out flyers encouraging people to vote for one or the other politician, hand out flyers on why voting is a sham
Promote Bastiat's "The Law" (Ron Paul's favorite book) and other liberty minded philosophical literature by donating them to the local library or schools, or by writing quality, positive reviews on Amazon
Support private institutions that fill the role of government such as private schools, private security and private mass-transit.
Take government money every chance you get (The more money you take from the government the better libertarian you are-Walter Block via FeedingTheAbscess)
Start a business: http://www.policymic.com/articles/4...ave-done-to-detroit-and-it-s-freaking-awesome

 

[Matt Collins]

Political action reinforces statism and takes money and time away from building a wealthy, functioning, free society.

It doesn't reinforce it, it doesn't need reinforcing. It exists and they have more guns whether you care to acknowledge that fact or not. So it's better to be able to manipulate those who control the guns than just simply pretend they don't exist and allow people who don't love liberty to control those guns.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If you don't want to vote, that's fine. But trying to convince other liberty supporters not to vote is just helping the Statists win. Which is why I detest Stephan Molineux. If he doesn't want to vote for people like Ron Paul himself, that's one thing, but to actively try to convince other liberty minded people to do so is just hurting the cause.

The political process is one means to educate and one means to shift power. I'm not sure it'll work but you don't really have anything to lose by pulling the lever either.

 

[Matthew5]

It doesn't reinforce it, it doesn't need reinforcing. It exists and they have more guns whether you care to acknowledge that fact or not. So it's better to be able to manipulate those who control the guns than just simply pretend they don't exist and allow people who don't love liberty to control those guns.

Ok, I get that you're saying that since politics exists, the American government brand is just one more arrow in the quiver of politics as a social interaction. Therefore it's a legitimate system. Am I understanding this correctly?

However, what other form of politics has so much concentrated power to affect the lives of millions through the force of violence and to be wielded by such an elite few? You won't find such at the work place, in the market, at a business conference, or at your church picnic.

Just because some strands of politics can and should exist, doesn't make the state a good tool. You keep speaking of wielding the power...we're trying to destroy the Ring here, not make sure it stays in the correct hands. Controlling the means of force and violence isn't a good goal to have, eradicating the mechanism all together would be a more noble pursuit, wouldn't you say?

 

[Matthew5]

If you don't want to vote, that's fine. But trying to convince other liberty supporters not to vote is just helping the Statists win. Which is why I detest Stephan Molineux. If he doesn't want to vote for people like Ron Paul himself, that's one thing, but to actively try to convince other liberty minded people to do so is just hurting the cause.

The political process is one means to educate and one means to shift power. I'm not sure it'll work but you don't really have anything to lose by pulling the lever either.

That's if you think "the cause" only exists inside the realm of politics.

Every time you pull the lever, you're legitimizing force to be used to carry out your wishes, however noble they may be. The problem is, the state-worshipping voter in the booth right next to you is legitimizing their wishes as well. And thus the cycle continues...

Other threads can explore ways to advance and educate outside such a system of force.

 

[Matt Collins]

Every time you pull the lever, you're legitimizing force to be used to carry out your wishes, however noble they may be.

No, not at all. I don't vote for people who put forth those kind of policies, a lot of races I'll write in a candidate or turn in that specific race blank. Even though I vote, I don't vote for the "lesser of evils".

Other threads can explore ways to advance and educate outside such a system of force.

Except that the system of force exists, always has, and likely will for the foreseeable future. I don't see human nature changing much at all in the next few decades. So it's better to manipulate that system for the cause of liberty, than to let others manipulate it for their purposes.