What do libertarians think about voting and political parties?

I know libertarians will do a lot of talk about how government is bad.  They'll propose all these ideas.  I'm not saying that these ideas are wrong... that would require less government.  I'm all for more of a freer and honest society.  I'm all for a smaller government... I would like a minimal one... that would do some things... so that's good with me.  What I want to know how libertarians (not anarchists) would carry out their plans.  Would they do it by voting?  Would they do it through politicians already in office (like Ron Paul)?  I was wondering just how they're going to accomplish their change.  If they don't have a way of getting their thoughts to the people- the libertarian ideals will just end up like Marxism.  The marxist ideology failed in that it wanted for people to realize for themselves what problems were... the libertarian ideology- while different- has similar tendencies like the Marxian one.  I just wanted to ask... because I'm curious to know what moderate libertarians think (not anarcho-libertarians). 

Voting is the instrument of power. In order to win by voting, you must control the terms upon which people are voting. Then you can get them to vote for whatever you want them. Voting is one weapon in the arsenal of an ideological revolution. If employed accurately, it can be devastating.

There's a flip side to this. Voting alone is no power. The best illustration of this was in last year's film The Dark Knight. Despite the passengers of the ferry overwhelmingly voting in favor of blowing up the other, there is no one willing to actually pull the trigger. Without someone willing to act and wield power, voting is meaningless.

Libertarians do not talk about how government is bad, they are providing examples of the evil nature of the minority of people wielding a monopoly on the use of force and violence.  I can not speak for all the other liberty loving folks, I can comment on how one liberty loving government disliking individual feels about the act of voting.  Voting is one mechanism to enact change in the government, and it is a poor mechanism at that.  The issue is not the act of voting but the reason behind voting which is to provide a facade that people are choosing representatives from a field of choices when it is simply not possible for one person to represent 2 or 3 people much less tens of thousands.  

Furthermore the elected officials use this facade to run roughshod over the populace.  They use terms like mandates and the will of the people when 50% plus 1 vote puts them into office.  Then to make matters worse politicians use their monopoly on force and violence to give out patronage to selected groups of people to help them get re-elected.  This process results in an ever increasing amount of patronage delivered to selected individuals to the detriment of society.

Eventually this patronage changes society as more and more people depend on it and fewer and fewer people actually provide the wealth for the patronage.

 

 

SilentXtarian:

Would they do it through politicians already in office (like Ron Paul)?

They'd try. But they'd fail to understand, that even Ron doesn't think change through politics is largely possible.

SilentXtarian:

I was wondering just how they're going to accomplish their change. 

Education. Which can be done through political campaigns. See Ron Paul in the debates. 

You asked about political parties? The Libertarian Party is pathetic.

Ron Paul is more radical. Ron has followed Rothbard's caucus' 10 points, that is why it's been the beginning of the 'revolution.'

The Libertarian Party is a monument to right wing opportunism. Republican lites. Utilitarians. Bob Barr.

They have better learnt their lesson from 2008, in preparation for 2012. Radicalize or else.

Stranger:

Voting is the instrument of power. In order to win by voting, you must control the terms upon which people are voting. Then you can get them to vote for whatever you want them. Voting is one weapon in the arsenal of an ideological revolution. If employed accurately, it can be devastating.

There's a flip side to this. Voting alone is no power. The best illustration of this was in last year's film The Dark Knight. Despite the passengers of the ferry overwhelmingly voting in favor of blowing up the other, there is no one willing to actually pull the trigger. Without someone willing to act and wield power, voting is meaningless.

That's correct.  Voting is a double edged sword.  I'm not advocating that libertarians take part in the evils of the political process.  I just think that libertarians should really try harder to get their voices heard on a national stage.  That's what they should be doing.  It has the potential to be effective... and then again... it can as you say- end up doing nothing in the end.  I just think that libertarians could do it to raise consciousness in the public because people know that libertarianism exists... they're just brainwashed in school to think that it's something else than what it really is.  So... informing them through the political process- to tell them that they're wrong... that would be a start.  

Bogart:

Libertarians do not talk about how government is bad, they are providing examples of the evil nature of the minority of people wielding a monopoly on the use of force and violence.  I can not speak for all the other liberty loving folks, I can comment on how one liberty loving government disliking individual feels about the act of voting.  Voting is one mechanism to enact change in the government, and it is a poor mechanism at that.  The issue is not the act of voting but the reason behind voting which is to provide a facade that people are choosing representatives from a field of choices when it is simply not possible for one person to represent 2 or 3 people much less tens of thousands.  

Furthermore the elected officials use this facade to run roughshod over the populace.  They use terms like mandates and the will of the people when 50% plus 1 vote puts them into office.  Then to make matters worse politicians use their monopoly on force and violence to give out patronage to selected groups of people to help them get re-elected.  This process results in an ever increasing amount of patronage delivered to selected individuals to the detriment of society.

Eventually this patronage changes society as more and more people depend on it and fewer and fewer people actually provide the wealth for the patronage.

I understand this argument and this is a very noble one.  I myself am not advocating statism.  I don't think you should be like the other political parties.  What I want to know is how these people plan on implementing their vision of freedom without the use of political power.  I think a strong libertarian movement would help things.  

Conza88:

SilentXtarian:

Would they do it through politicians already in office (like Ron Paul)?

They'd try. But they'd fail to understand, that even Ron doesn't think change through politics is largely possible.

I disagree.  Modern liberals seem in the past to have mastered getting change via congresss.  I'm not talking about in mdoern times.  I think the modern liberals today are different than they were 30 years ago but back then... they were passing civil rights legislation and they wooed the voting public voer to them by the legislation that they passed.  It's entirely possible for a libertarian movement to accomplish something similar.  The libertarians would just have to make it appeal to the voting population (not make it dumbed down per say... but make it appealing).

SilentXtarian:

I was wondering just how they're going to accomplish their change.

Education. Which can be done through political campaigns. See Ron Paul in the debates.

Yes... but education can only take you so far.  What's to stop libertarians from getting smeared again?  I think libertarians should take the socialism intellectual approach to educating the people.  Socialism is appealing to people on a philosophical sense.  So libertarianism should appeal to those people who are attracted to socialism out of purely philosophical reasons.  

You asked about political parties? The Libertarian Party is pathetic.

Ron Paul is more radical. Ron has followed Rothbard's caucus' 10 points, that is why it's been the beginning of the 'revolution.'

Ron Paul is libertarian leaning... but in his career he has shifted from being libertarian, to a constitutionalist, to a states rights conservative... and to a traditional Republican, etc.  I think Ron Paul flip-flops too much.  I like him and what he's done, and, I agree that when he is libertarian- he is more radical than the others.  But... I think there needs to be someone more consistent who is the head of the movement.

The Libertarian Party is a monument to right wing opportunism. Republican lites. Utilitarians. Bob Barr.

They have better learnt their lesson from 2008, in preparation for 2012. Radicalize or else.

I wonder how you can confuse libertarian thought with right wing opportunism.

In my opinion there are two things libertarians and freedom loving Americans should do.

1. Infiltrate the major politican parties to create an influence.  While we may not have the majority, we could become the group to which the major parties rely on.  Of course the problem we face is not to lose sight of our principles when we do this.  A third political party, while it may maintain some of our principles, does very little to meet our ends.  This is a long, hard road full of moral hazards, but it is the road before us nonetheless.

2. Prepare the way for what happens after the government fails.  The U.S. Government will fail, as will state governments.  They have planted the seeds of their own destruction.  It is during these times where we must provide leadership and guidance towards a better way - whether that means minarchism or anarchism.  Fight the good fight on the intellectual battlefield.  Win over the hearts and minds of the people.  Refute the lies and misinformation of the state propagandists.

Politics is ugly, and is very much like war.  The objective is to win.  There are really no moral victories in politics, only moral losses.  The system is structured so that a minority can achieve much, it's just that we haven't been organized or willing to do what it takes to win - possibly because we'd rather lose elections than lose our souls.  I think many view political participation as a endorsement of the status quo - an endorsement of the State.  If there is to be a political solution, then a lot of people need to change.

There are lots of means to accomplish change from our current central govenrment running the world to something better.  Not one single mechanism is going to work but in total will bring change.  I have listed them below in my opinion from most effective to least effective.

1. State succession.  This is the most radical change possible where a state leaves the Union.  Of course the Union will be mighty pissed about that and WILL USE EXTREME violence to keep this from happening.  But if the central state is weak enough then this would be a good option.  Hopefully if efforts like the Free State Project could get enough folks in the state legislature then a state succeeding could become a reality.

2. Use alternative Currencies.  This is not as radical as succession but to the central state it almost as bad.  That is for individuals to use other forms of money and reject Federal Reserve Notes.  The central state control of the financial system is the real hammer of power as the state uses inflation to steal wealth from the private economy to fund its evil.  Fortunately for the private economy this is a growing reality and technology like the internet could make alternative currencies and barter more common.

3A. Ignore rules and laws: Refuse to obey idiotic laws like prohibition against pot, prohibition against alcohol for people under 21, speeding, littering, anti-porn, immigrating illegally, etc.  Every time an individual breaks one of these laws the state is weakened just a bit and must expend ever more resources to enforce it.

3B. Use public activism to show the citizenry the evils of the state.

5. Store wealth in gold and silver coin and in gold and silver investments.

6. Advertise state violations of individual rights: Put out on cell phones the locations of "Sobreity Checks", speeding traps, immigration busts, liquor checks, etc.

7A. Refuse to support charities sponsored by the government.  If for example the government starts a mentoring program then refuse to participate. 

7B. Refuse to receive government sponsored shots and medical care.  Use alternative care when available.

7C. Use cash to pay for medical services and negotiate lower prices with providers.

7D. Home school or enroll students in individual pro liberty schools.

11. Become active in PACs and other politically active entities.  There are very few of these that are non-statists.  I know two both started by Ron Paul.

12. Vote for issues and appropriations at the local level that support freedom and smaller government.  For example it is anti-freedom/larger government to support an anti-smoking ballot.

13. Send letters to the media, congress, etc and bitch and moan about government evils.  Attend public meetings on proposals.

14. Vote for liberty candidates at the local level.

15. Vote for candidates for national office.

Note that voting for national office is about the 15ths best way to increase liberty and reduce the power of the state and sending grevians to congress is only slightly better: Think the insane economically damaging TARP.  There were calls and emails about 150 to 1 against.  The legislators passed it anyway.  And when voted out the next bunch passed another stimulus.

I am anarcho-capitalist and a member of the Libertarian Party.  I plan on voting for Libertarian candidates in 2010.  If a revolution (or even gradual evolution) can be done peacefully, than that would be greatly preferred to violent revolution.

I'm an anarcho-libertarian, but don't have a problem with voting.  If that makes me a sell-out, I don't care.  I takes up very little of my time, and most of the government expansions being proposed are truly awful.

On the other hand, I don't put any effort into "politics."  Never donated a dime to any political campaign or party, or gone around collecting signatures, etc.  I also don't pick between the "lesser of two evils" for president or any of that garbage.

Cork:

I takes up very little of my time, and most of the government expansions being proposed are truly awful.

Do you really think voting changes anything?

Does voting change anything?  Probably not a great deal.  At best, it makes it slightly harder for certain measures to pass.  There is a *lot* of stupid and destructive crap proposed in my state.  Seriously, one measure wanted to give fertilized eggs human rights.  Another wanted to make it impossible for employers to fire people.  There comes a point where I just say "screw it, I'll take five minutes to vote against this nonsense."

SilentXtarian:

You asked about political parties? The Libertarian Party is pathetic.

Ron Paul is more radical. Ron has followed Rothbard's caucus' 10 points, that is why it's been the beginning of the 'revolution.'

Ron Paul is libertarian leaning...

Libertarian leaning? Huh? No. He is a Libertarian. And a closet anarcho-capitalist. How do you define someone who is for self government?

SilentXtarian:

but in his career he has shifted from being libertarian, to a constitutionalist, to a states rights conservative... and to a traditional Republican, etc.  I think Ron Paul flip-flops too much.  I like him and what he's done, and, I agree that when he is libertarian- he is more radical than the others.  But... I think there needs to be someone more consistent who is the head of the movement.

Nope. He has been completely consistent since he entered politics. The ONLY reason he has had a political career is because of Austrian Economics.

Where has he not been consistent? Give me every single example you know of please. Back that claim up. It is my contention he's never increased the size of the state. That should be easy to disprove right?

SilentXtarian:

I'm all for a smaller government... I would like a minimal one... that would do some things... so that's good with me.

And what I find amusing is you've condemned him for not being "consistent" and yet, you yourself are not consistent. You've taken the "purists" position, and you're not even "pure".

SilentXtarian:

The Libertarian Party is a monument to right wing opportunism. Republican lites. Utilitarians. Bob Barr.

They have better learnt their lesson from 2008, in preparation for 2012. Radicalize or else.

I wonder how you can confuse libertarian thought with right wing opportunism.

 "I wonder how you can confuse right wing opportunism with libertarian thought."

I wonder how you can actually contend the Libertarian Party has anything to do with Libertarian thought?

You're going to have to do better than that. Do you suggest the LP employ the exact same failed strategy as it did in 2008?

Cork:

Does voting change anything?  Probably not a great deal.  At best, it makes it slightly harder for certain measures to pass.  There is a *lot* of stupid and destructive crap proposed in my state.  Seriously, one measure wanted to give fertilized eggs human rights.  Another wanted to make it impossible for employers to fire people.  There comes a point where I just say "screw it, I'll take five minutes to vote against this nonsense."

I have to agree with the last statement, despite knowing full well voting makes little to no difference.  I can't wait to get the hell out of here (MD), perhaps maybe to WA,NH, MT, or  'x'  foreign country. 

Most of my peers want to migrate to NY... yuck & sigh.