A reader asks,
Don’t libertarians tend to be teenagers (of any age) who want to remain “pure” and righteous and above it all? Don’t libertarians therefore foster a culture of impotence and failure?
The issue is whether or not libertarians should engage in politics. Those of us on the libertarian side of things are inclined to see the political process as a poor way to arrive at decisions. So there is a case for trying to escape from that process and instead focus on work and family. However, to paraphrase Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.
One approach would be for libertarians to focus more on the level of overall theory and principles, rather than on specific policies or candidates. Your goal is to try to convince those around you of the advantages of individual choice over collective politics. I am not sure that this approach overcomes the reader’s concern. I am not sure that the reader’s concern can in fact be addressed successfully.
I reject that premise that political behavior is beneficial to all. That is, I’m not part of the political class, but rather, the target of the political class. Trotsky’s statement is absolutely true, but it doesn’t mean that my participation in politics will be beneficial to me. They only want me to accept the faith so that I will be more controllable. I see libertarianism as a protestant reaction.
I dont know if i would consider your approach political engagement.
Also, the marginal utility of trying to convince seems to be on the decline at this point. Political beliefs are not randomly distributed, nor are they reached purely by rational deliberation. At what point do libertarians start to consider maximizing the number of natural libertarians, and minimizing the number others, as a matter of politics? No matter what path libertarians take, some principals will have to sacrificed. Why not try to actually get something in return?
Huh?
One thing is we have little to gain from current politics in every sense. Third parties can’t win for one thing.
If they mean that not expecting to win leads to less pragmatic platforms then sure. So what?
Certain truths – no matter how thoroughly proven by theory or consistent with widely-held principles – can never become sufficiently popular to triumph politically in a social-democratic system such as ours.
It’s very frustrating.
PSST says libertarians need to focus on the political system as patten sustainable and specializing trade in government goods.
In fact libertarians like me go so far as to say the government ought to do this too.
I think your point deserves further amplification.
This was probably my first cognitive experience with a psst like framework and possibly why I embraced psst instantly.
For example national defense presents free rider problems. So it is a legit government function. But I can still see other possibilities. Especially now. Still, legitimate national defense sits at one end of a continuum of philosophical and financial justification.
Now how do we judge mail service or cash transfers? Well I don’t see the logic if judging things on the basis of popularity.
Tell us — purely as a hypothetical — what would you have a Ukrainian libertarian do in Kiev or the Crimea that leaves their hands clean and pure?
After footnote 4 in Carolene Products, the courts are unwilling to uphold any restraints on government regulation or redistribution. That footnote said such restraint should come from the political process or voice. If you opt our of politics, your choice is exit in some fashion. But why would a government permit exit in a federalist system? The real alternative to voice is waving your hands and hoping for the best.
I have realized that I cannot convince people to change what they see as values but that I can some times convince people that politicians are taking advantage of them. So to democrats for example if their goal is to help the poor I will point out that enough money is spent already but inefficiently and basic income guarantee would be a far superior way to help the poor. I like to remind conservatives how much safer the world looks post USSR and how much we spend on military compared to the rest of the world.