Don’t trust libertarian politicians

No politician – not even a libertarian one – can be trusted. Once a politician gains power and is faced with the temptations that are thrust upon them daily, it is only human to succumb, regardless of whether they ran on a good platform or not.

The only hope for lasting change is to convince the masses of libertarian ideas. Education is a more reliable tool than activism, because there is always an issue of trustworthiness when dealing with libertarian politicians.

Any libertarian party should prioritize the education of voters, rather than trying every trick in the book to gain votes for fallible human beings. They should not seek electoral success, so much as spreading awareness of an alternative set of ideas. Unfortunately, compromising principle for the sake of expediency is where the American Libertarian Party has gone wrong in recent years, according to its founder David Nolan.

5 thoughts on “Don’t trust libertarian politicians

  1. The purpose of a political party is to change public policy. Educating the masses about economics may be part of the means but it is certainly not the ends. And if it were the primary goal then you would not start a political party in order to get there. To advance the libertarian agenda we need lot’s of organisations doing different things and the political wing of the movement should be trying to win office and change public policy directly.

    It’s true that with all people there is a risk of corruption or of distraction or of poor execution. However these are not reasons for a political party to stop being a political party.

  2. This made me think of two things.
    1. Absolute power corrupts absolutely – a statement that seems to be implying determinism to me.
    2. the argument from depravity (for capitalism). A terrible argument I want to address.

    Personally, I think that if a culture (such as ours) believes that humans are inherently depraved, then you will ultimately end up with socialism/fascism, not capitalism. Much of human decision making depends on a person’s fundamental beliefs, so those who believe they are inherently depraved and immoral will gravitate towards those providing the “solutions”. eg: Environazis, socialists, collectivists. Not the pessimists or skeptics who say you have to accept and embrace your depravity.
    Look at environmentalism. People choose what they think is moral, they don’t even bother to assess the practical. So what if we have to all die sooner they think, I’m depraved anyway and at least I’m doing the right thing for the children! Ontological and ethical beliefs are extremely powerful and influential. (NB/ most people erroneously believe in moral/practice dichotomy).
    “This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

    Dictatorship ……… is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.

    The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists.”

    Guess what. The socialists who believe in human depravity (like most) will fight for their moral-based ideal of dictatorship. And capitalists who justify this underlying ontological belief (the depravity of man) are simply adding fuel to the socialist snowball which these days seems to be gaining momentum by the day.

Comments are closed.