I do appreciate your position, and understand where you’re coming from. I agree that an “anti-state” website should not be promoting political action. But does LRC support Ron Paul because they want to see him elected? Here’s what LRC publisher Burt Blumert had to say early on:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert122.html

“As to Ron Paul, we have some history here. In 1988 I was chairman of Ron’s first presidential campaign. Lew has been his friend and associate since 1975, and served as Ron’s chief of staff in Congress. We both know him very well, and, like all who know him, think the world of him, as a man of great integrity and as a leader. This is not political; it is supporting the ideas we have loved and promoted for decades.”

I have no problem with helping him raise money to raise public awareness of the issues. I admit I’m a bit uncomfortable with a few of the columnists and bloggers encouraging people to actually use violence and vote for Dr. Paul (although I do see the point of the “self-defense” argument, and perhaps there’s room in the anti-state camp for both views), but I don’t think LRC itself has done so. Maybe that’s just semantics, but that’s the way I see it.

As we get older and see ever more young generations coming up behind us, we are often struck by the great truth that knowledge in this world is not cumulative over time. What one generation has learned and absorbed is not somehow passed on to the next one through genetics or osmosis. Each generation must be taught anew.

http://mises.org/daily/2982

I fear that in making compromises with the state that many will forget their opposition to it and settle down into believing that we have found political solutions to our problems. They will celebrate the advances of our “Constitutional Republic” or other such statist icons and forget that they have left the seeds for future tyranny. Indeed, I think that this happened to a great degree in the American Revolution.

The dilemma in which we find ourselves is to question whether we might get short term gains (i.e. avoid war with Iran, temporarily roll back the state, etc.) in exchange for working within political institutions. I admit that I remained for awhile at this position after I had decided my disagreement with Rothbard’s de-socialization plans. I finally officially denounced Ron Paul as I contemplated the likelihood of success for even modest retrenchment.

In this, I am applying my own subjective judgment. Clearly, other valid predictions are possible. In my opinion, the control exerted over society by political institutions is too great to expect much success from movements within government. I believe that any movements fostered within the state will be hindered, sabotaged and blamed for state failures. As I’ve written several times here, if those state-fostered movements are discredited, statists might be able to strengthen their positions. Because the public would not have been prepared, I think that they would be very susceptible to notions that liberty had failed. It would have been “proved” that we need a strong central state.

Has the public done anything to make us think that they would not fall for such rhetoric?

The implications of my stance are challenging, I must admit. Since I agree with the assessment offered by several of you that few people are ready to consider the state as the enemy, we could probably expect no short term improvement. Indeed, crisis would be likely (though I wonder if it isn’t so regardless of our actions). I think though that we must stand aside as consistent opponents of the state. Make no deals with it. In this way, our movement may be preserved and passed on (rather than supplanted by political patriots).

Like old superstitions, the concept of the need for the state might someday fade away. But that day will be pushed further off the more we make deals with the state. By approving in any way of political institutions, we are providing them the life blood that they need to survive.

I think that I’ve caught up to your position. Our opinions do remain somewhat apart, but that’ll happen in a free society. I think that our disagreements have been freindly all along, and I too have enjoyed the exchange.

I do still remain very critical of LRC for its strong endorsement of Ron Paul. Applauding his candidacy (as I do as well to a point) is quite different from endorsing it, helping him raise money, urging people to vote for him and so forth. For an organization that has “anti-state” in its banner, it has been decidedly pro-state. I fear that it has been working against some of its stated aims with regard to Ron Paul.

While I certainly agree with what you say about Ron Paul, I must say that releasing slaves immediately would be disastrous. I think someone who’s been a slave their whole life would be unable to cope with the ideas and realities of immediate and complete freedom.

Hmm. Writing that, I think I just understood Joe’s arguments about patience and education of ideas being vital.

Someone being given power and relinquishing it, that is more powerfull than statements about not wanting power. It’s why Marcus Aurelius told Maximus Decimus Meridius: “That is why it has to be you.”
Is Ron Paul that kind of man? I have to believe so.

If I gave the impression that I endorsed Ron Paul as a presidential candidate, I didn’t mean to; I took myself off the voting roles shortly after the 2000 election and plan never to vote again. However, I do applaud his candidacy because of the platform it provided to talk about liberty. As I guess I made more clear in my second post, it’s about educating the public, and what better platform to do that from than a presidential election as a candidate in a major party.

I fully agree with you that we should work toward a stateless society; I think Ron Paul’s candidacy and continuing work in Congress is a tremendous means to that end because it sows seeds of liberty. In my opinion, people already exposed to ideas on liberty are more likely to take the next step and oppose the state itself. I have nothing empirical to back that up with, but I know it worked for me.

Thank you for the discussion, it raised some good points to ponder. Hopefully we can agree to disagree and continue to work together for liberty!

I am left reflecting upon the difficulty of getting Mises Institute readers to abandon political institutions. It kind of discourages me at the prospects of influencing rank and file Ron Paul supporters (let alone general Americans) to do so. Yet I have known a few people to reject the state to about the same point as have I. Once so convinced, I don’t think any of us go back.

If someone endorsing Ron Paul’s candidacy isn’t promoting a “political path to a freer society” then what are they promoting? I endorse what he teaches about Austrian economics. I applaude his calls to abolish the Federal Reserve and IRS and to bring U.S. troops home. I have enjoyed seeing him expose the hypocrisy and lack of substance in politics and the media. But all of this is different than cheering him on toward becoming head of state.

You seem to have softened your stance a bit (though I may simply have poorly understood it). Your argument has gone from endorsing his candidacy to praising the educational opportunities he has raised. I agree that the profiles of The Mises Institute and LRC have been enhanced. But at what cost? I wrote earlier about taking short cuts and this is it. Many people have at the same been introduced to Austrian economics and been convinced that American politics can finally be made good and noble “again”. Those two views are contradictory. In our world of nationalistic pride, which will dominate and survive?

The comparison of Ron Paul to Thomas Paine is apt. Yet it should not be forgotten that Thomas Paine and the other Founders introduced the seeds for popular government “by the people.” We should be careful to not fall in line with statist worship of these people (fine as many of their characters may have been).

The truth is, I am impatient to reduce and finally eliminate the power of the state. I know firsthand how these people love to control lives, and I’ve seen firsthand the violent culture that statism breeds. I am eager to throw off the yoke of government, because I am tired of the government trying to control my life.

In Ron Paul, I see a man with the potential to limit the power of the federal government in my lifetime, and I believe that will help free up more assets to reduce the power of governments elsewhere, from the state on down. I see a course of action, and I am going to take it.

The ideas of liberty, of course, are far more important than the man himself, but he has certainly helped raise awareness of libertarian ideas.

And to quote a certain guy, “Ideas are bulletproof.” But when those ideas lead me to a certain course of action, I feel that I would be irresponsible if I did not take it.

You’re right. Not voting in itself is insufficient to induce change. The fact is, non-voters today are composed (this is probably an incomplete list) of the apathetic, the dis-illusioned and the principled. The first two groups are no threat to the establishment. The political rulers would have everyone believe that all non-voters fall into these two groups. The fact is, the third group is not yet large enough to influence matters though it is growing.

I think that most people reading would agree that our goal is to foster a large number of people who take principled stands against the state. We disagree over whether such people can be created by influencing them to participate in political elections.

People who choose to not vote out of principle would also resist or ignore unjust laws, refuse to pay taxes and stop sanctioning crimes committed by state officials. As I have gathered from my readings here at the Mises Institute, the state only has power to the extent that it is sanctioned. If people ignored it, it would disappear. By participating in its rituals, you feed it and grant it legitimacy.

So yes, I think you are correct that voter turn-out is something a little less than 50%. Nothing has changed because very few of these non-voters have any mind to resist the state. If I may pick on you a bit (not intending to be mean – just hope to make a point), you just promoted (though perhaps not intentionally) the attitude that things can only change if people vote.

That is just what the establishment wants us to think.

I agree that there are many in the pro-Ron Paul camp that think his candidacy provides the best option for a political path to a freer society, and it’s possible that this will not be good for the prospects of liberty in the long run. You think that possibility outweighs the fact that Dr. Paul has educated many on important issues, and I disagree.

I know for me personally, this has been a tremendous opportunity to talk about freedom with those who would not normally be receptive at all. Most people I’ve talked with aren’t ready for that next step and see that the state itself is the problem, but at least they’re thinking outside the box and seeing the issues from a fresh perspective. Perhaps in time, through more conversations and sharing articles from websites like LRC and Mises.org, more will come to realize who our true enemy really is.

Time will tell who is right, but I think the educational value of his campaign and work in Congress will have lasting positive effects on the freedom movement. And if he had not run for president, would a book he wrote, which prominently praises Austrian Economics, be on the New York Times bestseller list for four weeks (and counting)? Perhaps Dr. Paul is today’s Thomas Paine, and this is the best shot we’ll ever have to bring people on the side of freedom.

I think the same arguments can be made against not voting. Do you believe that the establishment will change if there is a massive absence in voting?
I think that they will not do that, they will continue to hold power.

I read that in every US election less than half of the voters do vote, please correct me if not. Not matter the percentage, there is always a lot of non votes. And nothing had changed, right?

I am inclined to the proposition of producing the change from inside, but your arguments are sound also. So I am not sure which is the way to go.

In any case, for both ways, most important is to educate the people. The pressure of informed citizenry is what will make the changes.

I’m still not convinced. I will continue to assert that backing the state in any way is contrary to advancing liberty. I’ll respond to your individual “choices”:

1. I have more of a voice than voting. The people who know me know why I don’t vote. The people who don’t know me won’t care if I didn’t vote or if I wrote in Mickey Mouse. The establishment will, of course, try to convince its willing subjects that non-voters are apathetic. It’s up to us to inform them. When the majority of people choose to not vote out of principle, it will be more difficult for the political institutions to cover up the movement.

2. It is the system that I am protesting. How do I protest it by participating. I refer you back to Michael Palmer’s post.

3. I will not agree with you on your certainty that Ron Paul would weaken the state. While I know that would be his intention, I think that we are naive if we believe that the establishment will simply roll over and allow anyone to strip them of their privileges.

Ron Paul supporters seem to have this idea that their movement can discover some magic formula or rules within political institutions that will make the establishment rulers powerless to resist liberty from within the state. For emphasis, I repeat Butler Shaeffer again:

To create a system which, by definition, enjoys a legal monopoly on the use of force, and then allow that system to become the judge of its own authority, is an error of such enormity that one can only wonder why grown men and women would be surprised to discover such powers being “abused.” Creating the system is the abuse.

In the long run, the state can only be resisted by striking at its root. I understand that change can seem slow when done the way I suggest and that you hope for dramatic changes by working within the system. But I just don’t think that it will work. The stakes are much higher when examining the expansions of state power and people talking about world governments. If there are people who seek to rule us, playing their game might only discredit us while serving their purposes. I say to leave their game alone and work to turn people against them.

The exact words from Rothbard’s article are Do Not Phase In. He makes no mention of the terms you name in that article. If you think, however, that I am misunderstanding his meaning, I would be glad to know more of what you mean if you’ll explain. I’m afraid that I am not familiar with your terms. If I’m getting bogged down in either, it is not consciously.

My point though, is that any solution engineered within a large political system will necessarily be phased in. Stakeholders within the system will resist any actions that threaten their interests. “Compromises” would certainly be made. But they would fail miserably and leave statists in a stronger position that what they started.

Pending any clarification from you on any errors you think I’m making, I remain strongly convinced that any ideas of planning de-socialization from within the machinery of the state is a horrible contradiction in terms.

Is this the future of liberty? To be nothing more than a discussion on the internet (until the government starts censoring that, too).

I’ve encountered an attitude among Ron Paul supporters that I think you’re displaying. It is that “doing something” must mean a political solution. In my opinion, if you claim to work for liberty and you take any political action, you are working against your stated aims. There are certainly other things to do to advance liberty. Minnesota Chris’ article is actually a good start. Going back one more paragraph from the one I last quoted to him:

The thousands of young people who are discovering the ideas of liberty for the first time ought to stay away from the Beltway and all its allures. Instead, they should pursue their love and passion through arts, commerce, education, and even the ministry. These are fields that offer genuine promise with a high return.

http://mises.org/daily/1499

There is something else that we can do. Resist. Even if we can not currently physically resist statism, resist in our hearts. Educate others. If the ideals of liberty were accepted widely enough, physical resistance would be possible. If violence were employed, it would be the just application of violence in self-defense.

Also, I think that it is paramount that we rear families and remain in society. I don’t have any proof for this, but I believe that radicals in the past have tended to be anti-social and to infrequently have children. Today, opponents of the state are more frequently to be found among mainstream people. We have families. Personally, I will teach my children how to live (and hopefully thrive) in a world dominated by states, but I will teach them to deplore states and to do what they safely may do to resist them.

I think that the notion that trading ideas amounts to doing nothing is a mark of impatience. I can understand it, but I believe it is a mistake to short cut this battle of ideals by embracing any part of the state.

We may quickly get into territory in which each of us sees what we want to see that supports our chosen view. But all the same, I’ll tell you my reactions to your linked articles:

Butler Shaeffer offers two reasons why he did not expect Ron Paul to win the presidency:

(1) the political establishment has far too much at stake playing with the trillions of tax dollars and other advantages of power to allow their racket to be disassembled; and (2) the American people are not of a frame of mind to vote for any such changes. And even if the voters were so inclined, they would not be likely to have the opportunity to so express themselves. The political establishment knows, as did Emma Goldman, that “if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

Admitting these points, I fail to see how promoting the election of Ron Paul educates people to resist the state. Michael Palmer (post above) was eloquent when he wrote:

People are statists for one reason, and one reason only – they identify with the state. This identification with the state is maintained through rituals like elections. Elections are a propaganda tool. If we participate in them, we water the root of statism.

As to the quote that you offered from the article, I focus on a small piece:

Ron Paul’s candidacy also revealed to the next generation of adults the benefits of decentralized ways of accomplishing social ends.

Many of his public speeches do speak to the peaceful “decentralized ways of accomplishing social ends.” But his actions speak to political ways – that is to say violent. I believe that people in your camp hope to see politics reduced to the local level and so better dealt with there (at least, that’s where I was when I supported him). On this, we can only speculate (and so could honestly remain in the separate camps). Personally, I believe that a movement that does not attack political institutions at their root will be ill-equipped to counter the efforts to retain power of those in control of those institutions.

Moving on to your article by Lew Rockwell, I might just as well have used it in its entirety to back my view. The section you quote is apologetic about Paul’s role as a legislator, saying that the good he does is as an educator and not as a legislator. The paragraph immediately preceding your quote is applicable:

When a libertarian tells me that he is doing some good as a procurement officer at HUD, I don’t doubt his word. But how much more would he do by quitting his job and writing an expose on the entire bureaucratic racket? One well-placed blast against such an agency can bring about more reform, and do more good, than decades of attempted subversion from within.

How marvelous would it be if Ron Paul quit his campaign, quit his job and denounced the institutions of politics? How would most of his supporters react, I wonder? I think that a lot of them would denounce him as a traitor.

You’re misunderstanding. It’s not “not to phase in”, it’s “not to plan to phase in”. He talks about “left sectarianism” and “right opportunism”; you’re avoiding the latter and getting bogged down in the former.