There have been many discussions about a particular topic on social media. Whenever I refer to this topic, the responses I receive lack imagination; what about the roads, type of replies. The case I’m mentioning is politics and getting involved therein. I want to lay this out, so I’m addressing most of the arguments for and against being political and some moral issues I see with getting involved in politics.

Joining the Nazis to change it from the inside 

“Come on, Brandon, it’s not that bad; we don’t have a Nazi-type of government today.”

But, yes, it is absurd; it’d be like joining the mafia to extinguish it, or the American revolutionaries joining the British to stop tyranny. Joining a Mafia to try to end it would be highly ineffective because the person infiltrating it would not only be corrupted by it trying to get to the top, but would most likely commit immoral NAP violations. Also, the Mafia gang would never allow him to do things that would risk taking money away from them, much like U.S. politics. Imagine If the American revolutionaries instead joined the British to try to stop or slow tyranny.

This example is closer to today than you might think. Because the candidates on both sides are chosen, we have a monarch or, better yet, a tyrannical dictatorship where we cannot see the true (mis)leader behind the curtain pulling the strings. If the founding fathers joined the British to get King George to implement tax cuts, the revolutionary rebellion would’ve been quashed, and no real change would’ve happened, even if it was temporary. They would not be looked upon favorably by the real revolutionaries, and rightfully so.

While all government is cancer that grows, some grow faster than others. At the pinnacle of government power, they’re always tyrannical, though not called Nazis; almost every government salivates over the power and control the Nazis had over their serfs. Today, we see this with the U.S. government drone bombing women, children, and other innocents in the Middle East for weapons manufacturing stock prices, oil, poppy plants, corporate interests, and central bank infiltration. We also see the evils of the Chinese government with the Xinjiang concentration camps “reeducating” the Uighur people.

Not every government commits atrocities this bad, but every government is immoral.

Just go up to any one of them and tell them you are a free human being that won’t be extorted by taxes and off to a cage with you. If you are forced to pay 1% of your income or be caged, you are not a free human being. There are different degrees of slavery. The only question is, how much of a slave are you?

The social contract, you say? Why can only the government break said “contract” whenever they deem it, without any consequences? And, further, what kind of contract changes without consent and at the drop of a hat? Establishing that this is a system of slavery with fancy words to keep you chained, reason dictates that it is immoral in every case to run to take control over a system of slavery, and just participating in it legitimizes it.

In the same way, it’d be wrong to vote for a new slave master. Let’s take a look at the word legitimate. Present-day, because definitions change very quickly today, legitimate means to conform to the law or the rules. So by voting, you are participating and saying that these are the set of rules you want and that you abide by and accept the majority decision, thus confirming, legitimizing, and agreeing to the outcome of the system.

Just by playing, you agree to the rules of the game and the result.

There are excessive problems with the Libertarian Party; far too many to write in a single article. First, they legitimize a system of slavery, and second, the cruel fact that they are hypocrites: how can a party of liberty or a proponent of liberty run for or participate in a system of slavery?

“Voting is not an act of political freedom. It is an act of political conformity. Those who refuse to vote are not expressing silence. They are screaming in the politician’s ear: ‘You do not represent me. This is not a process in which my voice matters. I do not believe you.'”

– Wendy McElroy

Just casting a vote makes it seem like more people believe in the system and grants government opportunities for voter fraud. Every vote cast grants the government more validity. If only 500 people in California voted, would the people believe that election to be legitimate? I certainly wouldn’t. It would be like two people out of two thousand in your community voting to steal more of your rich next-door neighbor’s money; the other 1,998 people would tell them to piss off.

Voting only encourages the politicians and makes them believe that the people have sided with them or agree to the game. All politics is counterintuitive to liberty. Running for any political seat in the U.S., there are filing fees. By filing, money is given voluntarily and directly to slavers, which many refer to as the state, and in every case is immoral.

Spreading ideas of liberty through politics

The most common argument used in an attempt to justify running, even though voting is ineffective for political change, is that the Libertarian party can use the platform to spread the ideas of liberty.

Spreading ideas of liberty through the Libertarian Party and the subject of politics are both much like NASA. However it may have helped propel space advancement, it quickly became inefficient and obsolete. Now we have private companies that can and do a better job, take SpaceX, for example. Even though they have government contracts, they have still been more efficient than NASA who couldn’t reuse a single rocket after 50 years. Today’s technology is far more efficient and effective at reaching the masses through the internet, even with censorship.

Playing the political game with 1% of the total votes makes the Libertarian Party look insignificant. The Libertarian party is also corrupted and infiltrated by Republicans; this was obvious when Massachusetts Republican, Bill Weld, was nominated as the LP vice-presidential candidate in 2016. Putting on the political clown outfit puts libertarians on the same level as the politicians who have been creating all the problems for years. After 50 years, the Libertarian party has achieved nothing except for the comment about Aleppo.

The LP needs to be abolished.

Rigged system

Trying to win politically at a rigged game is foolish, and if one does not believe the system is rigged, they are naïve. Out of 45 presidents, 14 were known freemasons, three were known to be Skull and Bones members, and the most recent presidents have either attended Bohemian Grove or Bilderberg meetings at some time in their careers.

Yes, they are groomed and handpicked. The Republicans and Democrats won’t even let Libertarians on the debate stage, and if they ever do qualify, they will change the rules, so they don’t. In the 2020 election, the media didn’t even present third-party voting number statistics on screen as they have done in the past.

What about Ron Paul’s Campaigns?

 “The Ron Paul campaign was a particularly low point in contributions for the Voluntaryists and, I expect, for most grassroots organizations. I cannot measure an unknown, such as money or time NOT contributed, but I do note that several grassroots organizations simply disappeared during this period. The surge of enthusiasm in the LP was amazing and was stoked by the impressive likes of Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, who turned on their anti-electoral roots and colleagues, to say the least.”

– Wendy McElroy

Ron Paul realized he could not achieve anything running as a third-party presidential candidate; he later ran as a Republican. Let’s face it, Ron Paul’s campaign was one out of a billion, and he still couldn’t win a presidential primary. That magical right person for the job didn’t get it and never will. Ron Paul was also ineffective at changing the party from the inside, and the Republican Party moved ever more towards the democrats during his entire tenure. Ron Paul has even stated that he got nothing accomplished the whole time he was in congress, and most of the things he voted “no” on were passed anyways.

“Yeah, but Ron Paul spread the ideas of liberty to so many.”

 “There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”

― Frédéric Bastiat

Applying this to politics is essential as well. Agorists realize the adverse effects of political participation, whereas the Libertarians only see the positive impact and do not consider the negative or the unforeseen. People only see the positives in political campaigns without seeing the adverse effects in the same way people only see the positive outcome of government programs, bills, and regulations.

Imagine all the good that could’ve come from the millions of dollars donated to Ron Paul’s campaign…

And the countless hours wasted campaigning for Ron Paul…the time squandered away in caucuses and primaries.

Also, people did not see an important factor after the campaign: the massive morale blow after losing. I’d also like to argue that many of those intelligent, open-minded people who love liberty would’ve found it in other ways. Government power corrupted Ron Paul; he sued his supporters and went to the United Nations system called the World Intellectual Property Organization, using the UN’s agency to try and steal the domain names Ronpaul.com and Ronpaul.org.

“When Carl, George, and I founded the Voluntaryists in 1982, it was largely in reaction to the politicization of the libertarian movement; by this, I mean, it was turning from grassroots activism to traditional electoral politics conducted through the Libertarian Party (LP). Our objections were not only moral but also practical. We thought a pivot toward institutional politics had disastrous consequences for any freedom movement, and we watched as many of them materialized. Perhaps the worst consequence was the misdirection of energy, time, and other resources–money being a key one–toward political campaigns and the electoral brouhaha that offers the kind of adrenaline fix that make cry out in tandem their candidate’s name while waving banners and throwing straw hats in the air.”

– Wendy McElroy

Creating a more efficient tyranny 

Positive change cannot come about through government politics, and history has taught us this time and time again. The small rice grain of a victory believed only encourages belief in a failed system, which helps create a much more efficient form of tyranny. The system of tyranny is being made more efficient with every so-called “win,” this is especially true with gun rights in the United States. You can fight legally and politically all you want to try to hold onto your gun rights. But the truth is that the government’s document, the 2nd amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They don’t even follow their own rules, but expect you to.

By participating, they keep you in a defensive position, trying to save as many rights before they take them away.

Arguing and trying to use their system has only made people believe that the government has a right to take away those rights in the first place. Also, failures politically and legally are even worse because they can use previous court cases to justify taking away your rights in verdicts later on. The only way to win is with mass non-compliance; this is true with covid-1984 today. We can all fight it out in political arenas waiting for state courts and going to the government wasting resources and time arguing, or we can choose not to comply and give the government a real taste of fear.

The government does not fear you when you try to play their game, a game they alone can win; they only ridicule you, and you are merely entertainment. They fear you when you flip the table over and say I refuse to play.

I will not comply.

Conclusion

“The basic principle which leads a libertarian from statism to his free society is the
same which the founders of libertarianism used to discover the theory itself. That
principle is consistency. Thus, the consistent application of the theory of
libertarianism to every action the individual libertarian takes creates the libertarian
society.”

-Samuel Edward Konkin III

Putting your name on a ballot under a “liberty” banner is ineffective, hypocritical, and creates unforeseen consequences. These newcomers to liberty are drawn to it because they want to be respected and looked up to in the liberty community when, in reality, they’re counterintuitive to liberty as a whole while playing the state’s game. Imagine the progress that would’ve been made if, instead of focusing on the LP, they concentrated on counter-economics.

The wasted time, energy, resources, and opportunities are lost trying to run for a system that none of us believe should exist. Is this the side of history you want to be on? The side that helps legitimize a system of slavery?

Counter-economics is a proven and reliable way to suffocate the state. For proof of this, take a look at this article at Agorist Nexus called Savior in the Shadows. If we do not join together and use this solution, counter-economics, we’ll all be lost in the echo chambers of political masters forever. If you need more information about the practical approaches of agorism and counter-economics, I’d recommend reading New Libertarian Manifesto and An Agorist Primer by Samuel Edward Konkin III.

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

― Buckminster Fuller