I have many friends and acquaintances who are to varying degrees supporters of He Who Will Not Be Named [By Me, Anyway] Here. Not always correlated with their investment is the level of guff they give me for my curmudgeonly stance on his candidacy and campaign.
I appreciate those who go easy on me, because my skepticism has much less to do with him in person than it does with the electoral political process. And while I agree that the campaign presents a very good educational/outreach opportunity for The Family, I wonder how much of that might be squandered by focusing overmuch on the man and/or that process, rather than the fundamentals of liberty. How many of his genuinely pro-freedom volunteers will answer honestly if someone calls him or her on the coercive nature of voting? How many will admit, to a newly-awakened individual who asks, that the logical endpoint in creating a freed* society is voluntaryism, not an elected body politic, even if it were comprised solely of libertarians? Answering those questions honestly will probably not win the campaign more voters, but doing so would accomplish something that asking for votes will never do: it would underscore the clear distinction between those who love liberty and those who merely mouth off about it.
How likely is it that someone who is newly exposed to the freedom philosophy will get to those questions? I honestly don’t know. Some never seem to get there, and are content to push the LP and such as the way to embrace and defend liberty. Some get there after years of reading, thinking, and perhaps debating with others in The Family. Some take only a few hours or days to run the thought experiment to its conclusion. And some say they have done so, but their actions in an area or two indicate elsewise. But the time frame doesn’t matter; we who cherish freedom and want to help it grow must be intellectually honest with those we talk to about the freedom philosophy; otherwise we become just another cadre of propagandists peddling political smoke and mirrors.
Lao Tzu spoke of the points I am trying to make in the Tao Te Ching. Here are just a few of the many good ideas contained therein:
If you overesteem great men,
people become powerless.
From Chapter 3.
If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.
Governing a large country
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.
Center your country in the Tao
and evil will have no power.
Not that it isn't there,
but you'll be able to step out of its way.
Give evil nothing to oppose
and it will disappear by itself.
There’s much, much more there ... but I am off now to explore the Tao of pumpkin carving.
*: This is not a typo. I saw this usage, along with an explanation, somewhere a while back; I really like it and I think it’s a distinction worth emphasizing. Unfortunately, I don’t recall where I saw it, in order to give proper credit for the idea. (Back to main text.)
Dr. No frenzy
I'm having this discussion a lot these days, especially with so many who are frantic because I won't participate in the Dr. No frenzy, or push it on my website. You've pretty well stated my reasons.
The real test comes when I ask these people, supposing he was elected by some miracle, if I and others like me would then be left alone to live our lives and use our property as we see fit - in other words, to opt out of the government altogether. You should see the looks on their faces...
No, a larger cage with better food isn't any answer for me.