My daughter who, for some reason (gotta keep the old man happy?), has been reading this blog, has suggested that I should get into politics; i.e., run for office. She apparently thinks that I don’t have enough to do. (Aside: She was in politics as an aide to a U.S. Senator in the area of science. Then she went on to be involved in the White House’s environmental policy decision-making. But she got sick of the D.C. political scene and quit.) So now, as I said, she’s encouraging me to get involved at the local political level. She even said, “Yes,” when I asked her if she would be my political advisor.

Well, I’m not interested in getting into party-style politics. But I bring this up because she raised a question about which libertarians disagree: should we get into the political scene by running for office? The disagreement revolves about a central issue in libertarian philosophy, the role of the state in society. There are 2 views on this subject, anarchist (there should be no state) and minarchist (the smallest possible state). If you are a minarchist (in a democracy or a republic) and then decide to participate in the political process, you are faced with the problem of compromise. Example: As a libertarian, I want no state regulations on what I can do with my property and I’m against taxes. If I were in Congress, would I vote for some tax increase in exchange for some other congressman’s vote to reduce state regulations on property use? In short, would I begin to compromise my beliefs and get co-opted by the system, which I don’t like in the first place? The Libertarian Party is constantly faced with this dilemma.

The argument in favor of joining the political process is that we cannot achieve our end, freedom, at one decisive, all-encompassing moment, an instant revolution. So let’s try to get there slowly by getting into politics. My personal view (subject to change as my brain deteriorates with age) is that it is better to stay out of politics and try to influence peoples’ thinking by, say, a web log. (How’s that for grandiosity?) If it is to work, it will require time and constant persuasion. Since the state is force, using the political process to effect change would be opposed to the fundamental libertarian principle of not initiating the use of force to get people to do what you want.

Then, if you are a minarchist, how do you keep the state as small as possible? The U.S. Constitution was supposed to be a description of all the powers that the Federal Government would have. All powers not specifically granted to the government by the Constitution were reserved to the individual states or to the people (Tenth Amendment). We have seen the abject failure of this attempt to limit government. It always tries to grow as pressures mount on politicians from all sides. However, you could imagine that, if the majority of politicians were libertarians, then they would keep the state from growing. Maybe.

Another problem for libertarians, perhaps the biggest one, is what to do about defense, both personal and national. I won’t start on that one here because it is such a huge issue. Another time.