18 votes

"Why You Should Quit Politics" (My article published by Lew Rockwell!)

Hey guys,
I was quite excited to have my first article published by Lew Rockwell! I'd love to hear your thoughts on my argument, I'm sure I'm wrong on some points but it's more or less the conclusion I've come to.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

THAT is an excellent

THAT is an excellent essay!

I've been thinking the same things lately.
I've spent a ridiculous amount of time over the last 2 years and a significant amount of money on the Ron Paul Revolution.

I could have been starting a business or creating a new product.

If I continue down this path, I will remain poor and frustrated and unproductive.

I'll be trying to persuade people who are too ignorant or too invested in the current system to have an open enough mind.

I like the philosophy. I HATE the bullsh!t.
Plus, it's often hard to even have conversations with supposedly like-minded people around here.

So, I will be ignoring politics as much as possible in the future.

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

The shame of it is, it's people like you who SHOULD be...

...in elected office.

But I understand your views because it seems there's too much compromising of principles necessary to succeed.

I think that's why Dr. Paul is so special of a statesman because of how principled he's remained - and yet is successful.

Too bad he'll most likely come up short of the office he so much deserves.

But good luck in your business - I'm sure you'll teach a lot of people along the way and remember what Ayn Rand said...

"I'm interested in politics so that one day I won't have to be interested in politics."

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul


As I try in NY to play politics to get enough signatures to be on the ballot this fall I realize how entrenched the corruption is in politics. I do agree in order to save this nation we must get back to our roots and turn the government back to the people. With todays technology we are able to represent ourselves making most of the current system obsolete.

I believe this is the future.

I have a question for you.

First, are you a believer in a true democracy or do you think that a select minority ought to rule? If you have an alternate belief as to the structure of rulership, such as individual self rulership, that's fine too. I'm not trying to present you with a Hobson's choice here, I'm just curious what your belief is in regard to who gets to rule over who.

Second, when you say 'turn the government back to the people' whom are you referring to by 'people'?

These are not intended to be smart-ass comments, I'm asking you sincerely to consider the questions and your answers.

A true democracy is wrong

A true democracy is wrong because of mob rule. Rights must be preserved to promote our republic. As for who. Immediately I am talking about all registered voters. Currently we vote to send an individual to wash dc and he gets corrupted by lobbyists. Our founders believed as I do in a government of the people, they tried to set up a representative govt because communication was non-existent at that time. I believe we can use our already set-up representative govt however now we have the technology to represent ourselves directly in real time.
Legislation is being passed contrary to popular opinion which is wrong. If power is put in the hands of ALL the people, centralized corruption will dissapear.
We have a good system....... currently, it is just corrupted

Thank you for the reply.

I'm not going to ask you to answer this next question here, I simply want you to consider it for yourself.

If the rule of and by the majority is wrong because it doesn't preserve individual rights, how is it that any other form of rulership by a select minority is right, as this doesn't preserve individual rights either?

If/as you move forward in politics my only suggestion to you is that you ask yourself a couple of questions before each and every action you take as a politician;
1) Could I do this if I weren't a politician and not be guilty of committing a crime?
2) Does this create a situation that could lead to the initiation of force against an innocent person?

If the answer to #1 is NO and/or the answer to #2 is YES, you're about to do something wrong which will violate someone's individual liberty. If you want to be a good politician and always represent 'the people', don't ever violate the rights of even one person. 'The people' is a construct, each person is not.

A brilliant treatise

on the current and future opportunities that exist for liberty seeking entrepreneurial mavens to capitalize on the many failures of state monopolies.

My hope is that your seeds of peaceful opposition against those who would presume to be the rulers of other men germinate and flourish on this earth.

Well done Kaleb; well done!

"The problem is not those in power, the problem is right between your ears." ~Larken Rose


Somehow something was missing

If you do not inhabit the entire government with constitutional liberty minded people you will never break free from the energy monopoly.
They will hunt you down and jail and kill you like they have done in countless cases with people trying to do this for the benefit of the world.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

good article.

this is a general response, not specifically addressing points raised in the above article:

I'm personally of the mind, as Dr. Paul also concurs, you should do what you want to do, and what method you individually feel right, is the best way to promote good ideas.

It matters not whether one engages in the political process as obviously as Dr. Paul has successfully done.

Now, granted, Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul is the sole exception to ALL human history, a living oxymoron: an honest 'politician,' who is NOT concerned about obtaining more power to use to dominate over the People, but merely as a platform to inspire others to wake themselves up, and pursue their own path.

Dr. Paul utilized his political presence as the most grandest educational platform possible. While an extremely rare reality, but he has been, and is, extremely successful at it.

Others have pursued their own path, be it simply by living by example, similar educational/informational pursuits, alternative media, forum postings, door to door canvassing, fliers, 'town square advocacy,' their own online blogs, using art/music/other creative media to inform to inspire, to conjure, etc.

So to me this whole obsession over what a r3VOL 'should' do, or not, is irrelevant. Whatever works, people would coalesce to support and emulate or expand upon. Or not, if they don't agree or feel they can do it differently, more effectively. All are the realities of the beautiful free market of ideas.

Now, what I do find troubling are those who claim to be libertarians and ancaps, and ridicule those who do engage through pre-existent medium.

Take Stefan Molyneux, whom on the most part I respect highly, except for when he goes off on atheism tangents, as if 'science' subsidized by corporatists who cannot even explain what factually causes gravity, let alone why we live in a universe/multi-verse that operates upon a structure of sorts that seem to be based on math, Fibonacci sequence, nor WHY or HOW the very elements listed on the Periodic Table of Elements, NEVER 'evolved' nor why DNA itself never seems to have evolved before 'settling' on 'ACTG' as its primary 'computer language.'

Those cognitive dissonance aside, Stefan has been critical of Dr. Paul in 2007, until he realized that Dr. Paul was actually responsible for multiplying his own personal audience by a THOUSAND FOLD.

Gee Stefan, 'principled' much?

Yes, for all you Molyneux fans, there is no dispute: Dr. Paul brought MORE fans to Molyneux, than Molyneux ever did, himself.

THAT, was only possible, precisely because a whole WORLDWIDE paleoconservative/Constitutionalist/libertarian/minarchist/agorist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist movement grew, out of support for Dr. Paul.

An entire generation of youths and the elderly alike were inspired to truly question the very essence/the role of/the 'need' of govt, if at all, for the first time... in a long while in American history.

Had those MILLIONS of people NOT seen Dr. Paul on the TeeVee, to be inspired to question, to reawaken the Remnants, whereTF would they be today?

Where would all the issues of concern to those freedom fighters be? And where would be all the important issues of public discourse that we in the r3VOLution have been able to 'force' into the mainstream, ie. war and economy, Federal Reserve, overall American empire/foreign policy, debt, derivatives, welfare state, Constitutionalism, etc., without Dr. Paul and those who have engaged via the political process, along with educational/information outreach??

WE made those issues become the primary issues of import.

Frankly, those who DON'T engage via current, pre-existent political system are the direct beneficiaries of those who have engaged, participated, and directly gotten involved.

This is no different than many tactical school instructors, who while NOT calling for legislative solutions, but still criticize open-carriers.

Now, I do agree: IF anyone has ever been in a gunfight with a capable adversary, the element of surprise IS THE life saver, NOT preemptively signaling to your adversary the size and capability of your smallarm, and where it's located, etc.

Same concept in armored vehicles: there's a reason why they armor Jeep Grand Cherokees and Cadillac Escalades, along with Camry's and Buicks in places like Mexico, and not drive around in an Armored Personnel Carrier, all the time. Because if your enemies only prepared to take you down with 9mm, when your car is armor rated for an AK47 7.62X39mm round, when your enemies do attack, it'd be utterly feckless, and would have to regroup to attack again (if determined). So you have just denied them an opportunity, and given yourself time to 'more safely' escape, and furthermore, confirmed that in fact there are people who are determined to attack you, and possibly got to found out, WHO.

So, purely tactically speaking, those critics of open-carry MAY BE correct that yes, concealed carry is perhaps, ALWAYS more tactically advantageous, as there are those who would be deterred by you wearing a firearm. But often, there are also plenty of criminals who can care less, and are not deterred by your preemptive display of your smallarms.

But more apropos of policy discourse and public image perception, the ONLY reason why the public sentiments have gone from 'you can't protect yourself outside your home!' to, 'Um, should you carry open, or concealed?' is PRECISELY because generations of 'rabble rousers' were principled purists, who attacked this issue from the point of fundamental, principally consistent, natural right of self-defense issue, and NOT whether 'is it okay to carry a self-defense TOOL, out side of one's home?'

We're not talking whether it's tactically wise, but principally, fundamentally: we're talking about the elemental human natural right of self-defense.

Those who engage in the political process and those who participate in open carry demonstrations, or simply do so personally in daily lives, ARE the reason why the public image of gunowners have changed, for the better as well. Along with the fact that women are the fastest growing segment of gunownership population. And some stats confirm that in 64% of homes in America, females are the ones who primarily make household financial decisions and purchases.

NONE of that would've happened, without those open carriers and the efforts of political activists and growing movement to 'normalize' how guns are perceived in society

So, I'd say instead of chiding, ridiculing, demanding, directing, etc. vs. those who do engage via current, pre-existent political infrastructure, and those who don't, if I had my druthers, I'd ask BOTH 'sides' to recognize that their efforts are one of symbiosis, not one of antagonistic competition.

We'd all be better off, the sooner we all recognize that. Because at the end of the day, it's always been about the Ruling Class and their ploy to slowly chip away our freedoms, under the banner of 'your safety, and for your own good.'

EVERYONE should start their own businesseS. And, for those who believe they 'should' utilize the political process, as well.

Multi-pronged is always good.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Never Ending Questions

This is a question, not an attack. Questions are the way I learn.

My question, what if Dr. Paul had not spent a good part of his life voicing the Cause of Liberty in a political way? I am wondering, wouldn't he have enjoyed delivering more babies instead of the labor-intensive-work of delivering a nation? Dr. Paul has risen to the occasion of a great need in our nation for a voice of liberty within the liberty stealing entity itself.

This morning Dr. Paul was doing this: http://www.dailypaul.com/247223/ron-pauls-subcommittee-to-ex...

More questions...

What if all of our politicians were Dr. Paul types?

What if you were the next Dr. Paul? What if we all are?

Now here is a statement: Someone is going to be in politics in the near future, why not someone with principle. Perhaps there is a principle vacuum because we have been living and enjoying life while the Criminals have taken over and now our lives are becoming less livable and enjoyable in the political/economic sense?

Those are questions I wrestle with and would love to have some voices out there to help me along my way.


Hi bear!

My short answer to your question is that MOST men are easily corrupted by money, sex, and power. Those that are not...USUALLY have baggage that can be used to blackmail them.

Ron Paul is uncorruptable because he cannot be bought by money, sex, or power, and...he is one of the few men I know that has lived 70+ years without something in their past that can be used to manipulate them.

Unfortunantly those that can't be bought or maninulated have historially ended up with a bullet in their head, suffering a sudden heart attack, or involved in a private plane crash.

Dr Paul has stones of steel!

Morning Go,

Thanks for your voice in reply to my question. I surely appreciate your time :)

Here is what I was thinking after I wrote my post...perhaps if we overwhelmed the PTB with and we all ran at the same time it would be more effective than sitting out.

My husband has not been corrupted…he is too busy to run…I know lots of people who have not been corrupted…but are too busy doing other things. Anyways…look at all the skeletons in the PTB and it doesn’t seem to matter anymore. Just open the closet and show it all who cares anymore? Then you can be bought!

I am starting to look at things opposite…like concealed carry. Why doesn’t everyone just pack unconcealed. See what the PTB want to do with that.

I think it is time to push back in an opposite manner than what people are being lead to believe. I don’t know. Probably more of my Pollyanna un-thought-out paradigm. LOL

I am thinking of calling every single one of my senators congressmen, the governor etc. etc. etc. writing a newspaper article and tell them all that I am sick and tired of paying over 50% in taxes.

I disagree with this article.

I disagree with this article. Even if you were an anarchists (which I am not), then being a politician isn't a bad thing. If your an anarchist, couldn't you do everything in your power to give yourself less power? The reality is that there will almost always be a government. So why not make it as limited as possible instead of advocating no government and not participating at all allowing the big government types to win?

Now for us non anarchists, now is the time to run for office. Go down to your registrar of voters and pick up your forms now to run for City Council. Would you rather have big government politicians or libertarians/ anarchists.

Nice job Kaleb!

There are many good arguments about not being able to fix government from within. Ultimatley anyone that reaches that conclusion realizes there should be no government at all...that it's completely unnecessary. (Thats where I'm at BTW)

In reality all Government does is create monopolies on everything a society wants or needs. And even on the one thing nobody wants or needs...a monopoly on violence!


Having said that, I still have not figured out how to get from where we are now with a HUGE MASSIVE government down to total voluntarism without having to deal with many RADICAL, uncomfortable, and dangerous years adjusting to such a change. For that reason I always revert back to thinking that we need both people working inside the current system and people working completely outside the system.

Just like the hearing today about competing currencies. Dr Paul has said many times that just Ending the FED with the stroke of a pen would cause a calaminity. RP wants to introduce competing currencies so people will not only be forced to devolop an understanding of monotary policy but also so that the old system can be wound down more systematically so things don't get too crazy.

I see the world moving from collectivism toward voluntarism in a similar manner. Remember, most of the world's average citizens only understand being slaves and always having rulers. It took me 6 months to "wake up" and I think I came around pretty fast. To change the mindset of the US and in time the entire world...will take many years and lots of compromise. And all along the way each having to keep a close watch on the other so that tyranny and oppression does not start sprouting up again.

Certainly there are no easy answers or things would have already changed. I like seeing more people like you Kaleb who have thought this through.

BTW - I'd frame the letter you got posted on LRC. I'd be proud as hell of myself. :)

division of labor

we need both people working inside the current system and people working completely outside the system


i dont think the two have to be mutually exclusive

voting with your feet and voting with your wallet are very powerful concepts.

it always amazes me to see how many people inhale carcinogens, drink starbucks and eat GM cereal while lambasting government's poor role in regulating those industries (or complaining about how the profits are used against you.)

regulate it yourself!

that is, afterall, what liberty is all about. exercizing your personal power and making your own choices.

that said

politics is just an extension of personal power.

even in a total 100% anarchist society, there is still influence and persusasion. there will always be politics.

there is no need to reject politics because the scenary is so gloom.

those who work within the system can also vote with their feet and wallets.

Politics is not an extension of personal power.

Politics is the activities associated with the governance in a given area or country. Currently, this governance is achieved thru a self declared monopoly on the (il)legitimate initiation of force upon people by the people who are 'government'.

I don't think you'll find support from too many people who endorse the idea that all interactions be voluntary for the notion that 'politics' has any place in a free society.

there is politics in everything.

you have to understand that politics is in the interworkings and activities that take place in day to day life.

you cannot avoid politics any more than you can avoid thought.

politics does not have spatial qualities. you cannot touch politics. it just exists as a characteristic of power. you can't get rid of it.

do you imagine people will not be trying to exert their power in an anarchist society? of course they will. people still want to sell their goods. and in order to sell goods you'd want to compete with your neighbor. and to do that you might canvass and lobby your neighborhood. and to do that you might use political whit and persusasion. there will be handshakes and back-patting in every society.

there is politics in everything.

Actually Troy, your definition is wrong.

The definition I posted of politics is straight from a dictionary.

Changing the meaning of words is a fantastic way to change what people can and do think. Politics are not necessary, and I most certainly avoid any activities associated with ruling over any politically defined boundaries.

Exerting power and wielding influence are not examples of politics in action. To be certain, people involved in politics do these two things with great regularity, but to confuse the two former activities as being the latter is simply incorrect. They are not all the same thing.

Language. It matters.



Great Article

A great warning to those who want to enter the political sphere.

I still think we do need brave souls to speak for the ideas of liberty in politics.

I have been considering a run for City Council once I have more money.But I do think that a good place to start is to help those of us who want to run for public office a warning about what we can expect.