Why I Am Not a Person Who Agrees With Micha's Most Recent Post

I agree pretty much entirely.

One caveat: I've noticed Paul hedges a lot, especially recently, often not coming up with any solution for how to pay for getting rid of the IRS other than concrete plans to bring the troops home, stop subsidizing illegal immigrant education and health care, and vague talks about giving help (only?) to those who really need it. I'm afraid this might simply tend towards the "one set of doctrines for group members (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html), another for the general public.

And I don't think 'lazy' is the proper word for not voting for Paul, you who talk about economics in your spare time. More like 'selectively lazy'.

See, this is why people hate arguing with lawyers: You can never tell if they believe their own shtick or are just arguing for some instrumental reason, like keeping me away from WoW.

I'll respond to the major objections I see in order:

1. "But compared to what?"

I suggested some other outlets useful for advertising later in the article. In terms of funding, lots of libertarian organizations already exist that serve the purpose of advertising without the drawback of internal contradiction; i.e. directly encouraging use of the political process for social problem solving. I'll admit that, because of the nature of the beast, one thing the electoral system has going for it is lots of free advertising, and feedback effects between the free and paid. The more you spend on an otherwise negligible campaign, the more the media takes notice and gives you advertising for free. If you think that free advertising outweighs the costs of using the electoral system to amplify a message necessarily opposed to the message's own medium, I don't have an argument to convince you otherwise. It's simply my personal belief that the costs outweigh the benefits, and quality (i.e. deep, long-term persuasion) is more important than quanitity.

2. "Rather the more charitable reading of the Paul campaign's message is 'if, this time, we elect the right candidate, some of these problems might be lessened.'"

I don't understand your point here, perhaps because you didn't understand mine, perhaps because I didn't do a good enough job of explaining it. The charitable vs. uncharitable versions mean essentially the same thing to me; I just used the stronger version to drive the point home, although maybe I would have been more persuasive had I used weaker language to characterize the position I was criticizing.

You may believe that this is a "good message" that's "worth getting out there", but it's in direct contradiction with a central aspect of libertarianism, an aspect we as libertarians are constantly reminding both Democrats and Republicans; namely, that selecting the "right" candidate matters very little when compared to selecting the right "rules of the game", the structure of incentives which constitute the political system as a whole. By playing the game as everyone else plays it, we are implicitly indicating by our very act of playing that we are sort of okay with the rules of the game as they currently exist, and think that playing the game can be a pretty decent way of achieving our goals, whatever those goals may be. In our case, we don't really believe the rules are okay as they currently are, and don't really believe that the game is effective at anything other than perhaps advertising, but I question whether advertising through a noble lie is a wise strategy for the long-term. Eventually you get caught and people notice the contradiction, or they receive the opposite message you intended.

3. "Micha's objection to the Paul campaign is not solely consequential, but verges on the Kantian"

Well, I anticipated this objection and therefore included words like "effective" to go along with words like "legitimate." I did this partly as a shout-out to those who do view voting as immoral in itself, a position I respect and have some sympathy for, but can't bring myself to embrace personally. But also, I used the word "legitimate" because it doesn't necessarily entail a deontological claim; an action might be illegitimate for consequential, or even purely efficiency reasons. If my goal is to convince you to adopt ethical pacifism, punching you in the face would be considered an illegitimate means of achieving this goal, not merely because it would be wrong, and not merely because it wouldn't likely convince you to change your mind for very long (if at all), but also because the medium would contradict the message.

This is actually most unlawyerly-like conduct for me, since I'm arguing but not getting paid for it.

Sam,

You're right. If I thought voting for Paul would have any appreciable effect, I'd do it.

Micha,

I answer your points in reverse order. This will throw you off-balance and allow me the upper hand.

3. Legitimate.

It would appear I did misread you. But as you admit you used "legitimate" in a purposefully ambiguous manner, I reject any blame for not knowing which meaning you intended. So far as you used "legitimate" to mean "effective," then "legitimate" was unnecessary, since you used "effective" in the same sentence. So far as you used it as a shout-out, then my criticism of that shout-out is sound (and you apparently agree with it.)

2. Libertarians are Effectively Legitimizing the Game and That's Not Legit

You say that libertarians are contradicting themselves when they "play[] the game as everyone else plays it." I disagree. There seems nothing contradictory in the statement: "This game is generally crappy, but so long as playing by its rules seems like one of the more effective ways available to get closer to a game that's not crappy, then I'll play it." Compare that to "People shouldn't play this game, but so long as playing it gets people closer to a game they should play, then I'll play it." The latter does sound contradictory, but that's because it's a deontological claim. But you don't like deontological claims, so you shouldn't care if a deontological claim contradicts itself.

Moreover, my general impression is the group of libertarians who don't think that "playing the game can be a pretty decent way of achieving our goals, whatever those goals may be" is far from the entire libertarian class. One can comfortably be a libertarian who thinks the political process should be used for certain issues and not others--many a constitutional originalist falls in this camp. My guess is we forget this because we're all in the deep end.

This all assumes your premise "that the game is [not] effective at anything other than perhaps advertising." And as to that premise, color me dubious. Surely politics tends to result in bad outcomes, but nonetheless, some of those outcomes are worse than others, e.g. if Gore had won, we might not be in Iraq (sidestepping the issue of whether that would be good or bad--the important thing is it would be different). Campaigning, and succeeding, in getting the more libertarian of two candidates in office, does effectively move us closer to a libertarian society, or at least keep us from sliding farther away from a libertarian society. Either way, it seems like a worthwhile activity. Utopia's only an option if you've got a cheat code for SimCity.

Also, if libertarians shouldn't play the game as everyone else plays the game, that seems to rule out any attempt to influence the political process. This bars think tanks from trying to influence congressmen, as they do, Milton Friedman advising President Reagan, as he did, me speaking in favor of tax cuts (politicians are the ones who cut taxes, after all), as I would if anyone would listen, and many more activities. I can only wonder what you expect from libertarians short of subversive activity and outright revolution. Emigration?

1. "If you think that free advertising outweighs the costs of using the electoral system to amplify a message necessarily opposed to the message's own medium, I don't have an argument to convince you otherwise."

It's hard to answer this point in isolation, because for the reasons above, it's not true that the message is "necessarily opposed to the message's own medium."  Nonetheless, I will elaborate on why I'm not convinced by your weighing of campaigning's relative effectiveness.

It's true that you "suggested some other outlets useful for advertising later in the article," namely "academia, mainstream newspapers, pop-culture, and alternative, bottom-up sources." I admit that many of these are influential--but to avoid your charge of contradiction (so far as it's sound, which I'll assume it is at present), none of these outlets may advocate any participation in the political process. I think that greatly reduces their attractiveness.

Plus, let's look at your reason for doubting the influence of compaigning: "of the many who actively support and are involved in the Ron Paul movement, and who were not already libertarians to begin with, very few will have the time, patience, and energy - let alone the interest - to continue to explore the ideas of liberty long after the campaign ends in miserable failure, as it inevitably will." I agree. But of the many who hear a lecture from a libertarian academic, read a libertarian newspaper article, or hear libertarianism referenced in pop-culture, it is likewise true that "very few will have the time, patience, and energy - let alone the interest - to continue to explore the ideas of liberty" after being thus exposed. Do you disagree?

So I think we're basically comparing a bunch of generally ineffective methods that are nonetheless our best options. Selling libertarianism is hard, because it's libertarianism, and not crystal meth. Still the Paul campaign seems like one of our better means.