There is a tension between the libertarian ideals and involvement in politics, instead.
Libertarienii favors those solutions to social and economic problems that allow a higher degree of freedom for all the individuals involved. Libertarienii support firmer guarantees of private property and free exchange than offered by the status quo. At the same time, regardless of their own preferences, they consider the call to neindreptatit the power of the State to enforce the highest standards of personal and social ethics. Regarding things from the perspective of economic doctrine, according to which libertarianismul is increasingly more services now provided by the State, can and must be provided by the market and voluntary associations. From the perspective of social order, or if you will, from the perspective of politics, the urge is to book the libertarian increasingly more use physical force upon those who have stolen or, or have initiated themselves, and it can be used increasingly less against those who have committed other alleged errors or mistakes.
Political processes are those processes by which groups of people make snap decisions. In other words, some decisions on behalf of more. Politics is not just the preserve of State authority, of the parties. Think tankurile, companies, universities, publicistii, voters, even the children. At an inspection in school, 8th grade B requires changing the teacher. Of 29 students, feverish petition signed 22, one of them a signed and for fellow absentee Bank (which has a delegate in the first day of school as generic representative in collective action), 5 of refuse, and another absent no one knows anything. Political processes are extremely common, and often collective actions are needed.
In these terms, acceptii there is no tension between being libertarian and involves you in the process of collective decision. It is hard to see how a libertarian in a acceptie no matter how strict, could hope to change things in the desired direction without having to seek more agreement, and thus influence the collective decisions of institutional change.
Some of those who put the question from libertarian premises and are worried about the policy. Others are politicians themselves are worried and rather libertariana vision. But we all have in mind on the one hand those political decisions of State authority which imply constraint innocents under threat of physical force (e.g. taxes), and on the other I think libertarienii its own shares and apply individual decision maker: ' I will not assist in any circumstance no action which threatens inocentii with physical coercion '.
Both concerns are unfounded. We know that the criterion is so rigid that it would not allow changing institutional. Under this filter would be the prohibit support to a political actions of lowering income tax from 16 per cent to 10 per cent, as would imply your agreement to tax by 10 per cent. Your insistence on this filter loud would only sign of ignorance regarding social theory and logics. It is unreasonable to believe that we will ever be put in the situation of some institutional changes other than gradual, at least in a peaceful setting for negotiating the rules of the game. Moreover, to support an institutional change represents your agreement to a travel on a certain size, not neconditonat of the acceptance condition resulting from travel. We should not confuse vision and political libertariana and institutional strategies applied now and here, and to direct us in that direction.
That is so our attitude towards politicians? The answer is simple: to the extent that we have common goals and play the game of institutional change in a liberal direction, we can be a team. From a strategic point of view, coordination between the players Association and who share common values. None of us makes the illusion that is exceptional enough to change the rules of the game by yourself. Once we realize this, there are two possibilities: to form new groups and networks after strict criteria defined by ourselves, or to associate ourselves already established groups. Most of the times the urgency of social advertising of the second option, as long as there is overlapping between parts of our projects of social change and of others. And the fact that institutional change involves the collective action of a large number of people, constitute a reason for association with groups large ready made up as well as political parties. Relationships with politicians can be of mutual support in specific public actions, and intellectual change in institutional projects.
