Was it worth it?

Well, as predicted (by me), in pursuit of one of Connecticut’s US Senate seats, Peter Schiff wasted a lot of time and money, and was forced to refrain from making several television appearances on financial news programs (due to campaign laws). He placed an embarrassing third:

Former professional wrestling maven Linda McMahon capped an improbable entry into politics Friday night when she captured the Republican Party endorsement for the U.S. Senate during a raucous Republican convention at the Connecticut Convention Center.

McMahon edged former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons after dozens of delegates switched their votes at the conclusion of the first ballot. She received 737 votes to 632 for Simmons and 44 for economist Peter Schiff.

(Heroic libertarian Glen Jacobs aka Kane demonstrates that in the fantasy world libertarians can beat down neoconservatives; too bad that doesn’t hold for the real world.)

It’s amazing that Schiff, someone who sees economic reality so clearly, is so clueless about the political reality: libertarians are a miniscule percentage of the population, maybe 1 in every 10,000. Austrian School economists are even less populous, maybe 50,000 globally, and that’s being charitable. Ron Paul regularly wins his tiny little district in the enormous state of Texas, but he doesn’t win because of his economic and political leanings; he wins despite them: he wins on character (something that’s possible to do in a narrow enough, localized election).

Libertarians and Austrian School economists are hopelessly outnumbered in the political arena. There will never be a libertarian president. Never. Congress will never be packed with enough libertarians to make any significant policy shifts slowing down the growth of the nanny-police state. Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve, for instance, had 320 sponsors out of 435 Representatives in the House. Despite this, it was completely obliterated in the Senate, with a watered down version proposed by an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, passing instead. Enjoy this video:

But take heart, libertarians and Austrian School economists, Sanders’ amendment only passed 96-0. Let me tell you politically active libertarians something: you’re not being pragmatic by participating in the political process — campaigning, voting, arguing for some candidate on the internet; you’re demonstrating colossal ignorance. You’re marking yourself as a rube. Honestly, don’t you people understand the concept of opportunity cost? Sad.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • By this fall I’ll be living in a state where medical marijuana is legal and you can carry a gun without a license. Since the political process doesn’t work, and I’m not moving, how does that happen?

    • Three steps backwards one step fore. Congrats. In the mean time your 4th amendment rights have been all but discarded, the banking cartel is in collusion with the government to keep robbing you blind, and you just got Obamacare. Congrats, you’re making serious progress!

  • I agree completely, in context, with Mike’s conclusions. The pursuit of political answers is a lost cause and waste of time for libertarians. The continued pursuit of political solutions by ostensive libertarians is also rather disconcerting. However, it is not the dearth of libertarians in the voting pool that leads me to draw this conclusion. In fact, I would view the political process as a waste of time and immoral even if libertarians or market anarchists or Austrian economists were in the majority on Earth!

    Consider: Would the dining choices of 3 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner become legitimate because the wolves have such a clear majority? Of course not. Would the morality of any vote to consume the sheep become somehow modified based upon the wolves having a wonderfully exquisite understanding of property rights? Hell no. Libertarianism generally, and property rights specifically, are “about” not infringing upon others. Politics is based directly and inexorably upon majority-based infringement! One cannot change this moral fact by becoming conversant in the writings of Aristotle or Ayn Rand or expert in every facet of Austrian economics. Government is force, ipso facto controlling it orthogonal to libertarian law.