Attacking public opinion through politics is a strategy that is very well accepted in conservative and libertarian circles, as a form of action, to expose libertarian ideas to the general public.
Politicians, to be successful, need to be charismatic, to speak in simple terms, and with emphatic and striking catchphrases. Ideal features to spread these ideas.
However, there are a number of hidden problems with this strategy, which only people with the ability to apply economic logic to the libertarian movement itself, or especially to themselves, are able to glimpse.
Politicians follow the laws.
The actions of politicians, and of anyone who wants to be part of the state and be a libertarian, must follow the laws, which is exactly what being a member of the state entails, if you submit to state law.
But libertarian ethics is a logical construct that is not about a person's opinion, but the only ethic that you can follow without contradicting yourself.
Christian morality is an example of a moral tradition built up over centuries, which has proven to be a winner in the test of time, people born and raised today are the product of that morality. The difference between existing and not existing is exactly the moral values of your ancestors.
Private law, such as Roman law, extends laws according to the occurrence of unforeseen conflicts, following well-established ethical principles based on justice.
Whereas private law is the application of libertarian ethics, using jurisprudence, when new problems arise that are not analyzed in the existing set of laws, and Christian morality are individual moral values that have proved victorious in the test of time, and are not in conflict with libertarian ethics (and consequently private law). The situation of state law is absolutely different.
State law is constructed without the need for conflict to arise, on the contrary, it is the representation of what is most immoral in society, to create conflict between individuals, for the state using the police and judicial monopoly, to expropriate the properties of the people under its domination.
A person who is willing to abide by state law has serious trouble explaining how his attitudes are in accord with Christian morality, libertarian ethics, and how his understanding of economics is aligned with that situation.
And this can easily be glimpsed in politicians and civil servants who defend libertarian ethics and Christian morality by putting their salary in their pockets, even though this is the product of the expropriation of their fellow human beings.
Basically the message is: Do as I say, don't do as I do.
Politicians depend on votes.
A politician to be elected he needs the vote of the people, so basically he will try to convince as many people aligned with his ideas to attend the elections and vote for him, for him to represent these ideas to society, any attitude different from this represents absolute failure in politics.
But the act of voting, on the part of the voter, signifies moral consent, the institution of the state under the command of the politician of his choice, means the legitimation of democracy as a political process.
So basically the politician preaches economic ignorance in the attitudes of voters. He will speak in public against the state and democracy, but the voter must give consent to the state and democracy. A psychiatrist would diagnose it with schizophrenia, but the situation is more serious.
A politician preaches the construction of a group of people centered on his public persona, that is, people do not need to learn and understand libertarian ideas in depth, he is there to represent them. People don't need to tell painful truths to others, the politician will do it for them.
Of course, the logical consequence of this kind of stance is a group of ignorant people with no true understanding of libertarianism supporting the politician, and that entire group is at the mercy of that one person remaining faithful to these ideas, without corrupting themselves or taking personal advantage for themselves.
As if when it comes to supporting politics, libertarians show themselves to be conveniently ignorant of economics and incapable of self-analysis, religiously supporting a centralized movement, which the only thing it will provide is a career for the leaders and political/religious domination to the support base.
True libertarian action.
Physicist Richard Feynman once explained his method of study, to learn any subject, read the theory, explain it in simple terms, return the theory to correct things you couldn't explain, and to simplify and clarify your ideas. Continue this process indefinitely.
Libertarianism is not to be understood or explained in order to change the world, but to change oneself. It is only in the sense of personal growth that these ideas make sense. Changing other people is a great illusion, the only person you have power over is yourself and it is essential to recognize this in order to establish a coherent action.
The first thing a person who has understood libertarianism should do is not depend on their parents or the state. Seeking your independence in an ethically correct way is key to aligning your opinions with your attitudes. It may seem extremely difficult to do this, but if you are willing to disregard state law, the opportunities for (ethically honest) gains multiply.
In a situation where you have your income derived from an ethically honest activity, libertarian ideas become a form of personal moral protection, many statists and people who repeat the mainstream media without reflection will speak ill of you simply for being different, so explaining these ideas in simple terms becomes a personal matter, And your incentives will naturally be aligned with studying and explaining libertarianism.
People who have irretrievably derived their gains from state violence (such as bankers, civil servants, big businessmen linked to the state), will not be willing to argue, and will try everything in their power to ridicule you, to exclude you and even criminalize you. It becomes a matter of life and death to expose these people in simple terms for the intelligent person to be on your side. And to publicly advocate for the social exclusion of these people, and to really distance yourself from these people.
Here the difference in relation to politicians is stark, one does not ask a third party to explain these ideas for me, to tell painful truths for me, to confront my enemies for me. Before I can be a libertarian, I must prove myself a man and do it on my own in my personal life. Children are dependent (on parents or the state) and men are human beings who earn their living by voluntary exchange.
The difference between a teacher and a politician is that the teacher teaches his student to think on his own, and the politician preaches in a religious way the self-centered support for his person. Libertarian action is basically about real teachers defeating and humiliating politicians.
A decentralized libertarian movement, that every individual has their skin at stake, that every individual knows how to defend himself morally and argue in simple terms, that every individual has the humility to learn and teach cannot be corrupted or stopped. And it is the only form of action that economic logic makes sense of. It's the stark example of a chain reaction.
Mr. "libertarian" who defends politics, who refuses to live on voluntary exchanges, who accepts state money or money derived from expansion of the monetary base, unfortunately I cannot unread what I have read, unfortunately I cannot not think what I thought, unfortunately I am not disgusting like you to pretend to be conveniently ignorant, the only thing I can offer you is my permanent social exclusion.