I just chanced to come upon the analysis of George Phillies concerning the National Libertarian Party’s platform, and his opinions regarding each measure and plank. and it reminded me of how futile political parties are, given the inevitable bureaucracies that arise, trying to seize power and influence within the party structure. There is no way that a political party of any size can ever exist without creating a bureaucracy that will take it over, and thenceforth direct the energies of a million good-faith citizens who truly believe in the few ideological slogans the party bandies about.
That the Libertarian Party, of all parties, should fall into the trap of Bureaucracy shows how the minds of people trick themselves. One of the key teachings of the Libertarian “Big Three” Economists, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard, was that bureaucracies arise in all organizations, from big government down to the local chess club, and that certain energetic individuals will take over that bureaucratic power, while Hayek’s rule that in bureaucracies the worst rise to the top has been well proven by a long parade of Federal Government departmental heads.
We see the same problem arising in progressive school’s bureaucracies. Bertrand Russell, A. S. Neill, and J. Krishnamurti all had problems with the school administrations of the schools they set up, and these were three very revolutionary thinkers when it came to the question of education.
So it would seem that in the realm of both politics and education, the bureaucracies should be abandoned, and only individual action should take place. This would mean, politically, coagulating around a few set principles, like the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, and the Inalienable Rights of the Individual over and above any false Collectivist claim to Rights. A large part of electing someone would then be: are they genuine or a carpet-bagging opportunist, repeating like a parrot the party’s mantra. That is where the insight of the voters comes into action. In the performance of the candidates lies the key to modern elections. This has been proven by both Trump and Sanders, who have ripped away the diaphanous skirts of both major parties, to reveal only fat cellulite legs, lined with the varicose veins of corporate corruption. The veins run dollar-bill green, and run from the bottom upwards.
And in education, it seems my view of educating children in small groups of 3-5, with a teacher and assistant, in combination with all the educational tools available over the internet, which have made the lecture hall and the library virtually obsolete, is the correct view. Schools serve as a collectivizing agent, getting the children ready, on a daily basis, for a collectivist action (going to the school where there is a huge crowd of people, sitting in the class in the midst of a large group.) These collectivist actions prepare the child for the corporate job and the political party, and the idea that they are part of a ‘society” when in actuality that “society” only exists in their daily contact with individuals. Educating children individually, or in tiny groups of 3-5, will remove this collectivizing brainwashing which both government and private schools can’t avoid because of their current structure. We should question whether schools are even necessary any more.
As far as politics go, it should be obvious that only through individual change within a huge number of people will it be possible to radically alter the rotten world society in which we now live. Without that inner change, merely changing the outer society will do very little. You only have to look at the percentage of people who eat meat (over 98%), and the realities of the factory farm and the slaughter house, to see how self-centered the mass of Humanity is. And creating a political party that is going to somehow magically change this situation is a pipe-dream. This is the trap into which the Communists and the Socialists fall. They falsely think that: merely change the outer economic circumstances and the laws, and everyone will become angelic and non-greedy. The cherishing of material possessions in Soviet society showed just the opposite. The Soviet Marxists were just as materialistic as the American Capitalists. Maybe even more so when you compare the amount of charitable giving which the American middle class has historically shown, due probably to the general level of prosperity in America (compared to most world historic societies). There were many wealthy Romans, but I don’t recall them being noted for their philanthropic works, unless it was passing out corn to quell a food-riot insurrection.
So, if societal change can only come about through individual change, and if all political parties are doomed to the disease of Bureaucracy if they achieve any notable size, then it should be clear that political action is pure folly and a waste of time.
But does that mean the Libertarian, the 18th Century Classical Liberal, and the Anarcho-Capitalist should abandon the field to the Fascists, the Socialists and Communists, the Nazis, the Racists, the Nationalists, the Theocrats, and even Monarchists?
Does not the outer society play a large part in conditioning the individual, when only a child, into the implicit values of the society? Little Johnny quickly catches on that doctors make a lot of money, and since Johnny notices that adults talk a lot about money, he decides to become a doctor. And since everyone wants to know what Johnny wants to do when he “grows up”, little Johnny gets the message that what you do in society is very important to these large apes he’s growing up amongst. The schools, both government and private, reinforce this when they tell the students how much more a college graduate earns over the course of his lifetime than a high school graduate or drop-out.
Therefore, if the outer society plays such a large part in conditioning the individual, then, even though politics is futile and a waste of time, it must be engaged in, at least at the minimal level of voting (and usually having to write in people for most positions since the usual party hacks are so bad). Even though change must be at the individual level, it makes a huge difference to individuals if they live in a free, free-market Capitalist society, with Classical Liberal Jeffersonian views when it comes to political issues and Rights. Historically, such Liberalism has only been found in the most Capitalistic societies — Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the U.S.A. All three have had a long tradition of both Capitalism, or the Free-Market, and a wide liberality of opinion, with significant minorities or majorities opposing censorship, the Draft, Capital Punishment, and supporting separation of church and state. All three of these countries also engaged in the most egregious outrages against Libertarianism in terms of their colonies, their wars, the American enslavement of the African and his descendants, and theft of the American Indians’ lands. But whether because of it, or in spite of it, Capitalism within these societies brought Classical Liberalism to heights it had never imagined in previous times. In earlier days, Bertrand Russell and Clarence Darrow would have been burned at the stake or lynched (Russell almost was once, when speaking at an anti-War rally in a church during World War One). Now, in the Liberal Capitalist 20th Century societies, people just grumbled about them. Everyone would rip the government by word, but assassinations of government officials by ordinary citizens were very rare.
So, if the outer society does have an impact on the conditioning of the individual, it is obvious that politics, and the society it breeds, are extremely important.
And thus we are left with the paradox that, while we can see clearly that politics is a waste of time and a great dissipation of energy, we can also see that it is vitally important to the bringing about of a Libertarian, Jeffersonian, Free-Market Capitalist, democratic-Republic Society, where dissident opinions are tolerated, and with a low, or non-existent level of violence.
— Paul Grad