A commentator at Sauvik’s blog asks-
Do you not think that the definition of ‘socialism’ is completely subjective? I could just say that I define socialism as that system which is for the benefit of all and I believe that libertarianism is for the benefit of all. Why not just register a party and get on with campaigning?
(Read his post on why this is relevant.) In his reply, Sauvik says, among other things-
And why should we commit perjury just to enter electoral politics?
The problem here is not the lie; not all lies are bad – there is Plato’s “noble lie,” though that one is definitely not “noble.” But you get the drift. Or that we don’t have a liberal political party. The problem here is that we don’t have a “liberal people.”
The Libertarian Party in the US has existed for approximately forty years now. And it is “still” politically irrelevant. People are not interested in individual rights, and private property, and the right to free speech. They are interested in – depending on where they live, and their “sophistication” – free roads, free toilets, free television sets, free rice, jobs for life, bailouts, loan waivers… Who pays? Who cares? You don’t have to be dressed in rags to be a beggar. You could be dressed in a three-piece suit and still beg self-righteously; you wouldn’t call it begging though – that would be insulting. Then they are interested in religion, and forcing it down others’ throats; in various “causes,” and again, forcing other to adopt them. Who cares if these “others” are interested? If you don’t fix this, your political party will be just as irrelevant as the US LP. Then there is the question of sanction, or as Sauvik calls it, “a matter of principle.” By taking part in the electoral process in any manner – voting, standing for elections etc etc – you declare that you accept the process, and its outcome. Which you don’t.
I will reiterate what I said the last time round – “A republic can either be based on the principle of individual rights, or on the principle of not respecting such rights. India preferred the second alternative a long time back.” That’s what you have to fix to “sustain” liberalism in India.