Rothbard was a friend and supporter of Ron Paul, and generally very active in politics.  It was Rothbard's view that libertarians (anarchists) should support people and policies which dimished the power of the State while at the same time keeping in mind that the goal was a truly free society (stateless).  Thus, Rothbard often had strange bedfellows, even going so far as to work with communists when they had mutual goals.  See the final chapters of For a New Liberty for his ideas concerning this.

I, too, have been very disappointed with Rand's stance on foreign policy and the "how do we handle terrorists" question.  His first television ad is positively repulsive.  Freaking attack helicopters, fighter jets, tanks, and marching troops!!!  WTF?  This is Ron Paul's kid???!!!  I haven't followed Schiff's campaign that closely, but from what I gather, he has been wishy-washy on Iran.  I'm with you, as much as I may like their positions on economics, etc., war is the health of the state and since it so immensly affects everything else it makes all their other policies moot.  While I was initially very excited about Peter and Rand, at this point, I have completely lost interest in their campaigns.  Very sad.

Lysander,

I agree with you that this is a difficult problem. First, you're spot on that one cannot call any voluntarily funded social organization a State. The question is: when thrust into the middle of such a State system, with little hope of escaping, how does one morally fight to dismantle it?

Personally, I'm on the fence. I cannot condone violence against my neighbor, so supporting the generic idea of ANY state organization is offensive to me. Yet one knows that it will not only continue to exist, but will grow and hurt more people if it is not stopped. How does one stop it, and how does one view those willing to enter, or interested in entering, the political realm to try to dismantle it?

X expresses it well. Knowing that this change requires either non-compliance and non-participation, or some form of participation or support for those willing to participate -- this puts the principled libertarian in a tight spot. Generally, when I run into people such as free state project members who work to pass laws that will reduce the size of gubment, or to stop laws that will expand government, I support their actions. But most of them aren't running for office. As a free market anarchist, I find it difficult to come to terms with people who are going to make any kid of money by getting into a political office that is paid through taxation. Yet I suspect that such action is necessary in the US today in order to get anything changed on a wide scale.

I'm at a point where I will support those aspects of campaigns that tend to educate and get the word out about issues pertanent to liberty supporters, while I might not support the candidate. Yet there are times when I think, "Yep, good person to get in there to fight for greater freedom. That person has paid lots of taxes, so why not let him or her get in office and fight to defend himself or herself against government for a while? We need people to reduce the size of government and stop the predators, sooo..."

But there's something that happens when one enters a sphere where people are working on political campaigns. The atmosphere becomes very accepting of the generic idea of the validy of the existence of the state. When I hang out with people involved with campaigns, I always hope they express the key concept that all states are immoral, and that they are working to fight it.

I'm not going to see my ideal of a stateless society realized in my lifetime, but I can fight for the principles of freedom that require one to acknowledge the primacy of such a statelesss society. Meanwhile, I would be satisfied with the various state and the federal gubments being shrunken and a return to at least a semblance of what was set up under the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation. As X and I have discussed, and as I'm sure many free market historians have observed, the constitution has been a weak defense against government growth and agression, so holding it up as a beacon isn't exactly going to stop the gradual growth of government, but it would be at least a way to turn the clock back a bit.

As a result, I look at people like Congressman Paul as likeable. I support many of the things he expresses. Would I support him for President? I don't know. He'd be a much better choice to be chief executive of the slave plantation of the United States than many others, giving us more room to move on the plantation and perhaps allowing us to live more the way we desire.

Tough call. Slaves don't have all the options they should, and if they support plantation executives who might let them live slightly more freely (or a lot more freely), they are still forced into supporting an agent of the plantation.

It would be interesting to see a free market anarchist run for office. Do you think such a person could run and arrange a way to have that jibe with his stated principles. Could he put his salary into an account the he wouldn't touch, or promise to donate an equal amount to charity? What about staff members? Etc.? What do you think?

I could see how this train of thought could deter to the "lesser of two evils" discussion which was thoroughly discussed during the 2008 election.  In all honesty, the only difference is to what degree.  If you believed candidate A would lead to less destruction of personal liberty than candidate B, how would you justify not supporting candidate A?  What is candidate A was Hitler, and B Stalin?

One way you could look at it is if the candidate has a net G(Government Size) of <0, then he COULD be supported(?).  Its incredibly messy, and obviously a very good question.  I know throughout my time in gubment schools, I was taught Compromise, Compromise, Compromise.  We all know why this is.

Gard,

I actually have given some thought as to how an anarchist could hold office while adhering to principle. The candidate would either have to vote no on all legislation that increased the power of the government(Fed, State or Local).  He would also have to vote for every piece of legislation that took power away from that government.  On the issue of salary, staff and office budget, he would have to rely entirely on donations from his constituents.  A couple million dollars spread out over one Congressional District wouldn't come to that much money per constituent.  The only area where there may be a problem is with the Constitution.  Let's say that some conservative proposed cutting the Education Dept's budget in half.  Someone like Ron Paul would have to vote against such legislation because it concedes the principle that there should be a Department of Education.  And I think I agree with this view.  He's gotten criticized by psuedo-free market groups like the Club for Growth for similar votes.  Now, the anarchist may have to vote for the legislation because the Constitution is meaningless and all that matters is cutting government.  The same logic can be applied to Federal legislation that repeals oppressive state legislation.  Does the anarchist vote for such legislation?  I say no.  The principle of decentralization should trump centralization, even if that centralization might improve the conditions for liberty.  I beleive that a highly decentralized government is a best approximation there is to a stateless society.

X,

I agree.  If one is to get involved with politics, the candidate must be for a (large) reduction in government and it must be across the board.  I refuse to support someone who is only supports a reduction in gov't on net.  For example, a candidate who supports abolishing the income tax but ramping up the War on Drugs.  Or the inverse.  Ideally, in this context, an abolitionist is better than a cutter.  That is, a person who wants to get government completely out of an area rather than reducing its involvement in that area.