The following is a guest submission by William Smith, a Master’s student studying political science at the University of Georgia and member of the university’s Young Americans for Liberty chapter:

One of the best ways to communicate ideas to people is to connect them to popular culture. The recent obsession with The Hunger Games has provided advocates of liberty a wonderful opportunity to connect the stories’ themes with real-world situations. Several efforts in this vein have been made, including a recent post on this blog by Todd Hollenbeck. Hollenbeck’s “We Need to Stop Playing in the Hunger Games” tackles a perennial issue in libertarian strategy: whether to work within or outside the political system.   In his post, Hollenbeck rightly points out that authority, and oftentimes power, are dependent on perception: change people’s perception and you can change who has authority and power. In our world, as in Panem, citizens are complicit in their subservience to their government. As Hollenbeck explains,  “by watching the show and playing the game, the people are sanctioning their rulers and perpetuating the system”. Hollenbeck proceeds to argue that if we stop playing in the governments’ games—that is, if we develop alternative institutions and behaviors—we will realize we don’t need the government (at for least some things), and the government’s ability to command the obedience of its’ citizens will disappear.

While Hollenbeck is right to stress the possibility of achieving success outside the “system,” there are three reasons why this strategy alone cannot bring about a free society. First, the number of people who would have to “drop out” in order to, as Hollenbeck says, “dry up the power of the State” is staggeringly large. Second, dropping out of the games will oftentimes result in very unpleasant circumstances for the abstainers. Third, so many of the obstacles to a free society can be removed only through participation in the games.

Hollenbeck’s example  of how we can drop out of the government’s game and still find solutions deals with gay marriage: if marriage is primarily a religious or social institution, then it would be entirely possible for homosexual couples to become married, even without the institution’s  legalization. The only difference would be that they would not enjoy the benefits of a marriage from the state; even so, these benefits could be enjoyed without state decree through voluntary provision.

Katniss and Peeta had to play the Hunger Games, so why wouldn't we?

Gay marriage is certainly “solvable” without the state, but there are three reasons why ignoring our own Capitol and its numerous “games” may not be a feasible or even desirable general strategy. The first reason is that in order for the state’s power and authority to dry up, an enormous amount of people would have to refuse to play their games. Changing a large number of people’s minds is not impossible, although it does generally take a long time, and the more radical the idea, the longer and harder it will be. This is especially true given the government’s likely response to such a strategy. While Hollenbeck is certainly correct that our government is nowhere near as brutal as that of Panem, the fact remains that in many cases “ignoring” the games will land a person in a hell of harassment, fines, prison, and various acts of violence at the hands of the government. Granted, Hollenbeck recognizes that this is a risk; however, it is fair to say that for the majority of “games” (drug laws, immigration laws, tax laws, regulation laws, employment law, education law, etc.) ignoring the rules will provoke such a response from the government.

This brings us to the third problem with the “ignore the Games” strategy. If it means avoiding all political activity “within the system,” then the Games will only continue, and will likely get worse before they get better, if they ever do. It is an inescapable fact that policy is shaped by people who are active in politics, and not by people who are inactive. We thus would have no one to blame but ourselves if we neglect this area of activism and then wonder why we live in society with laws and attitudes hostile to freedom. Furthermore, even if we do build alternative institutions, we still need to be sure that they are protected from government regulation or destruction, which will necessarily require “playing the game.” Thus, we will necessarily have to play the game where the issue in question is not the perception of the necessity of government provision of a service, but of government control and regulation of our lives. No amount of refusing to play will end the War on Drugs, for example.

Of course, as we know, the chances for immediate success through playing the games are not very promising. In contemporary America, there are precious few politicians who would willingly (and consistently) vote for a pro-liberty, pro-free market agenda, and the same can certainly be said for bureaucrats. Likewise, given the dominance of the party and media establishments in electoral politics, among other things, the majority of Americans will not support a consistently pro-liberty agenda. The implication, of course, is that the key to achieving success is to convince people that liberty is both desirable and feasible, of which Hollenbeck’s strategy is a crucial component.

How can we stop playing the Hunger Games when the Capitol has a gun pointed at us?

The aforementioned obstacles to achieving success in the games must not, however, be taken to express the futility of such an effort. The choice between working inside or outside of the games is a false choice: both are necessary. By working outside the games, through academia, pop culture, everyday encounters, and the deliberate construction in civil society of voluntary service provision, we can show people in a direct, personal fashion that freedom is desirable and feasible. By working within the games, through voting, pressuring politicians and the media, exposing corruption, and running and/or supporting liberty friendly campaigns we can show people—especially those in power—that there is a demand for freedom, and directly work on actually changing policy. In the long run, the winning strategy is one that focuses on changing the hearts and minds of everyday people, but inevitably, playing the games are a necessary move if we are ever to achieve a free society.

To summarize, we simply do not have the luxury of refusing to play our Capitol’s Games, at least not in all contexts. Of course the goal is to reach a state where people see no need for the games. Yet, in order to reach anything approximating that, we must accept that there are times when we must play them. Both approaches—working “inside” and “outside” the system—are crucial to the achievement of a free society because they tackle the two tasks we face: building the alternative institutions of a free society and limiting the government’s power and authority to control our lives.

In the fight over the control of our lives, we should ignore the games when we can and play them when we must—it is only by doing so that we can hope for the odds to be ever in our favor.

Are you a pro-liberty student interesting in contributing a guest submission to StudentsForLiberty.org? If so, email Blog Content Manager Casey Given at cgiven@studentsforliberty.org.