The statement that "politics should stay out of economics" is the most political statement that can me made. Typically it is made by the libertarian monetarists who become obsessed with the icons and symbols of an economy rather than how the whole system functions and to what purpose does it exist. There is no economic system not upheld by government law, order and protection and no government not supported and reliant upon it's economic system. They are in a symbiotic relationship; hence the term "Political Economy".
I don't disagree that politics and economics cannot be separated. But do you agree that the law is a ham-handed tool to resolve issues that arise rarely?
Unfortunately slippery slope arguments like this are hard to quantify and really are an unobserved phenomenon but make a great campaign slogan. Can you (or anyone) point to an event subject to the 'slippery slope' phenomenon? You can't because no such thing exists.
Ludwig Von Mises's book on interventionism and the real life experience of India's absolutely horrid license raj are full of examples of laws that have been passed ignoring economic effects and resulting in great suffering.
The observable historical reality is that government is going to be a vehicle for the interests that control it. It always has been. Anything that you'd accredit to a "slippery slope" I can show you the conflict between 2 interests in which 1 did not show up to the fight or not in sufficient strength to "carry the day". Perhaps they didn't show up to that political struggle because they believed that "The law is a ham handed tool. It should not be used to make subtle changes in the world. If you start upon this path, there is no end to it."
You should consider the cost-benefit analysis of the probability of your being able to convice a majority of the people in the government that affects your life and your ability to carve your own sphere of autonomy and voluntary trade.
And technological changes affect this, greatly. Before bitcoin, I was very skeptical of even the possibility of agorism. Now it seems really feasible.
I agree with patri freidman's ideas on this. The systems competing in the world are a function of the market for governance.
That sounds like a great belief to convince your opposition of: a world view that seeks to eliminate opposition by invalidating the human right to be heard in the halls of government, subjecting its adherents into a blind alley of being a political inert mass, a political jellyfish adrift on a sea that truly is your master to which you have no say and no control. To relinquish your self determination to a pitifully naive ideology that has and never will attainable, or should even be sought, should be given its due credit the social and economic dysfunction of our present global condition.
Not thinking of entrepreneurial solutions is the real relinquising of self determination.
Thinking "Oh this problem will be solved only if I have 1000000 people on my side" is relinquishment.