Why do we trust sports people, and not politicians

Why we do NOT trust politicians and bureacrats

Main stream party Politicians and local bureaucrats have no principles upon which they base their decisions and policy making. This is the reason why they cannot be trusted.
The decisions and policies they make are EMOTIVE based upon their own feelings, likes, dislikes etc.
Because everybody has their own view on a subject, and their own approval or disapproval, these decisions swing wildly one way or another.
You may find you agree with a certain politician on one matter, and then disagree on another - this is because there is NO solid, immoveable, consistent, unchangeable base or philosophy upon which they have come to their decision.

Why we DO trust sports people
Sports people in general are not directly responsible for stealing your money (except those who are calling for more FUNDING from the government).
They are not making promises about what they intend to do with the stolen money, or who they intend to redistribute it to.
They are not telling you that what they are doing is for YOUR own good.
They do not make promises that they reneg on down the track .
They do not generally promise to do one thing, and then do something else
They do not steal your property, and insist that they have a right to it.
Athletes do not Unbundle you, or TAX you

This is the sole reason why the Libertarian philosophy of “the non initiation of force” principle works so well.

For example:
I do not demand the government bans Boxing, or smoking, or prostitution or drugs just because I do not like them because I will be stopping other people from doing with their life and their body something they chose - because I will be forcing my will upon them.
In return I ask that others do not demand the government ban Boxing or smoking or prostitution or drugs, which would be stopping ME from doing things with MY life and body things that I chose!
You should have the RIGHT to do with your life, body and private property ANYTHING you chose providing you do not initiate force, or fraud upon others, and providing you pose no threat to THEIR life and property!

You do not use force, or ask other people (governments or councils) to use force on your behalf to get what you want, and in return ask the same respect from others

Here is a bit of an explanation of the Non-initiation of force principle - it is a bit heavy-going, but stick with it, and try and understand what it says.:

The precondition of a civilised society is the barring of physical force from social relationships – thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement. – Ayn Rand.

Force is never justified when initiated against others, but only when used to in retaliation against its initiators, i.e. in self-defence.

To rule out force used in self-defence -- or to ignore the distinction between the initiation of force and force used in retaliation by labelling both as ‘violence’ -- does not remove aggression, it rewards it.
‘Non-violence’ invites agression, it does not disarm those who choose to ignore your ‘peaceful protest.’

The non-initiation of force principle does not just mean Physical force, but also threats and fraud – intimidating or deceiving someone into a course of action to which he would not otherwise have consented.

The essence of the evil of force is that it is the negation of a person’s mind and the choices otherwise freely made, effected by an attack or the threat of attack on a person’s body and/or property. It is an assault on his distinctively human attributes, his very essence as a human being. It is only by such direct physical coercion that man’s rights may be violated, by compelling him by force to act against his own judgement.

People generally have no difficulty identifying and condemning individuals who coerce other individuals, but they are conditioned to accept and applaud coercive behaviour by governments.