Libertarians are absolutely horrible at influencing people.

Reply

Rabble159 Posted: Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:37 PM

rated by 0 users

For the purpose of this topic I am including people who consider themselves:

-Libertarians
-Classical Liberals
-Neoliberals
-Austrian School followers
-Chicago School/Friedman followers

Yes I recognize that those titles often heavily overlap and there are some big differences between some of them. (Especially Austrian vs Chicago specifically) Just go with it for now, they're all similar enough to work under one movement/party. I listed them all because I didn't want anyone to come in here and say "Well this isn't ME! I'm not a Libertarian I am a classical liberal!" etc. etc. If you fit somewhere into any of the listed categories or hold beliefs similar to the listed categories, this topic is directed at you.

I'd personally probably fit in with "classical liberal" or "Chicago/Friedman", if only because I haven't read much Austrian work. Don't know if I will ever convert... Too much of an empiricist. Anyway, back, on topic.

Libertarians are absolutely horrible at influencing others to their beliefs... Austrians being by far the least persuasive of the lot. In my opinion there are some key things that libertarian types need to address if they ever want any recognition as a "real" party. As of now, most people's view of libertarians is somewhere between "loony" and "batfuck insane".

I remember in high school, I asked something about Libertarians to my government teacher. Not sure what the question was, but after answering it she went on to explain what she thought of the group. "Libertarians are the people who don't want government to tell them to do anything, anytime, for any reason. What do we call that? ANARCHY!" Obviously she was generally wrong, excluding the more radical Austrian schoolers.

1. Radical language isn't a crowd winner. Making "Taxation=THEEEEFFFFFT!!!" a part of your platform is not going to win anyone over. The Austrians (Which are apparently the dominant force in Libertarian politics these days, or at least you would think so by watching anything involving Ron Paul) are the biggest offenders here. Anarchism will never be a major popular movement, at least in my lifetime. (Or likely my children's lifetime, or theirs...) If you want to win people over, you have to work slowly (Or relatively slowly). Present your viewpoints in a moderate manner, and to be honest- just don't mention the anarchism thing.

2. Stop the infighting. Whenever I go on the mises forums I never fail to find a few people who curse the "Catoite" libertarians, the "Friedmanites" or the "Positivists". Stop it. The differences between to the two to the average person are nil. If you ever want your ideas implemented, you must be united.

3. Stop gunning for the presidential election every damned year. Sfcalimari often brings this up and he's 100% correct. Libertarians need to start small and build up a base before going straight for the top. Make a heavy push for libertarian-minded leaders in local positions, building up to state and then try for federal.

My ideas for a winning strategy:

1. Adopt a presentable, more moderate form of Libertarianism to the public. Focus on the maximization of individual liberty in both social and economic sectors. Try and steal the Dem voters who usually vote based on social issues and try to steal the Republican voters who usually vote based on economic issues. Oh, and on racial discrimination- just don't mention repealing any current civil rights acts. I recognize that it is a principled position and rarely is it due to racism, but it is not a popular thing. The only people you will win over with this are racist hillbillies- but they will be turned away by tolerance of ***s.

When I say "presentable" I don't mean "Use a ton of latin words no one knows". The platform needs to be simple, understandable and somewhat palatable to the average joe. Going into deep intellectual arguments about why some such government policy is an example of the evils of a tyrannical state may work if you are talking to highly educated philosophy-minded individuals, but the average American isn't highly educated and they sure as hell aren't philosophy-minded.

This would probably look a lot more like the Cato model of libertarianism than the Austrian model, but I would think even Austrians could agree that it is much better than the current party platforms.

2. Start local and build up. Again, focus 90% of your energy on building a local base.

Well those are my thoughts. What are yours? I'm sure I pissed at least a few people off here. Sorry.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:47 PM

rated by 0 users

why do i feel like im being scolded even though i've done nothing wrong?

Reply

Spideynw replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Yes, libertarians are horrible at influencing others.  However, it has nothing to do with the libertarians themselves.

Reply

Josiah Schmidt replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:52 PM

rated by 0 users

It's largely pointless trying to conquer the political structure.  There is a sound praxeological reason why libertarians suck at politics.

Libertarians should focus on conquering the S&P 500 instead.

Reply

liberty student replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:52 PM

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

why do i feel like im being scolded even though i've done nothing wrong?

Apparently libertarians are also not good at influencing libertarians.

Reply

Marko replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Historicaly dramatic shifts occur only in the most testing of times. And in such times people look towards radical solutions. It would be an elementary strategic mistake to embrace moderate language and moderate positions just as the roof is coming down. Now is the time to point the finger saying we told you so and press the attack. Not go moderate and grant legitimacy to the scoundrels, just as they will be needing it most.



And BTW Neoliberals? You must be having a laugh.

Reply

liberty student replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 2:56 PM

rated by 0 users

Real quick...

Rabble159:

Radical language isn't a crowd winner.

Of course not.  But there is no point in not telling the truth just because people can't handle it.   Taxation is theft.

Rabble159:

Stop the infighting.

The infighting is about arguing towards truth, not power.

Rabble159:

Adopt a presentable, more moderate form of Libertarianism to the public

www.cato.org

Rabble159:

Start local and build up

The internet makes everyone local.  Americans and to a lesser degree Britons and Canadians ignore the 3rd world at their own peril.  Seeds of liberty need to be sown in India, China, South America and Africa.  America is not going to be leading anyone anywhere with the looming bankruptcy.  Canada and Briton not far behind with police state socialism.

Activist Libertarianism (inmy opinion) is about pushing state boundaries, not working within them.

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:13 PM

rated by 0 users

I came on to this topic expecting to agree with it, apart from the radical language part, which has nothing to do with radicalism itself, I found nothing.

There's no problem purging bad elements.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:22 PM

rated by 0 users

but i like radical language/ cant i have it? please?

whats the fun of being a radical if you cant talk like a radical

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:32 PM

rated by 0 users

He's correct, the "government is a bunch of theives" line, gets nobody anywhere.

Reply

Marko replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:36 PM

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

He's correct, the "government is a bunch of theives" line, gets nobody anywhere.

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:39 PM

rated by 0 users

And it's far easier to convince people who've lived their whole life under the state that we simply need the right people and the right policies than it is to convince people that we don't need any state whatsoever.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:40 PM

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

He's correct, the "government is a bunch of theives" line, gets nobody anywhere.

i disagree. if you are concilliatory and make excuses for them, forgive them they know not what they do. they are trying to intervene cause they are public spirtited and through economic ignorance and lack of insight into the morality of politics they err.

you are almost saying that the state can be reformed or improved, it needs better decisionmaking whatever. why should people adopt anarchy or even minarchy if states arent evil, and if they can be expected to be good (not theives).?

Reply

hayekianxyz replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 3:45 PM

rated by 0 users

No you're not, you're saying that good will isn't enough. The economic arguments take over from there.

As I've said. The best way to go is to present the incentive structures of democracy and compare them to those of monarchy. Ultimately finding the latter to be superior. Once the belief in democracy has been shaken it is far easier to convince people.

Reply

laminustacitus replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:01 PM

rated by 0 users

I only care about the truth, I am stoic about whether the rabble agrees with me.

Reply

Stranger replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:23 PM

rated by 0 users

Mises and Hoppe influenced me to become a libertarian.

Reply

kiba replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:42 PM

rated by 0 users

Rabble159:

2. Start local and build up. Again, focus 90% of your energy on building a local base.

Well those are my thoughts. What are yours? I'm sure I pissed at least a few people off here. Sorry.

Libertarian should be focusing on economic solutions instead of political solution. We're good at entrepeneurship but in generally we're shit at politics. Beside, building a business is more self-subtaining than battling political attacks all day long and trying to win majority votes. At least with business, we don't have to like....capture 90% of the market in order to win.

If anybody is any good at politics, it might make sense to do local elections and build up popular support from Libertarian business owners.

Reply

Spideynw replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:58 PM

rated by 0 users

kiba:

Libertarian should be focusing on economic solutions instead of political solution. We're good at entrepeneurship but in generally we're shit at politics. Beside, building a business is more self-subtaining than battling political attacks all day long and trying to win majority votes. At least with business, we don't have to like....capture 90% of the market in order to win.

Exactly!  This is the best tool we have.

Reply

Solid_Choke replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 5:00 PM

rated by 0 users

Stranger:

Mises and Hoppe influenced me to become a libertarian.

I think you are in the minority. I only considered libertarianism seriously after reading Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell (both are far from being radical).

Reply

pairunoyd replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 5:18 PM

rated by 0 users

even God is utterly, completely and regularly denied. If the maker of your mind has a tough time converting you, what hope do a few austrians have? The devil has a much easier time. Thats just the condition of man.

Truth has a higher cost and everyones waiting for their fiat

Reply

laminustacitus replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 5:31 PM

rated by 0 users

Solid_Choke:

Stranger:

Mises and Hoppe influenced me to become a libertarian.

I think you are in the minority.

I doubt he is in the minority as far as Austro-libertarians go.

Reply

Marko replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 5:59 PM

rated by 0 users

Rabble159:

For the purpose of this topic I am including people who consider themselves:

-Libertarians
-Classical Liberals
-Neoliberals
-Austrian School followers
-Chicago School/Friedman followers

It`s interesting you include the Classical Liberals, but propose toning down. If you look at it historicaly the Classical Liberals did not gain influence by toning down. They gained influence through consistency. In fact they were so radical they did not shy away from revolutions. How many Liberal Revolutions were there beetwen 1775 and 1848?

Reply

Stranger replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 6:00 PM

rated by 0 users

Solid_Choke:

Stranger:

Mises and Hoppe influenced me to become a libertarian.

I think you are in the minority. I only considered libertarianism seriously after reading Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell (both are far from being radical).

I read Milton Friedman long before Mises and it didn't convince me one bit.

Reply

JParker replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:31 PM

rated by 0 users

Stranger:

I read Milton Friedman long before Mises and it didn't convince me one bit.

Ditto.

Dare I say Ron Paul has probably led more people to libertarianism that most anyone else. So shooting for the stars was the correct strategy. As for my path Rand -> Paul -> Mises/et al. Probably prior to paul, rand had a large influence in getting people to look into these ideas, as objectivism is closely linked to libertarianism.

Reply

Sage replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 9:23 PM

rated by 0 users

Rabble159:

1. Adopt a presentable, more moderate form of Libertarianism to the public.

This is only plausible if our strategy is mass conversion. Strategies like microsecession do not require mass changes in public opinion.

Furthermore, even if our goal is mass conversion, there are still strong arguments in favor of radicalism. As Brad Spangler put it: "For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps." Also see Hoppe.

I think a good rule to follow is: "Don't do strategy until you've finished theory." Dilettantes should not be working on strategy. For example, the average conspiracy theorist/Zeitgeist/Ron Paul fan will think supporting politicians is the best way to go. But if they learned anarchism, they would see that reformism is impractical, and that radical strategies are more viable.

Reply

jtermine replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 9:32 PM

rated by 0 users

actually think most people agree with libertarians but attach a stigma to the term "libertarian".  We can bemoan that the statists stole the term liberal from the true liberals, but that doesn't really help the cause.  I think if you address most people on a individual level, they will agree with many lines of reasoning that are the core of the message.  For instance, "what's mine is mine" or "what goes on in my house is my business"  or "I don't need anyone else to tell me how to raise my children."  When you extend these simple lines of reasoning to "inflation degrades your hard work,"  it's not difficult for a lot of people to understand.  I also imagine that you could convince a 5th grader (someone with an elementary mastery of arithmetic) why inflation doesn't solve anything. 

I wish it'd be easy to explain to someone that "the only two things the government can do really well is tax people and kill them.  Everything else they muck up horribly." I feel it's something someone has to come up with on their own.

I wouldn't tone down the message at all, because as those curious people do begin to wake up, the reasoning that comes from the Austrians shatters their pre-conceived notions of the world.  Some people will just look at the most controversial parts of the discipline and create a bulleted list in their mind and decide whether or not to give it more thought.  These people will never be reached.  They just want the Cliff's notes on life.

That being said, I wouldn't try to convince someone by recommending that they read "Defending the Indefensible" at first.  I like giving out DiLorenzo books for that. 

Reply

Sage replied on Wed, Feb 4 2009 9:34 PM

rated by 0 users

GilesStratton:

He's correct, the "government is a bunch of theives" line, gets nobody anywhere.

Maybe if it's phrased that way. But if you show how taxation and robbery are categorically identical, i.e. as nonconsensually coercive activities, people will definitely have a hard time wrangling their way out of it. See, for example, pages 3-5 of Christopher Wellman's Is There a Duty to Obey the Law?

Reply

ama gi replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 12:46 AM

rated by 0 users

Good ideas, all.  Another idea:

When taking about social or political issues, do not make yourself the egoist.  Make yourself the altruist and you opponent the egoist.

Right:

I think that since you have a right to your property, you should not have to spend one cent of your earnings on me if I'm doing something you don't approve of.  If you let the government spend your money however they want, they are less accountable to you.

Wrong:

I think that since I have a right to my property, I should not have to spend one cent of my earnings on you if you are doing something I don't approve of.  If l let the government spend my money however it wants, it is less accountable to me.

Reply

revolutionist replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 4:10 AM

rated by 0 users

ama gi:

Good ideas, all.  Another idea:

When taking about social or political issues, do not make yourself the egoist.  Make yourself the altruist and you opponent the egoist.

Right:

I think that since you have a right to your property, you should not have to spend one cent of your earnings on me if I'm doing something you don't approve of.  If you let the government spend your money however they want, they are less accountable to you.

Wrong:

I think that since I have a right to my property, I should not have to spend one cent of my earnings on you if you are doing something I don't approve of.  If l let the government spend my money however it wants, it is less accountable to me.

Another way to do just that is to show how government aid for the poor hurts the poor.  I tell people that welfare brings temporary relief for the poor, but the taxation prevents new capital formation that raises the standard of living for everyone and makes life for the poor much better than welfare ever could. 

I have a great strategy to argue against people that want building codes for housing.  My opponent will say that building codes are necessary to ensure safe structures.  I reply that people will choose safer structures, but if they cannot afford a safer structure, they can live in a more unsafe structure at a lower cost.  They usually reply that it is harmful to the poor to put them in an unsafe structure.  I then say that if the unsafe structure didn't exist, the rental cost would be higher and the poor person would be unable to afford the housing, and he will be living on the street.  I then ask, "Is it safer for a person to live in a building that isn't quite code compliant or is it safer for a person to live on the street?"  If they have any sense they will pick the former and I will have won right there.

Unless, of course, he brings up rent control.  I will then reply that rent control creates shortages in low rent housing because no new structures are being built by landlords to accomodate low-rent tennants because they aren't making as much of a profit.  This puts people on the street who can't find low-rent housing.  It also makes current buildings fall into disrepair because there are no more competing low-rent housing developments for the tennant to move to, so there is no incentive for the landlord to make repairs. 

This argument really makes you come out on the side of the person that cares about the poor.  It turns your opponent's argument around completely.

Reply

nhaag replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 6:01 AM

rated by 0 users

Me too let's share :-)

Reply

nhaag replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 7:39 AM

rated by 0 users

Rabble159:

Yes I recognize that those titles often heavily overlap and there are some big differences between some of them. (Especially Austrian vs Chicago specifically) Just go with it for now, they're all similar enough to work under one movement/party. I listed them all because I didn't want anyone to come in here and say "Well this isn't ME! I'm not a Libertarian I am a classical liberal!" etc. etc. If you fit somewhere into any of the listed categories or hold beliefs similar to the listed categories, this topic is directed at you.

Yes I agree. The differences are to a point that you basically say apples and oranges are essentially pears.

Utilitarians are not libertarians. The big difference is individualism vs. collectivism. Libertarians are subcribed to Individualism. This, and nothing else, is the litmus test. To throw collectivists, even pro market collectivists into the same basket as individualists, and than call that basket libertarian is just frivolous at least, and pure destructive evil at worst. Individualists have already lost the term Liberals to the collectivist, there is no need to give up the term libertarian to the same side of the aisle that claimed the first term.

Reply

Marko replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 7:46 AM

rated by 0 users

nhaag:

Utilitarians are not libertarians. The big difference is individualism vs. collectivism. Libertarians are subcribed to Individualism. This, and nothing else, is the litmus test. To throw collectivists, even pro market collectivists into the same basket as individualists, and than call that basket libertarian is just frivolous at least, and pure destructive evil at worst. Individualists have already lost the term Liberals to the collectivist, there is no need to give up the term libertarian to the same side of the aisle that claimed the first term.

Wouldn`t this limit libertarians to only anarchists though?

Reply

Spideynw replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 7:59 AM

rated by 0 users

Really, mass conversion is a waste of time.  Those that are freedom loving will be won over easily.  Those that are not can take years of one on one conversations to win over.

Reply

nhaag replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 8:14 AM

rated by 0 users

If you think that an anarchist and an individualist is the same thing, than ... yes.

There simply is no coherent way to come from Freedom to collectivism. Collectivism requires to believe that a group has rights that individuals have not.

Where does this "special right" evolve from? From the group itself is the only possible answer.

Yet, groups are just catagories for items with common attributes. So, how does a group get an additional attribute without receiving it from the members of the group? It is absurd.

If you buy into collectivism, than you have to give up freedom. What you receive is freedoms as humbly granted to you by the group.

Liberalism and Collectivism are contrary. You can not be both, a utilitarian that believes the highest goal is to maximize the utility of the society even if individual parts of the society have to be sacrified, and, at the same time believe in selfownership.

If you do so you are incongruent, because one of your beliefs contradicts another. In psychatry this is called a split personality -which most of us seem to be in one way or another(includes me).

Reply

geo8rge replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 10:42 AM

rated by 0 users

why do i feel like im being scolded even though i've done nothing wrong?

You are being scolded for being an idealist.  "... I was an idealist." - Adolf Eichman

Defining theft as the forcible taking of property is not workable as no matter what you do if you have a set of rules, there is going to be a property dispute between individuals inwhich one party refuses to give up the property they have, but belongs to someone else.  Perhaps Mises.org should run an article, or even write a book, about when force is permisible.  Please do not respond to this with a discussion of taxation=theft, that is going on endlessly in another post, please do write an article explaining the use of force in your proposed system of rules.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 11:09 AM

rated by 0 users

did you just compare me to a Nazi>?

Reply

Marko replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 11:18 AM

rated by 0 users

nhaag:

If you think that an anarchist and an individualist is the same thing, than ... yes.

There simply is no coherent way to come from Freedom to collectivism. Collectivism requires to believe that a group has rights that individuals have not.

Where does this "special right" evolve from? From the group itself is the only possible answer.

Yet, groups are just catagories for items with common attributes. So, how does a group get an additional attribute without receiving it from the members of the group? It is absurd.

If you buy into collectivism, than you have to give up freedom. What you receive is freedoms as humbly granted to you by the group.

Liberalism and Collectivism are contrary. You can not be both, a utilitarian that believes the highest goal is to maximize the utility of the society even if individual parts of the society have to be sacrified, and, at the same time believe in selfownership.

If you do so you are incongruent, because one of your beliefs contradicts another. In psychatry this is called a split personality -which most of us seem to be in one way or another(includes me).

But do you yourself find induvidualism and minarchism compatible?

Reply

John Ess replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 11:23 AM

rated by 0 users

pairunoyd:

God and the devil

Reply

geo8rge replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 12:01 PM

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

did you just compare me to a Nazi>?

No I compared you to an idealist.

Reply

Juan replied on Thu, Feb 5 2009 12:05 PM

rated by 0 users

geo8rge:

Perhaps Mises.org should run an article, or even write a book, about when force is permisible.