Topic: Bob Barr
Honey or a TWO by FOUR? What's the best way to get a new freedom lover?by Michael Stahl
(Libertarian)
Thursday, May 29, 2008
This is silly.
I'm all for principle. Indeed I see it as the only way to live life, but I'm not so arrogant as to assume my principles are the only ones around. My principles are mine, and the result of my understanding of Natural Law, and plain old decency. That's why I attempt to educate people I know, rather than shock them, or impress them with my self-described brilliance and "Purity".
If you are going to attempt to group people who are advocating individualism, individuality, and freedom, it seems rather odd to demand religious adherence to a absolute code of thought, does it not?
Perhaps I'm wrong, I don't, after all, claim to be a libertarian, for this reason, though I belong, and will continue to belong, to the LP. It seems to me that the principles of freedom should be expanded. By that I don't mean the minor victories of armchair philosophers in the echo-chamber of the libertarian blogo-sphere, but actually educating some new people.
Ron Paul was good at this in many ways. Why? He picked an issue that was already popular and focused his campaign on it-the War-and then used the attention to discuss in a rational manner other issues like the FED. Would he have gotten anywhere if he would have downplayed, or prevaricated on, the war, and attempted to paint the esoteric horror of the FED as the slogan issue? I think rather not.
The point here is that in order to get people to listen, you've got to play to the audience, that is if you want them to listen, rather than be shocked or offended.
By that I mean the seeming desire of some "libertarians" to deliberately seek out the most stunning thing to champion. I don't mind defending the outrageous, but I see no point in offending or shocking the very people I'd liker to educate. If, for instance, I choose prostitution as the first point of conversation with a minister, I'm going to turn him off. He won't then listen when I talk of Jefferson, or natural rights, when otherwise he might.
To do such a thing would be looking for shock value, little different than a 14 year old with a tattoo.
I have some problems with Bob Barr, but I have heard him speak in several interviews, and he articulates views that for the most part I agree with, in a rational manner. There is a lot going on in this election, and the potential to cause thought in people whose minds are otherwise closed is immense.
Christine Smith, while I like her, would not, likely could not, have spent a hour with Glenn Beck-Bob Barr did, and will again.
Mary Ruwart would have been shut off with that crowd, just as soon as they heard her statement on child prostitution. I agree with her, actually, but will that do a damn bit of good? No, and to say it marginalized not just what she says, but what all liberty minded people say. Is that really the place to start to take back liberty?
I don't like Glenn Beck at all, that is not the point. The point is, by having a candidate that can at least present an argument to that audience, perhaps they will, as Ron Paul says "remember who they are" It's a long shot, I admit. To not try seems immoral considering the consequences.
The opportunity here is truly great to get a message of freedom out to an awful lot of people. If you are uncomfortable with the lack of principles, spend an hour on a national radio show and explain that. Or, perhaps just attempt to educate the curious when they look for libertarians on the inter-net. Or don't.
I'm going to keep doing my thing either way.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Michael Stahl only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael Stahl is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-05-29 09:28:31
I essentially agree with the author about shock value can be counter productive, however, I also feel that simplifing matters to polarizing issues further muddies the waters. I think that in order to successfully sell freedom, you have to do exactly that, sell freedom (OBTW it sells it self) The message needs to be simple. FREEDOM. You are free to govern yourself, you CAN govern yourself as well as others are free to and CAN govern themselves. Its not about the issues but freedom. If the minister doesnt beleive in prostituion that is fine he or she should not prostitute themselves out. If you are against abortion, use contraception or dont have sex. Everything has to be related back to the individual about what they will gain thru searching for freedom, not the freedoms they have given up or are loosing.
People generally dont understand LIBERTY and take it as a punch phrase. LIBERTY has become as hollow a word as hero. Once you have sold someone on LIBERTY, then and only then can you point out the transgressions of LIBERTY that we have been subjected to for 127 years.
"Is life so sweet, or peace so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains? Forbid it almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me LIBERTY or give me DEATH!"- Patrick Henry
Keep teaching the gospel of LIBERTY, we will win, one PATRIOT at a time.
If only freedom sold itself-tyranny would not exist.
But it does exist, like a great beast-eager to gain power.
Indeed, freedom is the hard sell, not tyranny-look at history, few free societies have existed, and none have endured.
In the near term, that is not going to change. The only real hope is for the very long term in regards to a truly free society, if ever. Meaning that the best thing for those who understand freedom to do in the meantime is to form coalitions with people of similar-or even dissimilar views to attempt to restrain the constant push of tyranny.
In this, frankly, I share Albert Nock's pessimistic plan of preserving a small shred of the ideas of freedom in the scant few people willing to learn them so that should true enlightenment ever occur, someone would know the way.
Until then, the best thing to do is slow the process as much as possible.
The way to do that is the same as it is sell a house, or a car-accentuate the good, and downplay the bad-look for things to agree on, rather than things to disagree. Stand firm on principle, but not stupidly so. In other words, get that minister to back an issue vital to freedom(at perhaps the local level)-even if he does not buy the whole package-its still a win.
And whatever the hell you do, don't buy the lie of Anarchy-the 1st international bought it-Anarchists helped the Bolsheviks in Russia. Stalin loved it. The Anarchists replaced one lawless tyranny with another(and still pretend that was not the plan all along). Tyranny is not government, but the lack of the rule of law as administered by free people. Anarchy, such as we see in this very country, breeds tyranny-since the urge to dominate is a part of human nature. The reason government must be limited mightily, but not removed. You can only have freedom if your neighbor respects it.
Anyway, I agree with much of your sentiment, thanks for the comment.
I thought I'd toss Anarchy in since it seems to be enticing alot of people. It's a tool of revolution(for totalitarians)-nothing more, as a philosophical ethos it is a blind pouch.
Mike is correct on several points. As the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
The vinegar in this case is the purist, anarchistic way of doing things that totally disregards emotional reaction and any sort of challenge that poses a risk to the movementn.
This is what the LP has been doing for 37 years. The "I-told-you-so" shirts may sell out, but are new converts buying them?
Like he highlighted above... freedom is only as appealing as we make it. Consider the euphanism above then... if honey were so great, wouldn't the flies be making it too? (Aside from the fact that they can't.) Bees make honey, and it piles up, until we sell it.
And if we can just position ourselves correctly, away from the conservative right that is stereotypically denounced as comprised of elderly, greedy businessmen and theocrats, we could pick up a lot more people.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
