What we want vs what we don't want

[nolanchart]

Over the past few years, I've come to a realization. The liberty movement has largely failed to gain traction for a very important reason. I'm sure there are a lot of reasons, but this one seems to me to be the overarching one.

In a nutshell, we're very good at articulating what we don't want (big government, regulation, statism, etc.) but we're not nearly as good at articulating what we want.

Some might dismiss the distinction as unimportant, but I think it IS important. Here's why.

Until we can excite people who aren't part of the movement with what our positively-expressed values, visions, goals, and dreams are for a better world, most people will have too much difficulty buying into what we're selling, which of course is liberty.

This concept seems counter-intuitive to most liberty activists. After all, isn't liberty self-explanatory? Isn't it obvious? Isn't it clearly good? Who but a moron could possibly be against it?

When a society lives in true, unadulterated liberty, then yes it is obvious.

But let's be brutally honest. None of us have ever lived in a true, unadulterated state of liberty.

When a society, such as ours, waters down liberty to the point where it's almost unrecognizable, then no, it's not obvious at all to most people.

In fact, the arguments of liberty activists are generally considered by most to be lies at worst or naive self-deceptions at best. We may be well-meaning, but in their eyes what we're selling is not real or good, and it's certainly not realistic to them.

The statists, whether liberal, conservative, or moderate in their leaning, all agree on one thing. That thing they all agree on is that we should be afraid of many things.

What those things are differs from one branch of statism to another, but they're all based on being afraid of something, such as: Al Qaedda, ISIS, unemployment, immigrants, climate change and environmental catastrophe, anarchy, lack of security and protection, lack of basic necessities, racism, hatred, Christianity, anti-Christianity, Islam, Islamophobia, war, etc., etc., etc. The list is endless.

So what do liberty activists do? We play the same game. We say, "Be afraid of big government, of regulation, of taxes, of statism, of open borders, etc., etc., etc."

We're really good at expressing what we don't want. What we lack is a positive vision of what we DO want.

If you had to express the goals of the liberty movement without resorting to phrases of negation, could you do it?

Here's my attempt at it.


I envision a society where the money supply is level and steady, where prosperity is everywhere, and everyone shares in it. There is no boom/bust cycle. Instead, there's just a steady, growing prosperity.

I imagine a society full of people following their dreams and passions, creating new and interesting ideas and experiences like crazy while respecting basic human rights.

It's a peaceful society, one that lauds personal accomplishments instead of state accomplishments, where country borders are even less meaningful internationally than borders between the U.S. states are today.

Everything is cheap and affordable, and the quality of workmanship, services, and products is much higher than what we settle for in our current, unfree society today.

Stuff is built to last once again, rather than having a lifespan of ten years or less before we're forced to junk it in favor of something else.

The value of work is better rewarded than in our society, because labor is not as prevalent. The reason is that the prosperity is so widespread and so ubiquitous that people don't need to work more than, say, 10-15 hours a week in order to make ends meet.

My idealized society is so successful and so good to live in that prisons are virtually non-existent, because they aren't needed. Government hardly exists at all, and in some places it's completely non-existent.

People just don't feel a need for it any more, just as they no longer feel the need to steal from each other for their survival. The concept of theft has disappeared because no one feels the need to engage in it anymore.

Another wonderful benefit of all this universal prosperity is that domestic violence greatly reduces to the point of disappearing entirely in many places.

Instead, domestic tranquility prevails.

Children grow up free to pursue their dreams from day one. No longer confined to state schools or centralized educational forms, they grow into happy, productive, creative, joyful beings able (through their freedom) to discover much earlier in their lives what they want to do with their lives.

Drug addiction in all its forms is largely unknown. Instead, people are hooked on living, on doing, on pursuing their own, respective happinesses.

Relationships are generally healthy and productive.

The air and water are clean.

The food supply is plentiful and cheap.

People rarely work because they have to. Most often, the work they do is because they love it, not because they're bound to it like being tied to a wheel, but rather because the work itself, the activity of engaging in it is pure enjoyment.

Families are free to form themselves as they see fit.

Political topics interest very few people.

The highest level of societal organization is the individual and the people in that individual's life.

And people live their lives in full health, with vim and vigor, for a long, long time.


What does your vision for a liberty-based society look like expressed in POSITIVE terms rather than NEGATIVE terms?

In other words, can you express what you WANT our society to look like without resorting to what you DON'T want it to look like?

[JK/SEA]

the liberty 'movement' actually is starting to gain traction.

baby steps.

example: a few years ago, the police state was going un-checked, but today the fact is, people are becoming more aware of this creeping crud, and cities are implementing newer guidelines, body cams etc. all due to push back. I consider this a direct positive towards liberty, albeit a small example, but it is progress.

[r3volution 3.0]

In a nutshell, we're very good at articulating what we don't want (big government, regulation, statism, etc.) but we're not nearly as good at articulating what we want...Until we can excite people who aren't part of the movement with what our positively-expressed values, visions, goals, and dreams are for a better world, most people will have too much difficulty buying into what we're selling, which of course is liberty.

As you note, fear is a good motivator; being against things works to a certain extent. But you're right that it's not enough; we need to express a positive vision for society.

But libertarianism is at a unique disadvantage in this regard. If you ask ten libertarians to describe how they think a free society would look, you're likely to get ten different answers. This isn't because of doctrinal disagreements among those libertarians (though there may be those too); it's inherent to the very idea of freedom. A free society is very much a blank canvass. Freedom allows for a virtually unlimited number of potential outcomes. A free society might be socially liberal or social conservative in its culture, its residents might be of any religion (or no religion), it might be highly materialistic or highly ascetic, artistic or practical, etc. A Christian conservative, or a Marxist, or a fascist can paint a much more definite picture of their ideal society; while we can only provide a skeletal outline (i.e. no aggression). Libertarianism is defined by what it isn't.

In one sense, this would seem to be an advantage; i.e. people can come to libertarianism and plug in their own values. Both a Christian conservative and an atheist libertine could, in principle, be libertarians. But, in reality, it doesn't seem to work this way most of the time. People with strong cultural preferences are rarely content merely to practice them, they want to impose them on others; and they want an ideology which glorifies them. In short, most people simply are not as tolerant as we would like them to be. So, far from appealing to everyone, libertarianism ends up appealing to hardly anyone.

There is, however, another aspect of the free society which is very concrete, which is not open-ended, and which should appeal to everyone - a free society will be rich. There are a small number of people who value freedom over their own preferences, but for the vast majority, the appeal of wealth is much greater than the appeal of freedom. So, in short, the positive vision that we need to promote, in order to make libertarianism more appealing to the masses, is not one focused on freedom per se, but on the unrivaled material prosperity which - per the laws of economics - we know freedom generates.

[H. E. Panqui]

....get more practical...

....much of the 'injustice,' insanity, etc., is related to/facilitated by 'our' stinking rotten monetary system/order...

....do yourself and others a favor by honestly examining the hideous REALITIE$ of pa$t and pre$ent before trying to foi$t some ludwig 'libertarian' theoretical future.....;)

[Peace&Freedom]

We have to become as good as the mainstream (i.e., statist) politicians at couching the details of our viewpoint in positive metaphors, without being dishonest or deceptive. E.g., a politician says "no child left behind" and no one ever challenges the fact that the substance behind the phrase involves the federalization of education, not the leaving behind of any child at all. But the metaphor rules the framework of the discussion regardless. The same goes for the bloodless abtraction that abortion is part of "women's health" when the activity in fact involves the chopping up and selling of unborn body parts, etc.

I have always imagined a liberty campaign could be created that emphasized a "blue skies" economic policy that associated free market/no fed approach as a 'clear weather' way to go financially, and a "sunshine" foreign policy that stood for ending belligerent meddling abroad, while engaging the world mostly through trade and friendly diplomacy. Then if anybody objected, we could just say, "so, you've got a problem with blue skies and sunshine?"

[nolanchart]

Sorry I've taken so long to respond to all of you. My own personal world has been quite insistent about gaining my attention lately.


the liberty 'movement' actually is starting to gain traction.

baby steps.

And how many giant steps back have we lost in exchange for those baby steps? I think it's great that there are areas where improvements exist, but it's not nearly enough on the whole.


As you note, fear is a good motivator; being against things works to a certain extent. But you're right that it's not enough; we need to express a positive vision for society.

But libertarianism is at a unique disadvantage in this regard. If you ask ten libertarians to describe how they think a free society would look, you're likely to get ten different answers. This isn't because of doctrinal disagreements among those libertarians (though there may be those too); it's inherent to the very idea of freedom. A free society is very much a blank canvass. Freedom allows for a virtually unlimited number of potential outcomes. A free society might be socially liberal or social conservative in its culture, its residents might be of any religion (or no religion), it might be highly materialistic or highly ascetic, artistic or practical, etc. A Christian conservative, or a Marxist, or a fascist can paint a much more definite picture of their ideal society; while we can only provide a skeletal outline (i.e. no aggression). Libertarianism is defined by what it isn't.

Sure, different people will have different viewpoints and vantage points. That's no different from any other political philosophy. Does that preclude the idea of giving voice to those varying viewpoints? I don't think so. In fact, I think the diversity would help expand acceptance of libertarian ideals a lot faster. It would make our messages stronger, rather than weaker.

I'm not sure where the idea came from that liberty has to speak with one voice, but it's nonsense. Perhaps it comes from too much exposure to our statist opponents?


....get more practical...

....much of the 'injustice,' insanity, etc., is related to/facilitated by 'our' stinking rotten monetary system/order...

....do yourself and others a favor by honestly examining the hideous REALITIE$ of pa$t and pre$ent before trying to foi$t some ludwig 'libertarian' theoretical future.....;)

I agree that the monetary system is at the root of it all. I've written as much for years. I wrote a book on the subject, called The Money Suckers. You can buy it on Amazon.

Why then cannot we write about a POSITIVE monetary system? Why not tell stories about how great and wonderful life is when the money supply is level and steady, when banks are not permitted to lend money that doesn't belong to them? I think that would make a GREAT narrative. It's one of my own first priorities in regard to voicing a positive message.

My question to you is this: why can't it be your priority as well? Are you so distraught by what the statists have done that you cannot even conceive of expressing how things COULD be? Are you so hung up on the depravities of the financial elite that you cannot conceive of outlining and detailing a system where they no longer hold sway?


We have to become as good as the mainstream (i.e., statist) politicians at couching the details of our viewpoint in positive metaphors, without being dishonest or deceptive. E.g., a politician says "no child left behind" and no one ever challenges the fact that the substance behind the phrase involves the federalization of education, not the leaving behind of any child at all. But the metaphor rules the framework of the discussion regardless. The same goes for the bloodless abtraction that abortion is part of "women's health" when the activity in fact involves the chopping up and selling of unborn body parts, etc.

I have always imagined a liberty campaign could be created that emphasized a "blue skies" economic policy that associated free market/no fed approach as a 'clear weather' way to go financially, and a "sunshine" foreign policy that stood for ending belligerent meddling abroad, while engaging the world mostly through trade and friendly diplomacy. Then if anybody objected, we could just say, "so, you've got a problem with blue skies and sunshine?"

I agree with you, especially about blue sky stuff! In fact, I think we can do a much BETTER job than the mainstream politicians do. Frankly, their storytelling skills are pretty bad. Our skills in this area are even worse, but we can get better.

However, metaphor is only a tiny piece of the puzzle. Stories are the much larger piece. Metaphors are easier to come up with, hence they're more attractive to those who have to do the work. But stories are a million times more effective than metaphors.

The reason is that people don't generally emotionally attach themselves to metaphors. However, they regularly and easily attach themselves emotionally to stories. Every minute. Every hour. Every day. Every week. Every month. Every year. Endlessly.

So instead of limiting ourselves to metaphors, how about writing and creating stories and narratives that play up the positive side of the issues?

How about stories about freedom in education? Perhaps a story about children who aren't tied to a classroom, dependent upon an authoritarian teacher to think for them, motivate them, and give them permission to go to the bathroom? We wouldn't even have to invent this kind of story. Real world examples already exist. Lookup the Sudbury model of education, for example.

More than writing about an economic policy, how about writing about a world where economics is no longer a matter of policy. This would definitely need to be a work of fiction, because there are so few real-world examples to historically draw upon. The early 19th century would be one period (the Jeffersonian era). We don't have a ton of documentation from that era, so there's lots of room for poetic license, or in this case, novelist license.

But of course we don't have to limit ourselves to the real world. Libertarians have a long history of creating science fiction literature. Why not create future fiction literature, too?

The possibilities are endless. So are the media. It starts with short stories, but it can grow into novels, plays, movies (homemade and otherwise), theatre, music, etc., etc.

[euphemia]

the liberty 'movement' actually is starting to gain traction.

baby steps.



Baby steps are good as long as we are all stepping in the same direction. I think one of the biggest problems with the liberty movement is its diversity. It is that way by definition. If we could agree on a short list of things that we all want, I think it would be easier to bring about change. We all have different priorities.

[H. E. Panqui]

nolanchart writes: "I agree that the monetary system is at the root of it all. I've written as much for years. I wrote a book on the subject, called The Money Suckers. You can buy it on Amazon.

Why then cannot we write about a POSITIVE monetary system? Why not tell stories about how great and wonderful life is when the money supply is level and steady, when banks are not permitted to lend money that doesn't belong to them? I think that would make a GREAT narrative. It's one of my own first priorities in regard to voicing a positive message.

My question to you is this: why can't it be your priority as well? Are you so distraught by what the statists have done that you cannot even conceive of expressing how things COULD be? Are you so hung up on the depravities of the financial elite that you cannot conceive of outlining and detailing a system where they no longer hold sway?"


(congrats! on the book..i sense you are an austrian theorist/metalist...i certainly am not...i would start first and foremost with promulgating/inculcating an understanding of 'monetary realism' and complete transparency...esp. with respect to the creation and issuance of 'money'...(most/all people i know, esp. anyone supporting any of these stinking republicrats, are worse than mere monetary ignoramuses...as they believe they 'know' :rolleyes: 'the government' creates/prints 'the money'..

...i'd start out by assembling greats like steve zarlenga (the world's foremost monetary historian--if you know of a better one please name) in a massive public education campaign where i'm sure the long-standing 'chicago plan' would be discussed:

http://www.monetary.org/the-1930s-chicago-plan-vs-the-american-monetary-act/2009/08

"...THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE CHICAGO PLAN were that:

FIRST: Only the government would create money. The Federal Reserve banks would be nationalized, but not the individual member banks. The power to create money was to be removed from private banks by abolishing fractional reserves – the mechanism through which the banking system creates money. So the plan called for 100% reserves on checking accounts which simply meant banks would be warehousing and transferring the money and charging fees for their services.

SECOND: The Plan separated the loan-making function, which can belong in private banks, from the money-creation function, which belongs in government. Lending was still to be a private banking function, but lending deposited long-term savings money, not created credits. In this way they’d restrict an unstable practice known as borrowing short and lending long – making long term loans with short term deposits. Some variations proposed this be done through mutual fund-like mechanisms, or by chartering entirely new types of banks..."

...panqui thinks maybe more importantly we need to establish an honest 'competition of ideas about government' (honest elections) because 'government' is nothing more than the people who make it up...and our current twisted, phony system obviously yields PREDOMINANTLY republican and democrat peckerheads whose worthless, pitiful ideas are no threat to this age-old, stinking, monetary/financial order..they mindlessly march onward..deeper into the wood$...these f@cking republicrat idiots NEVER talk about the root$...because they, like the republicrat mental slob voters who affirm them at the polls, are worse than mere monetary ignoramuses...and that's why they are where they are...

...somehow 'we' need to break this vicious cycle of dull puppets, monetary ignoramuses, etc. dominating high public office....:mad:....and i'm all ears here...

[r3volution 3.0]

I think the diversity would help expand acceptance of libertarian ideals a lot faster. It would make our messages stronger, rather than weaker.

I disagree. As I said earlier:


In one sense, this would seem to be an advantage; i.e. people can come to libertarianism and plug in their own values. Both a Christian conservative and an atheist libertine could, in principle, be libertarians. But, in reality, it doesn't seem to work this way most of the time. People with strong cultural preferences are rarely content merely to practice them, they want to impose them on others; and they want an ideology which glorifies them. In short, most people simply are not as tolerant as we would like them to be. So, far from appealing to everyone, libertarianism ends up appealing to hardly anyone.

tl;dr = People don't just want to practice their own preferred lifestyle (as libertarianism allows them to do), they want to impose it on others (which libertarianism prohibits them from doing).

The best selling point of a libertarian society is not its tolerance but its wealth; everyone wants to be richer.

[osan]

Over the past few years, I've come to a realization. The liberty movement has largely failed to gain traction for a very important reason. I'm sure there are a lot of reasons, but this one seems to me to be the overarching one.

Firstly, the assumption that it has not gained traction is destroyed in the face the evidence of positive reality.

Consider this: From almost the very first days of this republic there has been afoot a seemingly organized, trans-generational effort to corral Americans into a very narrow basic political mindset. It could be the product of a grand conspiracy, or it may simply be the result of the basic nature of men in environments of power. Regardless, the one thing we can say is that Theye (those in power) have been wildly successful at achieving the goal of creating a well-domesticated body of political livestock that is readily and predictably manageable in sufficient proportion to render any sub-population willing and able to think for themselves almost utterly impotent to affect change that might threaten Theire hegemonic positioning.

In other words, the Meaner (average man) has been adeptly trained into a mental corner and now serves Theire purposes almost to a 'T' with virtually complete absence of awareness. It takes quite the effort to be able to wrap one's head around what this really means; to envision the reality of this sort of destruction of one's reality. Most people simply cannot do it - WILL not, because it puts their minds in what they think is the twilight zone. What they fail to realize is that their daily perceptual reality is the actual twilight zone, which is so far removed from actual truth that they cannot imagine it being possible for such a schism to exist even in one man, much less so broadly. They therefore dismiss truth as lies while clinging on to lies as truth.

Given that, it should become clear to you that the task of bringing people around to that terrifying truth which they so resolutely reject as some insane fantasy, is no mean task and not one that can be given effect over night. At this point, the mind of the Meaner is so wholly polluted with the dredge and filth of someone else's diseased mental contrivance, that I wonder whether liberty stands any reasonable chance at all.

But when I come back from the edges of despair through the facility of reason and, often, a good meal, I see that liberty indeed has a strong chance at recovery.

The basic fabric of the progressive cloth in which the world is being garbed is irretrievably flawed. This is the good news, because sooner or later something there is going to break in such a way that the deluded Meaner will have before him a choice to make: come back into the seemingly harsh light of positive reality and enjoy at least some reasonable chance of retaining the ability to breathe, or remain in the pitch-dark of the masturbatory fantasy that is the true face of progressive tyranny, and literally die in the physical sense.

We are now seeing evidence of this worldwide. Take, for example, the recent events in Sweden. The Swedes, by whatever dint of circumstance, have on the average become some of the most shamefully pussified and STOOPID people on the planet. Talk about meandering into the twilight zone... Progressive socialism gripped them in its clutches. Then they were pansified with militant feminism such that the men of Sweden appear to live lives where a core daily function is to make every act an apology for having been born male.

And yet, it is demonstrated that even those impossibly stupid people have their limits of tolerance, this having been demonstrated as they went out and burned something like 9 refugee camps to ash in retaliation for Muslims who are apparently attempting to burn the city of Stockholm to the waterline.

What this should tell you is that the synthetic stupidities of progressive tyranny have their limits of effect. It should also tell you that humans coveting such levels of political power over their fellows appear incapable of retaining their restraint and patience in seek of their goal of utter, micromanagerial control. It appears that tyrants simply cannot help but grossly over-reach. In so doing, all but the most impossibly stoopid among us are forced to come to reason and eventually say "STOP! This far and no further!", an admonition that seems to be universally ignored by those in power, which eventually leads to their physical destruction.

So keep the chin up. There yet remains hope for sunnier days, but patience and determination are required.


In a nutshell, we're very good at articulating what we don't want (big government, regulation, statism, etc.) but we're not nearly as good at articulating what we want.

Some might dismiss the distinction as unimportant, but I think it IS important. Here's why.


You are on the money here. The distinction is eminently important. That is why I have worked diligently toward clarifying the elements of normatively correct principles of human relations.


Until we can excite people who aren't part of the movement with what our positively-expressed values, visions, goals, and dreams are for a better world, most people will have too much difficulty buying into what we're selling, which of course is liberty.


I disagree that we have not expressed this. The Meaner has no interest in our vision. Why? Because it is not attractive to him, what with all the talk of accountability for one's actions, thoughts and feelings - not to mention... dare I even utter the words... "hard work"? Remember my mention of that "masturbatory fantasy"? It says you can have it all, and at absolutely no cost whatsoever to you. Want to bugger another man? Go right ahead. Need a new BMW? Well, are you not entitled to one, being so "awesome" and all that? (have to quote the word because I SO detest the way in which it is now commonly used. Yeah, it's bitter sarcasm.)

Why would ANYONE want to be free when they can have a gilt cage such that every impulse is realizable, every urge satisfiable? Why would anyone want to restrain themselves from whipping it out and stropping like a wild-idiot in public before his fellows, if he doesn't have to; if there are no consequences? Why would he not accept the gifts of smiling men, regardless of the strings emanating therefrom, if they cost him no cash... especially when they tell him that they are his friends? Why would he go against those who promise him everything he THINKS he wants?

That is the tip of the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg that is progressive tyranny. Theye promise the Meaner everything he thinks he wants to have. The true beauty in the American arrangement (cannot speak for the rest of the world, though I suspect it is similar) is that with the two-party arrangement, when the progressive promises come to naught, Theye are able to plausibly blame the failure upon the Other. People, being what they tend to be, believe the lies and bullshit because they CAN - thus allowing them to continue to cling to that raft of wanker's lies that, despite a lifetime's demonstration that it cannot become real, retains its lofty appeal to individual corruption and thereby survives into another generation.


This concept seems counter-intuitive to most liberty activists. After all, isn't liberty self-explanatory? Isn't it obvious? Isn't it clearly good? Who but a moron could possibly be against it?

It has NOTHING to do with intuitive clarity. It has everything to do with the strong proclivity of the Meaner toward corruption. He wants his free lunch and that is simply that. The liberty-oriented man offers no free lunch, but only mere freeDOM. Hearing the truth about freedom, the Meaner recoils with great violence, fear, and even hatred as he points his finger and squeals in the manner of Donald Sutherland in the remake of "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers". "Burn the witch!" is his mantra and battle cry whenever anyone so much as indicates the least hint of tolerance for the notion of proper liberty because they see it very much in the Orwellian twist of words that says "freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom".

You will NEVER (and I so rarely use that word) get the Meaner to embrace liberty through logic and reason. It is not because the words are unclear, but simply because asking them to embrace freedom impinges upon their minds as "embrace suicide". This is how they have been trained to perceive such discussion. If I greeted you with "good morning" and a smile, yet you HEAR "I am going to murder you and your children" and SAW a blood-dripping scowl on my face instead, would you not recoil from me and perhaps even draw a weapon and plug be for fear of imminent death?

THAT is what is it like for these people. Their fundamental orientation to the world is such that they literally see freedom as something evil and the gilt cages of their lives as the actual reality of freedom. This is what is commonly termed "psychosis" in clinical terms - a disconnection between perception and positive reality.

There is but one thing that will break a man of this sickness: physical circumstance that disallows the choice to remain attached to fantasy. The cure only comes when the sufferer is presented with a choice: change and toe the line of the real world on its own terms, or die. It is as simple as that. Once the choice to cling is altered such that the reward is no longer the carrot, but a big and knobby stick, most change. Those who do not, suffer the consequences, which is often death itself.

A man can only rarely act beyond the envelope of his perceptions. He instinctively flees that which he assesses evil and toward the good. The problem for the Meaner is that he has been taught that death is life and life is death. Orwell's world is THIS world. It is not a book of speculations. It was a DESCRIPTIVE novel. He was alerting us to that which was FACT even in those days. It was not looming in threat to become real. It WAS real, the only change likely being the degree to which his ugly truth became so.


When a society lives in true, unadulterated liberty, then yes it is obvious.

But let's be brutally honest. None of us have ever lived in a true, unadulterated state of liberty.

When a society, such as ours, waters down liberty to the point where it's almost unrecognizable, then no, it's not obvious at all to most people.

In fact, the arguments of liberty activists are generally considered by most to be lies at worst or naive self-deceptions at best. We may be well-meaning, but in their eyes what we're selling is not real or good, and it's certainly not realistic to them.

The statists, whether liberal, conservative, or moderate in their leaning, all agree on one thing. That thing they all agree on is that we should be afraid of many things.

What those things are differs from one branch of statism to another, but they're all based on being afraid of something, such as: Al Qaedda, ISIS, unemployment, immigrants, climate change and environmental catastrophe, anarchy, lack of security and protection, lack of basic necessities, racism, hatred, Christianity, anti-Christianity, Islam, Islamophobia, war, etc., etc., etc. The list is endless.

Very good.


So what do liberty activists do? We play the same game. We say, "Be afraid of big government, of regulation, of taxes, of statism, of open borders, etc., etc., etc."


Wrong. That is what has BEEN done and it has mostly failed. It has its uses, but only to those on the fence and whose minds are open and spirits not entirely corrupted by an avarice for free stuff. As for the rest, other means are needed, as per my description above.


We're really good at expressing what we don't want. What we lack is a positive vision of what we DO want.

Not at all true. What we want is HATEFUL in the minds of the Meaner. We say "freedom", they hear "slavery".


If you had to express the goals of the liberty movement without resorting to phrases of negation, could you do it?

I do it regularly. We have done it in these fora many times. Perhaps someone can point you to a thread or two.


Here's my attempt at it.

I envision a society where the money supply is level and steady, where prosperity is everywhere, and everyone shares in it. There is no boom/bust cycle. Instead, there's just a steady, growing prosperity.

I imagine a society full of people following their dreams and passions, creating new and interesting ideas and experiences like crazy while respecting basic human rights.

It's a peaceful society, one that lauds personal accomplishments instead of state accomplishments, where country borders are even less meaningful internationally than borders between the U.S. states are today.

Everything is cheap and affordable, and the quality of workmanship, services, and products is much higher than what we settle for in our current, unfree society today.

Stuff is built to last once again, rather than having a lifespan of ten years or less before we're forced to junk it in favor of something else.

The value of work is better rewarded than in our society, because labor is not as prevalent. The reason is that the prosperity is so widespread and so ubiquitous that people don't need to work more than, say, 10-15 hours a week in order to make ends meet.

My idealized society is so successful and so good to live in that prisons are virtually non-existent, because they aren't needed. Government hardly exists at all, and in some places it's completely non-existent.

People just don't feel a need for it any more, just as they no longer feel the need to steal from each other for their survival. The concept of theft has disappeared because no one feels the need to engage in it anymore.

Another wonderful benefit of all this universal prosperity is that domestic violence greatly reduces to the point of disappearing entirely in many places.

Instead, domestic tranquility prevails.

Children grow up free to pursue their dreams from day one. No longer confined to state schools or centralized educational forms, they grow into happy, productive, creative, joyful beings able (through their freedom) to discover much earlier in their lives what they want to do with their lives.

Drug addiction in all its forms is largely unknown. Instead, people are hooked on living, on doing, on pursuing their own, respective happinesses.

Relationships are generally healthy and productive.

The air and water are clean.

The food supply is plentiful and cheap.

People rarely work because they have to. Most often, the work they do is because they love it, not because they're bound to it like being tied to a wheel, but rather because the work itself, the activity of engaging in it is pure enjoyment.

Families are free to form themselves as they see fit.

Political topics interest very few people.

The highest level of societal organization is the individual and the people in that individual's life.

And people live their lives in full health, with vim and vigor, for a long, long time.



The problems here require more treatment that I have time for at the moment. Need to get to the livestock. But if anyone is interested in going through the analysis, we can do it later.


What does your vision for a liberty-based society look like expressed in POSITIVE terms rather than NEGATIVE terms?

In other words, can you express what you WANT our society to look like without resorting to what you DON'T want it to look like?

Methinks you might benefit from broader reading. Positive terms are abundant.

[nolanchart]

Baby steps are good as long as we are all stepping in the same direction. I think one of the biggest problems with the liberty movement is its diversity. It is that way by definition. If we could agree on a short list of things that we all want, I think it would be easier to bring about change. We all have different priorities.

So it doesn't matter if, while we all take baby steps in the same direction, we all end up further back then when we started? Sorry, but that logic makes no sense to me.


(congrats! on the book..i sense you are an austrian theorist/metalist...i certainly am not...i would start first and foremost with promulgating/inculcating an understanding of 'monetary realism' and complete transparency...esp. with respect to the creation and issuance of 'money'...(most/all people i know, esp. anyone supporting any of these stinking republicrats, are worse than mere monetary ignoramuses...as they believe they 'know' :rolleyes: 'the government' creates/prints 'the money'..

...i'd start out by assembling greats like steve zarlenga (the world's foremost monetary historian--if you know of a better one please name) in a massive public education campaign where i'm sure the long-standing 'chicago plan' would be discussed:
[/I]

Well, we can certainly discuss the Chicago plan among ourselves if you wish. As you said, I take my cues from the Austrians. However, I strongly disagree that this kind of discussion is what's needed with the public.

The public simply don't care, because it takes too much effort for them to understand any of it, including the Chicago plan. That's one of the things I discovered as I shared my book with non-libertarians. They liked the story, but even the very simplified approach I took to explaining how the whole mess "works" was a tough one for them. While I did manage to educate them via the book, my debriefings of them showed me that all the knowledge did was to make them feel like the government is too powerful for any of us to do anything about it.

I strongly disagree with the idea that government should be in charge of monetary creation, because they always mismanage everything. Chicagoists don't like facing this fact, but it's true. I also disagree that, even if it was implemented the way that Friedman et al wanted that it would be a good idea. Among other things, they suggest that the money supply should increase at the same rate that the economy grows. If you look at the history of the Federal Reserve, that's precisely what's happened. There have been variations, but the overall curve is quite consistent. In a nutshell, the Chicago approach is what keeps the Fed in business.

But more importantly, none of this sells a level-steady money supply and honest banking in a way that the public will buy. It's all FAR too left-brained and FAR too boring. Instead, he needs to be sold in terms that are meaningful to the public.

This means painting a picture through stories. My picture would be like the one I described in my earlier post: dirt cheap prices, no need to work a 40 hour week for anyone, peace and universal prosperity, etc. That's the picture that would dominate the stories I'd tell.


I disagree. As I said earlier:



tl;dr = People don't just want to practice their own preferred lifestyle (as libertarianism allows them to do), they want to impose it on others (which libertarianism prohibits them from doing).

The best selling point of a libertarian society is not its tolerance but its wealth; everyone wants to be richer.

I don't see how one excludes the other. Why not sell both? Personally, I think people only impose their will on others because they feel powerless. Economic prosperity of the libertarian kind promote self-empowerment, whether to make more money, have more time for other pursuits, spending more time with family and friends, etc., etc.

[nolanchart]

Firstly, the assumption that it has not gained traction is destroyed in the face the evidence of positive reality.

Well, after reading that long diatribe, I come to two conclusions. First, you didn't prove your claim at all. Second, you feel that killing people in a religious group is somehow not only pro-libertarian but is also progress. My reaction (and the reaction of most people) is "yuck".


I disagree that we have not expressed this.

You wrote that in reply to my comment that we can't gain more ground with people until we excite them about what is good about liberty. But your comment misses the boat. I didn't say that libertarians haven't tried to do that. I said that they've tried to do it with intellectual arguments that don't resonate with people. That's what the whole point of my original post was: storytelling wins, while argumentation fails.


Wrong. That is what has BEEN done and it has mostly failed. It has its uses, but only to those on the fence and whose minds are open and spirits not entirely corrupted by an avarice for free stuff. As for the rest, other means are needed, as per my description above.

You wrote that in reply to my claim that all we've done is to play the same fear-mongering game that the elites have done. Then you attempt to counter my claim by pointing to your diatribe where you did exactly what I was talking about. Just because the Swedes "took action" doesn't mean that it wasn't a fear-driven, fear-mongered response, which you want us all to applaud.


Not at all true. What we want is HATEFUL in the minds of the Meaner. We say "freedom", they hear "slavery".

You wrote that in reply to my claim that what we lack is a positive vision of what we DO want. What you don't seem to realize is that any hateful reaction from those we've reached is due PRECISELY because we focus on negatives rather than positives, as you have done with your description and emphasis on what you call The Meaner.

Look at that phrase: The Meaner. Could you possibly have come up with something more negative? Maybe, but it would have taken real work, because that's a very negative concept.

In essence, your counter-argument is this: we present negative arguments, and people respond negatively to what we're selling. Therefore, the negativity is their fault and not ours.

That's such a bad syllogism that it's ridiculous. Yet it's the ultimate reduction of your argument.


Methinks you might benefit from broader reading. Positive terms are abundant.

It's not my reading that is in question here. Nor is this a contest regarding how much each of us has read.

You say that positive terms are abundant. I say, great! Name them, please!

I don't mean this as argumentative or confrontational. I'm simply challenging you to start identifying even a few positive terms you use, right here, right now. I want to read them from you right here. Because so far in this discussion, you haven't supplied any positive terms to describe liberty that I can see. Did I overlook one?

[osan]

In essence, your counter-argument is this: we present negative arguments, and people respond negatively to what we're selling. Therefore, the negativity is their fault and not ours.

Look, I don't know if you simply failed to understand what I wrote or if you are a troll. You have assumed far too much about the things I wrote and have interpreted my words in about as wrong a fashion as is possible. So I withdraw all my statements and will let you find your own way. I have no time to waste on this.

[Anti Federalist]

Sentimental hogwash...

The vast bulk of humanity want, and have always wanted just three things:

To be fed.

To be entertained.

To exercise some petty power over their fellow man.

This last is VERY important: an average man will suffer almost unlimited indignities and tyrannies, just so long as the next man is, or is perceived to be, getting worse than him.

This is the foundation of every snitch/surveillance society/empire that has ever been.

Flowery, positivistic rhetoric of liberty cuts zero mustard with people like that.

And they are are your friends, family and neighbors by the millions.

They are Legion.

[P3ter_Griffin]

:snip:

If I may attempt to tldr; that (to make sure I understand what you're saying):

-The masses have been brainwashed in one way or another to believe that government is right, and that government is the solution to all problems society faces (whether it is hunger, education, drugs, or warfare).

-They will believe that way until the government commits an action that proves to them otherwise.

If my understanding is correct I agree completely.

Kind of a wild card here that I will throw in, although it looks like many will disagree, I do not believe that people participate with government because 'they like control'. As is inherent in their 'brainwashing', they think they are doing the right thing. For example, did Ralph Nader work to create all the car manufacture regulations because he wanted control? Or because he genuinely thought that seat belts are good, and that because he believed that governments are the medium to do good, that was the only route it made sense to pursue it in? Maybe Nader is a bad example (I don't know), but hopefully I highlighted what I'm trying to say well enough. And I throw this wild card in because I think it may mean people would be receptive to voluntarizing participation with the government so long as it does not take away their 'safety blanket' that is the government. Making something voluntary instead of coercive I think could lead to a very positive message (we all get what we want).

But if voluntarization is not an option for whatever reason, and what (I believe) Osan to be saying is true, which I think it is, that also leads us to a pretty clear path forward. We have to point them in the right direction so they see that the government is committing actions which will prove to them otherwise (which will be negative), and explain to them how in a free society they would have more ability to do the actions they are now wanting to be see done by government (which will be positive).

I don't think we can rely on either the positive or the negative to sell our message. But more positivity surely won't hurt.

[H. E. Panqui]

nolanchart asserts: The public simply don't care, because it takes too much effort for them to understand any of it, including the Chicago plan. That's one of the things I discovered as I shared my book with non-libertarians. They liked the story, but even the very simplified approach I took to explaining how the whole mess "works" was a tough one for them.

:confused:

...correct me if i'm wrong, but there has NEVER been any honest 'mainstream' attempt to explain the (rather simple) reality of 'our' current stinking, fraudulent monetary system...

...for example, NONE of these stinking republicrats currently running for president have ever clearly revealed 'the debt that ought not to be debt' (see jerry voorhis)...i.e. that [suspected] HUGE portion of 'the federal debt' 'owed' :rolleyes: to banksters who acquired interest-bearing government bonds through the fraudulent 'fractional reserve' deposit creation scheme...

...it doesn't take a genius to either explain this fraud or to understand the basics...yet NEVER A STINKING PEEP FROM ANYONE WITH "A MICROPHONE"..