Is There a 'Wrong' Way to Defend Liberty?

Obviously, the Liberty Movement is made up of all types of ideologies, all unified in opposition to paternalistic government and many unified in their ultimate end goal: libertarians, Austrian economists, Objectivists, capitalists, minarchists, paleoconservatives, classical liberals, and even some breeds of anarchists are part of this liberty-based coalition.

On their own, statists have been generally ineffective in implementing their policies throughout history. Any progress that statists do make, however, is often the result of error on the part of their opponents - of supporters of liberty offering up inadequate defenses for their position, thus allowing the statists to gain more ground than they would otherwise have.

So with that in mind, it is important for us to wonder: is there a wrong way to defend liberty?

For your consideration, I offer this essay on Milton Friedman - no doubt a lover of liberty himself but, possibly, a prime example of what an inadequate defense of liberty looks like:

On the one hand, I regard the basic human value that underlies my own beliefs as tolerance based on humility. I have no right to coerce someone else because I cannot be sure that I am right and he is wrong. On the other hand, some of our heros…people who have, in fact, done the most to promote libertarian ideas, who have been enormously influential, have been highly intolerant as human beings and have justified their views, with which I largely agree, in ways that I regard as promoting intolerance.

How I Became A Libertarian

As it was told to me by my friend Pierce Watson and featured in The Fordham Gazette.

Upon my arrival at Fordham University, I was a donkey-riding, government-loving liberal. I’m a laid back person, and I could never align myself with the uptight old timers of the Republican Party. I thought the answer was government:  welfare, social security, taxes, and regulations sounded right to me. I’m not socially conservative, so overall I was lost. I felt like I had no place in the political arena.

By the will of some higher power, I ended up having Doug for a roommate and he showed me that all of this was terribly wrong. Through Doug, I was introduced to libertarianism. I knew Ron Paul was a libertarian, but I didn’t know much about it aside from that. For years, I had actually been yelling “Vote Ron Paul!” out of the window at people from my car, as an inside joke, but now it was being given meaning.

Libertarianism is freedom. Freedom is the pinnacle of human existence. If I am not affecting anyone else, I am able to do whatever I please. There is no better, more peaceful way to live. The Constitution of the United States was not written by a bunch of outdated fools—their rhetoric is still just as sharp and on point as it was in 1788.

One Little Change

There is just one little change you can make to the language you use in discussing politics, history, and current events that will dramatically improve the precision of your thought, the clarity of your communication, and the effectiveness of your message. That one little change is to stop saying "we" or "America" when you really mean "Washington DC."

For example: It is inaccurate -- or at best, imprecise -- to say "We armed, trained, and funded the Taliban as a proxy against the Soviet Union during the Cold War," or "America's sanctions on Iraq have resulted in the starvation of thousands of Iraqi children."

In both instances, it would be better to say "Washington armed, trained, and funded the Taliban as a proxy against the Soviet Union during the Cold War," and "Washington's sanctions on Iraq have resulted in the starvation of thousands of Iraqi children."

The first formulation of these statements is vague and inaccurate. If someone put it that way to me, I would retort with "Oh really? We did that? I don't remember ever funding the Taliban." Clarity of thought, precise language, and meaningful assertions are so rare in political discourse, and often just a healthy dose of clarity and preciseness is all that is really needed to help someone understand an issue well enough to adopt the correct position on that issue.

How to Gain Fewer Enemies and More Friends

When I first met my boyfriend two years ago, he was a mainstream Republican: he loved Bush, listened to Limbaugh, and watched Hannity. We avoided the topic of politics because he thought Ron Paul was an idiot, while I thought the same of Sarah Palin.

He stopped by our 2010 YAL Tax Day Tea Party at SUNY Buffalo, where someone brought up the subject of Palin. Once a YAL member started calling her names, I could feel the atmosphere bubbling over with awkward tension. My boyfriend became defensive when a couple of my friends got on the offense, saying, "So you agree with thousands of innocent Iraqis being murdered?" and other blanket allegations. He got offended at the supposed accusation of American soldiers committing murder, and stormed off.

In the following months, I avoided bringing up the uncomfortable subject of politics between him and me. After enough time passed, I simply provided him with some resources.