Shortly after his excellent CPAC speech today on "Dishonest Abe's" white supremacy, economic nationalism, and anti-Constitutionalism, one of Tom DiLorenzo's questioners asked, "Isn't there a concern with indoctrination regarding these facts?" DiLo's hilarious response was something along the lines of: "Well if it's true, who cares?"
This brings us to a an important debate. Must we be tepid and measured in our advocacy of liberty?
Hardly. Though Dr. Paul is -- in my view -- liberty's best spokesperson, he's the one of the only speakers I've ever heard that can kick some serious butt while still being mild-mannered. For the rest of us, I feel it's best to speak the truth as we see it without holding back. Singling out run-of-the-mill statists is wrong-headed, but how can we possibly justify pandering to the bad guys at the top? For those of us serious about the libertarian credo that "taxation is theft, aggressive war is mass murder, and conscription is slavery," how the heck could we possibly hold back?
So in your advocacy of liberty, try to emulate the no-compromise approach of Dr. Tom Woods and DiLorenzo. This may anger some socialists and warmongers, but the prospect of converting one more person to liberty -- which I believe is much more likely if done directly -- is well worth it.
How about being a gentleman or lady in disagreeing with others. Ron Paul strikes as just this sort. Turn the passion into shoring up an argument with reason and lucid articulation.
I agree with this. However, putting onesself out there like that can elicit some hostile responses even when you yourself are calm and nonconfrontational. I have lots of experience with hostility and it inevitably made me heated up, judgmental, and dismissive. This year, I've decided to implement the Harry Browne strategy of furthering libertarian ideas. Looking for the article now and will post. Very helpful.
Sounds like you guys are owning CPAC - again.
Simplifying your intellectual adversaries by referring to them as "socialists" and "warmongerers" really isn't going to get you very far, especially because these people usually sincerely believe they are doing something good. If you approach them with such a mindset about who they are, you should probably only expect to do battle and return home over and over, maintaining the status quo. Why not simply point out to people that you usually have common ends in mind -- i.e. freedom, less poverty, less war, etc. -- and then try to politely demonstrate that the means they are using either directly or indirectly results in the opposite of their intent? If you think of everyone who disagrees with you as an enemy, then they will remain just that - an enemy.
Woods is a very good ambassador to neocons. I know several who have been converted by him. He speaks courteously to hostile audiences, even if he throws out red meat to us once in a while.
Not to mention that even DiLorenzo and Woods both tend to somewhat ignore pretty big chunks of history in their Austrian-fueled belief that the industrial revolution was such a great thing for the common man, setting them up to be fairly easily dismissed by people like the "socialists" you speak of.
At this point most historians agree that the I.R. was a net benefit to the common man.
Socialist isnt' an epithet. Two of my closest friends are blatant socialists. As for warmonger, can you possibly deem a group that cheered mass-murderer Dick Cheney anything but?
I'm convinced libertarianism--or the philosophy that no one has the right to initiate violence-- is correct. I also feel that Lincoln's white supremacy, militarism, and suppression of civil liberties serve to discredit him. Why should I pussyfoot around defending something I truly believe in? Should we should be "polite," when criticizing Stalin's regime or Jim Crow laws?
re: enemies- don't know where you're getting that from in my post. There are bad people in the world who don't really believe in their politics, but use it to promote themselves. We needn't waste our times trying to please these people, as some (just some) "respectable," libertarians have. They may be polite to us if we water down our language, but D.C. will never throw liberty a breadcrumb.
btw- none of this is to say we should be the least bit confrontational regarding average individuals. Being impolite is a sign of insecurity and should be avoided at all costs.
My point is that our ideas shouldn't be watered down, even though many would prefer it be.
My problem is with people who agree "in principle" to my arguments, but then concede some sort of rhetorical defeat to the status quo in practice. How can we work to spark the same kind of passion and dedication and plain old optimism in the minds of our many bullied, beaten brethren? I can't count how many times I've heard friends say "What you say sounds great, but it'll never happen." Well, with that attitude, of course it won't!
Post new comment