I don’t mean to be dense, but I’m not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. I mean, I don’t think people ran around saying “Omg alcohol prohibition is tyranny!” But for the most part people just ignored the law and actively broke it in every which way possible (e.g. making alcohol, selling it, making gangs around it). I think that the law was just formally repealed instead of just disappearing into history. This article here by the BBC cites a lot of laws (although British) that are still technically on the books but no longer enforced. Alcohol prohibition could have gone this way, but it is my opinion that the state wanted to save face.
I don’t think that politics and civil disobedience need to be mutually exclusive, but I do believe that civil disobedience is far more effective - at least in the mean time until a law is formally repealed (or unoffically).
Well, gravity would be a factor, but if it hadn’t been for some other cause, the plane would not have crashed. Likewise, politics alone is not necessarily enough to repeal law. There has to be some causing factor, and changing people’s minds is certainly it, and that typically leads to civil disobedience, which, if it doesn’t get the law repealed by itself, certainly speeds the process up.
How is Rush Limbaugh so effective in spreading his ideas? What about John Stossel or Thomas Sowell? Milton Friedman? None of these people were politicians, but they are effective at spreading their ideas. Their mediums are print, radio, and television. Ron Paul did have a newsletter. I see no reason why he could not have spread his ideas without government, seeing as other people have done it too. I see nothing wrong with how he went about it though. There is no real way to know one way or the other if he would have been just as effective, but using print, radio, or television are highly effective means of communication.
@JJ: OK, I think I see where we’re talking past each other.
You’re concerned about what are we (upholders of liberty) going to do rather than just what are we going to say. I’m not very concerned about that because it doesn’t really matter. If you took everyone who is even remotely connected and assenting to one or more aspects of the LvMI, you couldn’t even fill a football stadium. Needless to say, we are a drop in the ocean of the other 350 million Americans.
I am more interested in getting 100 million Americans to do a tiny thing in opposition to the State than I am in a heroic effort of our football stadium of dedicated upholders of the ideals of liberty. The only way to get them to do something is to change their minds. I am much more interested in changing the minds of 100 million Americans in such a way that they will do a tiny thing in opposition to the State than I am in making a heroic effort in opposition to the State or even getting the football stadium of upholders of liberty to take on an organized, heroic effort in opposition to the State. What I’d rather see is some kind of meta-organization of that football stadium that extends what LvMI is already doing and turns us into a kind of populist megaphone for the LvMI which, in turn, will spread the message more widely. Look at the number of views of George Ought to Help. How many of those people do you think have ever heard of Mises? 1%? Half a percent? I bet not even that.
Please check out the last section of that Hoppe lecture I posted above (the whole lecture is totally awesome but the strategy stuff is at the end, beginning around 54:45) - these ideas aren’t mine, I’m pretty much just parroting Dr. Hoppe. You should listen to Hoppe himself since he explains it all much more precisely.
@Jargon: I believe Hoppe has in mind the students who attend the Mises seminars and Summer university, for example. I think the LvMI would do well to leverage their online presence more effectively. What we on these forums lack in formal certifications, we more than make up in raw enthusiasm and willingness to invest time and talent.
Who are we fighting? Well, all the mouthpieces of the Establishment who are saying 180 degrees precisely the opposite of everything that the LvMI stands for - political aggregation, central banking, centrally-planned economy, and so on. The Establishment’s myths need to be answered so confused people can relieve themselves of the nagging doubts that these myths cause and the technical economic truths need to be distilled into language accessible and appealing to the masses.
I’m saying that when you say a law was repealed, that by definition means political/governmental action took place.
The law was not “ignored”. People just broke it. There is a huge difference. Speakeasys, bootlegging, passwords, and gangsters…these are not the result of an “ignorance” of the law.
Cannabis coffeeshops in the Netherlands are an example of “ignorance” of the law.
And yes, that is a way to go. But do you really want to try to argue the US would have gotten to that point before the 21st Amendment was ratified? If that’s the case, then why didn’t it?
Again, you’re not refuting or even really opposing anything I’ve argued.
You used the word “primarily”. What is the primary reason the plane went down? If it weren’t for gravity, the pilot’s actions would have no consequence, now would they.
It’s not?
You mean like, people in government declaring it so? Because I was pretty sure that’s how government edicts worked. They pass a law, and it gets enforced. They repeal a law, and it goes away.
(Sure there are laws you can point to that don’t get enforced, and while that’s nice, I still have a problem with that power being there. For every law you can point to that is “not enforced” I can point you to times when it has been selectively enforced to target people the State doesn’t like. I believe it was Stossel who had an attorney on one of his episodes/specials that said “if I followed you around for a day I guarantee I could charge you with at least three federal offenses.”
I don’t care how “ignored” or “not enforced” a law is…all it takes is for you to piss off the wrong guy, and your life is over. And it will all be perfectly legal. On the other hand, the opposite does not happen. You don’t see a law getting repealed and then people getting put in prison for abiding by it. That doesn’t even make sense. Ergo, repeal > “ignorance”)
Again, no opposing anything I’ve said. This is all made to sound like it’s offering a counter-argument, but in the end you keep going back to my conclusion.
Rush Limbaugh and John Stossel are in entertainment. And the last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was losing sponsors left and right, and more of a political Howard Stern than anyone who is actually taken seriously or preaching anything that the general Republican electorate doesn’t already agree with. And Stossel, as great as he is, hosts a show on an extended cable network where he’s lucky if he gets 750k viewers per week (including reruns). Again, I don’t exactly see him at the front of any revolution.
Ask 100 random people if they’ve ever heard of Thomas Sowell and you might get 1 “yes”. Ask if they’ve ever read anything he’s written and you’ll get less. And Milton Friedman spent a great deal of his career in the government sphere, even if in unofficial positions. Again, his success does more to support my point than refute it.
His economic policy positions are largely known due to his work as economic adviser to Ronald Reagan. The abolishment of the draft had a lot to do with his voice in government proceedings.
One might argue that the Nobel award in economics helped with his popularity as well…and while this is not exactly a political engagement, it is a rare award that few people receive or are even in a position to receive. Again, I’m speaking in practical matters. Again, all someone has to do win a local election for US Representative and they stand to get virtually as much of a microphone as a Nobel Laureate.
…which he started after being elected to the US House of Representatives. I don’t think that’s just a coincidence, and that there was just as much demand for a “Ron Paul, the obstetrician” newsletter. Again, I’m sorry that it’s so unfortunate, but like it or not, having a position in politics gives you more respect, a bigger microphone, and more power to affect change. I don’t see how you’re going to argue against that because it’s the truth.
And yet no one else has been anywhere near as effective…and the ones who are closer have all been involved in with politics in some way.
And my point is, you have much easier access to print, radio, and television when you have a position in the public sphere. A Rush Limbaugh Show is just as rare (if not more so) than a Nobel Prize.
To be honest, I think that Penn Jillette’s little wrapup shtick at the end their does miles of harm for the libertarian cause, namely the conviction that libertarians have a deep-seated faith in the goodness of men. On the contrary, market proponents must have only a deep-seated faith in the greed of men for the market to function well. Personally, despite being such a proponent I do not hold that trait aloft. Penn there kind of smacks of Lord Keynes in this gem: "Capitalism is “the astonishing belief that the nastiest motives of the nastiest men somehow or other work for the best results in the best of all possible worlds.” What it implies is that Capitalism depends on generosity.
The opposite is true. The capitalist is hamstrung in ways that the ruler is not. Government requires generosity. A capitalist, both hated and incompetent, is not a capitalist. The same cannot be said for any politician, bureaucrat, or tyrant.
@Jargon: Well, what is clear is that humans beings have an in-built capacity for peaceful cooperation, without threats from a big bully in the sky wandering around hitting people over the head and taking their stuff. I don’t think we should exaggerate this into something more than it is - people have the capacity and act on that capacity to do awful things to each other. Yet, on the other hand, the Hobbesian myth is the founding myth of the modern total State. Hobbes denies that men are capable of peaceful cooperation in the absence of a big bully in the sky whacking people over the head. And that’s what I hear Penn rebutting in that clip.
And holy crap for probably the fifth time (I think this is 3 different things, expressed 5 separate times each now),
You know why that’s in a quote box? But it was already written. In the other thread. That I linked to. In the second sentence of the OP. (And was even reproduced, word for word, in this thread…already…by another poster.)
And as I told him, in the post before that, I wish you would read that thread where this has already been hashed out quite a bit, it would save time.
As much as I love that video, 92k views over 18 months is not entirely impressive. I probably have accounted for close to at least 20 of those views myself. And I doubt I’m the only one. I would be very surprised if anywhere close to a majority of those views were from people who weren’t already basically part of the choir. To answer your question, I’d feel a lot more comfortable with guessing 20% or more of those views have heard of Mises.
I did. A couple things:
46:16 - "…a small army of intellectual officers, footsoldiers, and part time volunteers who help spread the ideological message; who simplify it, indeed sometimes even compromise it, and make it understandable by, and palatable to, the so-called “common man” so as to change public opinion.
What was that all you people were bitching about Ron Paul preaching the Constitution and not coming out full blown anarchist?
57:48 - “…Just look for instance at such “revolutionaries” as Gingrich or Limbaugh. They want to pacify us by reducing the rate of increased socialism, and thus give the idea of a revolution a bad name.”
@gotlucky: Doesn’t sound like Limbaugh is changing many minds as much as he is just reinforcing the status quo. Could it be that that has a lot to do with his popularity? Indeed, people like to be told they’re right. They don’t like to hear ideas that are foreign to them and essentially tell them they’re wrong.
That being said, I have no fricking clue what the hell you’re talking about with that video, Clay. I listened to that entire lecture, and nowhere…not even starting at the 54 minute mark that you mention did I hear any sort of “specific recommendations” or “strategy stuff”. Indeed, that entire final part of the lecture beginning at that point is almost nothing more than what an enemy might call, if you’ll excuse the vulgarity, a bj for Mises, Rothbard and the Institute. Now don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against that. Promote the shit out of those guys all you want. Talk about how the LvMI is the greatest thing since sex. And have fun doing it. But don’t try to sell it to me as some kind of “strategy” or “specific recommendation” along the lines of what I’m asking.
Essentially all he spends 54:00-60:00 talking about how you need to be uncompromising in theory and ultimate goal, or else you’ll be a dud like Gingrich, and then from then on, he basically just says that Mises and Rothbard have left a great intellectual foundation and the Mises Institute needs to be the center hothouse for the revolution. At the end he suggests maybe we could take over a university.
I didn’t hear anything in any of that that could remotely be considered a “strategy” or “specific recommendation” along the lines of what I’m asking. What are these “ideas” you’re talking about? What exactly is it you’re parroting? That the Mises Institute needs to be the think tank of the revolution? I really have no idea what any of this has to do with what I’ve been talking about or what I’m asking.
I’ve seen this clip a number of times now. He basically spends the first few minutes talking about how he just wants to tell his truth and have other people tell him theirs. Because they could be right, and he could be wrong. He says that he doesn’t “spend any time thinking about what we’re trying to accomplish”. He literally said that. He said that if he is thinking to himself “how do I get this person to become a libertarian?”, he believes at that moment he is a pig.
This sounds directly contradictory to what Hoppe was describing and what you and others have been saying. You and others in this thread seem to have been quite adamant about fighting in this “battleground of ideas” and essentially working to get more people to become libertarian.
And now you say the guy who says “I don’t spend any time thinking about what we’re trying to accomplish”, “states [your] views on this matter eloquently and precisely.”
That’s correct, and I described it. If it didn’t satisfy you, well, that’s your problem, not mine.
As far as I’m concerned, I did not dodge around it. I didn’t take your question seriously, because of your ample past history of sarcasm, condescension, and bullying. So I figured you weren’t really interested in an alternative(s) I might have, and your question was a rhetorical one, designed to tell “the audience” that I don’t have any alternative(s). If you want people to keep taking you seriously around here, I suggest you stop that behavior - otherwise, I think you’re doing yourself a disservice.
For whatever it’s worth, thanks for actually being a bit forthcoming here. I think the insinuation began earlier though.
By that point, I had already explained my alternative. Whether you consider it to be valid is irrelevant.
John, either you don’t understand logic, or you’re behaving in an extremely dishonest manner here. At this point, I’m honestly not sure which one is more likely. In that same post, I actually did outline my alternative, as you’re most certainly already aware. So maybe it is more likely that you’re just being extremely dishonest.
This shifting of gears contradicts what you claim earlier in your post. Did I present an alternative or not, John? Yes or no? Which is it? Surely you can make up your mind, can’t you?
You didn’t use the word “pragmatic” in your initial post on the matter. But to be honest, I think the “disseminate the truth and then [sit back and watch what happens]” approach could be more quick, effective, and efficient in rolling back the state than your Cato-esque approach. I say “could be” because I don’t know for sure, and unlike you, I don’t claim otherwise.
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen someone engage in such blatant doublethink around here. First you say that I didn’t provide an alternative, then you say that I did, but then you say that I actually didn’t, because what I proposed isn’t an “actual alternative”. This is probably too much to ask at this point, but could you even try to be consistent with your terms?
You’re proving the point I made in my first post in this thread. I predicted that you wouldn’t consider anything other than what you propose to be an “actual alternative” because you’re already convinced that what you propose is the best possible approach. Thus your point with this thread wasn’t to engage in any sort of discussion or debate of different approaches, but to impose your approach on as many other people as possible by (among other things) pushing the other approaches as far away as you can. Let me borrow one of your catchphrases and say that you should see my big, surprised face.
As he says, it’s a very fine distinction. Perhaps it’s only something that matters to people who grew up in a devoutly religious household - there’s a certain arrogance or hubris to the evangelistic mindset. It’s a prejudicial belief that the other person cannot possibly have any valid input to the discussion. Speaking in this attitude is merely preaching, not sharing the truth as far as you think you’ve managed to discover it. It’s a fine distinction but a big difference in what is really going on when sharing the truth of liberty with others.
I realize he says it’s a fine distinction, but I didn’t really see much of one in what you or Hoppe were saying. It sounds to me like you and he are very aware of what you’re trying to accomplish. And it even seems like you’re actively interested in getting more people to become libertarian.
That being said, maybe I’m wrong, and you aren’t. You can tell me. But I’m still interested in hearing some kind of explanation as to how government will be rolled back without any sort of political action whatsoever. Is it just that you think mandates will be ignored, like cannibus laws in Amsterdam? And if so, what is the reasoning as to why this would be faster, more efficient, or more effective than if there was an effort from within to do the same thing. Why do you think all the people mentioned in the OP are wasting their time, and the move to a free-er society would be better served if all these people spending their time in a public sphere would be better served working overtime so they’d have more money to donate the Mises Institute?
And also, if this rollback you see is simply a matter of mandates being no longer enforced, what do you plan to do (okay, I realize you might not have any plans because you said Jillette states your views precisely and he says he “never thinks about what we’re trying to accomplish”), but what is your response to the targeting/arbitrary enforcement of relic laws?
I’m interested in the truth and justice - if that’s not libertarianism, then so be it. But as far as I can see, the philosophy of liberty is the only philosophy that is consistent with the ultimate end that all human beings have: satisfaction of wants.
The reforms from within must follow the reforms from without. When you get ahead of yourself, your movement will just be infiltrated, hijacked and turned to the ends of the State itself, one way or another.
Note that I’m a big believer in TIMTOWTDI - I don’t think I have all the answers, I only have my opinion. I would never presume to tell anyone to stop what they’re doing (unless they’re actually fighting on behalf of the Establishment). But I would ask them to consider my point-of-view regarding what is the most effective use of their time and energy. If they still see it differently, then so be it.
Well, I think about what I would like to see - a world of freedom and prosperity brought about by an eclipse of the absolute State. I think about how to bring that about and what are effective ways to change people’s minds. But this really isn’t what Penn was talking about.
I think what Penn is talking about is thinking about what you want the outcome of a conversation to be while you’re having it. If you’re sitting there thinking “This guy needs to see the light and become a libertarian”, then you’ve got the completely wrong attitude. You’re no better than a televangelist preacher… you have some preconceived notion that you’re trying to “sell” for whatever reason. The attitude of the truth-seeker and virtue-worshipper is marked by humility: “Here’s my point-of-view based on my life’s experience and what I’ve studied and read but I’m sure you’ve had different experiences and studies that are outside of my own and there’s almost certainly something I can learn from you - assuming you’re someone who is also a truth-seeker.”
As a rule of thumb, I think that the more local the political action, the more worthwhile. This is the opposite of the received wisdom which says “go national!” to get the most coverage. If you want to change things, start local. I would rather see bad Federal laws being nullified at the State level than national action being taken to stop the laws. Participating in the Federal process only lends it more legitimacy. I mean, we need a bit of both but I think we need a strategic shift in emphasis to the State level and below. This is part of the power of the LvMI strategy… they’re not just limiting themselves to the US, they’re doing this globally. We need to light brush fires around the world at the national and sub-national levels in order to give impetus to anti-globalization sentiment.
This is a consequence of what I said above: change from within follows change from without. When the ability of the Feds to impose their will simply fizzles out, then they’ll repeal their own damn laws to save face. And yes, there is the potential for outright showdown (e.g. the Civil War) and we shouldn’t be afraid of this but we have to choose the issues strategically. We need to put our foot down on issues where they’re going to lose the public opinion battle if they were to try pushing it to use of force. That’s why pot is such a powerful issue. Despite the fact that the baby boomers are fully indoctrinated into the anti-pot hysteria, social attitudes regarding pot have already shifted considerably and it’s widely understood by a significant minority (perhaps even a small majority) that pot Prohibition is a bigger failure than alcohol Prohibition was and that pot-consumption is not the kind of thing that we should be using violent force to stop.
The nullification of the interstate-commerce clause to Federal gun regs is another great example. We’re not arguing for completely gun deregulation, just local regulation. These issues are all models which could be rolled out to other issues. But beware that the Establishment is already tring to hijack this strategy - that’s why they’re infiltrating the Tea Party with agents provocateur. They want to have a showdown over something like border/immigration policy because then they can make the nullificationists out to be “racists” and the Feds can come off as “enlightened beacons of morality.”
I don’t understand what that has to do with what I was talking about. He says that he “never thinks about what we’re trying to accomplish.” You said he captures your views precisely. I mentioned that it seemed to me that that doesn’t seem to line up with your views…that you are very aware of what you’re trying to accomplish.
I didn’t say anything about what is “real libertarianism.” I don’t even know what that means.
So do you think about converting people to libertarianism or not? Because my point with the statement above was, it sounds like you do, and that that is something that is important to you. And more people becoming libertarian doesn’t seem to be of interest to Penn. So it doesn’t sound like he captures your views “precisely.”
Am I wrong here?
I don’t disagree with that. I never said anything that contradicted that. I don’t see what that has to do with what I asked. Can you answer the question please?
Is that your way of saying you don’thave a reasoning for your opinion? That’s what I’m asking for. I’m asking why do you think all the people mentioned in the OP are wasting their time, and the move to a free-er society would be better served if all these people spending their time in a public sphere would be better served working overtime so they’d have more money to donate the Mises Institute?
I never suggested you had all the answers. I’m asking for the reasoning behind your opinion. Can you communicate that please?
I feel like you’re jerking me around. It’s like you’re responding to a completely different post. I asked you a very specific question. “What is your response to the targeting/arbitrary enforcement of relic laws?”
I don’t know what “an eclipse of the absolute State” means and I don’t know how that answers the question.
That’s a really big assumption. I think that’s part of the reason most people (including actual truth seekers) find it difficult to do what Jillette’s talking about…most people aren’t truth seekers.
Is this not what I’ve been talking about since…the OP?
And again, if that’s what you think will happen, what is the reasoning as to why you think that would happen sooner and more efficiently than people who want to repeal it actually making it happen? Can you please answer this? I’ve asked this question probably 3 or 4 times now. I don’t know why it continues to be dodged.
I think you’re misunderstanding what Penn was saying.
I’ve tried answering it every way I know how:
political infiltration will slow down and ultimately thwart any other approach than the approach Hoppe outlined above, to which I subscribe
change begins outside the political system and moves in - attempting to “shortcut” the process by “changing things from within” only leads to (1)
secession and nullification are the only political strategies that are not a waste of time - they’re not even really “politics” so much as anti-politics (tearing the system down en toto)
As Hoppe notes, we might understand that we will not achieve our full strategic ends (such as abolition of the income tax) but we will not achieve anything at all if our strategic ends are compromised to anything less than completely abolition of the State, its taxes and monopolies, and so on. “Changing the system from within” is a compromised goal, it is setting as your end goal a “changed system” rather than complete abolition of the system.
both secession and nullification are bottom-up strategies, not top-down strategies (no use petitioning Congress to dissolve its own Union)
failure of all prior attempts to “change the system from within”
what needs to be changed is the beliefs and attitudes of the masses - a free society is a society of non-snitches, of people who respect property rights, and so on; no political system could impose tyranny on such a society; so why are you focusing on changing the political system when it’s irrelevant?
I can’t think of any more ways to respond to your question.
Well as I’ve said a number of times, I’m definitely interested in hearing any theories or proposals as to how exactly government would be rolled back. Again the only thing I’ve heard so far is “change the minds of people”. That doesn’t even oppose my argument, let alone provide any sort of alternative concrete framework or explanation as to how government would be rolled back.
It sounded like you were opposing the general argument I made (or at least attempting to offer a counter argument), but I’m really still not quite sure what that is
Yes it was a counter point as demonstrated by headline “counter points”. and ar state in points b and c ( I never really went into much other territory once the links started working)
the points were qualified and put in context: the main thrust of the argument is about the potential benefits of third parties and in general and the uniquness of the situation in particualr in relation to this statement of yours:
the way to have them most efficient and effective in the public sphere is by infiltrating and taking over one of the major parties
hopefully that clears things up, that’s probably it for me now.
Why would it thwart it? Because there are less people donating time and money to the Institute? Part of my argument was that it could very well enhance the education aspect Hoppe talks about through giving an automatic platform and microphone and even more impactful, immediate credability (in the eyes of the uninformed populace) to what someone is saying. (Again, I don’t think nearly as many people would have started listening to Paul if he remained simply an obstetrician from Texas.)
Do you disagree with this? Do you not think that more attention, respect, and consideration is given to what someone in a political position says versus someone who is not? Or do you just not think that moreattention, respect, and consideration for what is being said would make a difference in changing people’s minds?
Again, is that not that what is happening as described in the OP? Or are you saying something different? Is the “change in the electorate beginning to reflect itself in the party apporatus itself” not the kind of “change from outside moving in” you’re talking about?
You’re misunderstanding my point. “Changing the GOP from the inside” doesn’t mean that is the end goal. It is a means to an end. It is exactly what Hoppe is talking about in the sense that you can compromise on temporary results, so long as you are uncompromising in theory and ultimate goal. Hell, he even said you can compromise the message itself to make it understandable by, and palatable to, the so-called “common man” so as to change public opinion.
I don’t see how this contradicts my original argument
It sounds like Hoppe is actually supporting Ron Paul’s strategy of talking about the Constitution and the like, that so many in places like this forum are so adamant about berating him for.
Do you disagree?
I never disagreed with that.
Again I think you’re misunderstanding the argument.
I’m simply saying that:
a) Ceterus peribus you have increased ability to change beliefs and attitudes of the masses as someone visible in the public sphere
b) Government growth can be curbed by political action. Again, look at someone like Gary Johnson.
c) Government influence can be rolled back faster through political action. Again, see the Sandy Springs example.
It seems like you’re hung up on the terms “change” and “system”. I never suggested that “changing the system” was the end goal.
So what is your response to the targeting/arbitrary enforcement of relic laws? Are you just saying that through nullification and succession there won’t be such a thing? That it wouldn’t be a simple “ignorance” of the law by individuals of the citizenry like gotlucky suggests, but rather actual factions of state and/or local governments refusing to acknowledge federal mandates…and then local townships refusing to acknowledge state mandates? And then coming to the aid and support and protection of individuals who might be targeted?
…as in, say, local California police and state troopers standing in the way of federal agents moving in to shut down a marijuana distributor?
Something else I’m thinking is, if your only concern is the minds and attitudes of the people, why are you so unconcerned with the education system? You poo-pooed the Gary North’s prescription of targeting the public school system, claiming that it would take “a full generation until changes in the education system can begin to matter.”[1] (Something to which I asked if you had a faster alternative, and never got an answer. Unless of course you believe that your notion of reaching people one by one through the Mises Institute like Hoppe describes will be faster than “a generation”, which, if that’s what you think, then feel free to say so.)
But again, if your target is people’s minds, and your goal is to educate them and ultimately have them come to adopt behavior in line with your own philosophy, why do you not have any interest in making your job easier by getting them when they are younger and more impressionable? Or at the very least, preventing your enemy from doing so. I seriously doubt you would disagree that it’s much more difficult to reverse years of indoctrination than it is to simply raise a child with the truth to begin with. Indeed, you yourself alleged that your being homeschooled was a large part of the reason you were able to make the journey to liberty…and what’s more, that you can see that most of your public-schooled friends “will never make it out of the Matrix, so to speak.”
So my question is, what makes you think it is faster, more effective, and more efficient to target people when they’re at least in high school, if not college or beyond?
Why is it not a useful strategy for people to move to take control of their local education system and at the very least remove the barriers that prevent parents from having the freedom to choose what school their child goes to…let alone more say about the curriculum and the instructors?
That is a very reasonable, attainable goal. (And no, before you put words in my mouth and go off on a lecture about compromising on the end goal like Hoppe warns against, blah blah blah, I’m not saying it is the end goal. I’m saying it is small, relatively easy battle to be won.) Again, even you admitted small things like this are the way to go. And yet, North says basically the same thing: “That is a practical goal. […] A political movement needs small victories.”
I don’t think you would disagree (and again, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), the more local the tyranny is, the easier it is to oppose and defuse it. And there are few things average people care more about than their kids having a decent life, preferrably better than their own…and in most people’s view, that starts with a decent education. (Again, I’m not denying there are plenty of useless people out there who have happened to have kids they didn’t want and don’t really care about, but there are a lot more who do. Again, even people whom you probably wouldn’t think that would be the case. If you’d like examples of this, see the film The Lottery, or this clip from Stossel.) So it’s one of the easier battles to be won, and it’s one people care a great deal about…and it’s one that will probably make the most difference, especially in a “pound for pound” sort of way…that is, the return on investment is incredibly high.
So I’m gonna ask my question again, why exactly do you think that it is more effective, and more efficient, and concrete results will be seen faster, if you ignore the schooling of young children and simply try to get people to engage with the Mises Institute in high school and college at the earliest? Or if you prefer, why is targeting the school system on a local level a less efficient, less effective way of going about rolling back the State?
[1] —which, on its face I would argue is not necessarily true. Again, if you see North’s actual strategy, it could change things in one semester. This is not to say that I agree with all of North’s plan or that I think it’s the most feasible, but for one thing, it would take a huge bite of one of the most powerful and parasitic and damaging unions in the country…thus making it easier to reach people…and for another, it’s an actual point by point strategy…as opposed to “I’ll fight a revolution in the battleground of ideas, man. And once me and the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar unplug enough people from the Matrix, I’ll just sit back and watch the fireworks.”
