I don’t have any friends, or know anybody that I could talk to about the philosophy of self ownership, individuality and laissez-faire.
I know very few people who even KNOW about the Mises Institute, and are indoctorinated on the public schools teachings of the significant events.
Your everyday person has no knowledge on libertarianism, and takes everyone thats told by the media or that they read in news articles. Like I can’t talk to my relatives about it, all of my relatives are stuck on the belief that Capitalism is evil and that deregulation caused the current economic crisis. I could NOT talk to them about how the Wall St firms DID know about the risk bundled into the MBS’s.
Its also kind of disappointing that people I’ve talked to at my college, give sob stories on how the middle class is “struggling” and that our presence in other countries is necessary for our foreign policy.
I’m only starting my first year at college, and I talked to an economics professor the other day who doesn’t even know who Murray Rothbard is.
So I decided I’d write essay’s and do informative presentations on Mises’ philosophies. I’m currently writing an Essay on the Gold Standard and am doing an informative speech for Public Speaking class on the same thing. However, It needs to be a balanced presentation.
I also need a thesis statement for my Essay, my professor didn’t respond in any e-mails to approve or help me develop one. So if someone could help me develop a thesis statement for a 2-3 page paper on the Gold Standard, I’d appreciate it.
On a bright side though, I met this hot girl recently who’s fairly intelligent and knows all about our philosophy, however she lives on the other side of the country She doesn’t agree with a lot of it, but she can refute my arguments and knows where I’m coming from, which I like.
On the contrary, how should you talk about libertarianism, and abolishing The Federal Reserve to normal folk? How do you not come off as some crazy radical who fears the government?
The trick to effective communication, is to listen, not to talk. Most people don’t care about abolishing the Federal Reserve. You do. What they do care about however, like their mortgages, their pensions, their government assistance, their rising cost of living etc., are all opportunities to discuss the issues related to the federal reserve like monetary inflation, long term interest rates, debasement of the currency and savings, low returns on investment etc.
If you don’t want to be scary, stop talking about what you care about, and start talking about what they care about.
Focus on listening and on building relationships. The rest will take care of itself.
TBH there is more than enough libertarian work on monetary theory. Same goes for Austrian econ. It is a central focus of the discipline. What would be more interesting would be reconciling libertarian and environmental positions, studying world trade from a libertarian POV (e.g. what subsidies or laws do various countries have that distorts the pattern of trade), private charity, critiques of Austrolibertarianism (e.g. Sraffa’s attack on Hayek) &c. Monetary theory is fine and good but it’s already getting a lot of attention, whereas other areas of economics could do with more Austrian/libertarian attention.
I’d like to see more libertarian work on free market law. One of the biggest hangups people have with anarchism, is who will settle conflicts?
Hoppe has done some work on this but I really feel it is underrepresented. Someone like Block could really tackle this subject, which I think, is more interesting than roads.
I have to agree, but at the same time, I thought it was incredible that Block basically made an entire thick book addressing the common refutation of “Who will build the roads?! Free market is silly lulz!”.
Personally, I think free market law would really take off if people began to build communities or “pseudo firms” around on the internet dedicated to researching the specific area of free market law, with the obligatory disclaimer that the purpose is to clarify & de-mystify confusion surrounding what law would look like, & also clarifying what definition each given group is working from.
This definition could most likely be from a “free market as in stateless society wherein laws do not intervene & regulation is done on a voluntary & non-coercive basis”, to help eliminate common strawmen refutations of “no regulation = no responsibility or accountability!”).
Frankly, I’m surprised no one has even entertained such a thing for study concerning the Probability’s Broach’s N.A.C., where one could develop an entire study group based upon researching free-market law around entire fictional yet realistic circumstances to derive insightful works regarding how free-market law would operate in reality.
Then again, I might be grasping at something I am not very versed in (the concepts of a firm), but you get the general idea.
She doesn’t agree with a lot of it, but she can refute my arguments and knows where I’m coming from, which I like.