Libertarians are absolutely horrible at influencing people.

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
1

For the purpose of this topic I am including people who consider themselves:

-Libertarians
-Classical Liberals
-Neoliberals
-Austrian School followers
-Chicago School/Friedman followers

Yes I recognize that those titles often heavily overlap and there are some big differences between some of them. (Especially Austrian vs Chicago specifically) Just go with it for now, they’re all similar enough to work under one movement/party. I listed them all because I didn’t want anyone to come in here and say “Well this isn’t ME! I’m not a Libertarian I am a classical liberal!” etc. etc. If you fit somewhere into any of the listed categories or hold beliefs similar to the listed categories, this topic is directed at you.

I’d personally probably fit in with “classical liberal” or “Chicago/Friedman”, if only because I haven’t read much Austrian work. Don’t know if I will ever convert… Too much of an empiricist. Anyway, back, on topic.

Libertarians are absolutely horrible at influencing others to their beliefs… Austrians being by far the least persuasive of the lot. In my opinion there are some key things that libertarian types need to address if they ever want any recognition as a “real” party. As of now, most people’s view of libertarians is somewhere between “loony” and “batfuck insane”.

I remember in high school, I asked something about Libertarians to my government teacher. Not sure what the question was, but after answering it she went on to explain what she thought of the group. “Libertarians are the people who don’t want government to tell them to do anything, anytime, for any reason. What do we call that? ANARCHY!” Obviously she was generally wrong, excluding the more radical Austrian schoolers.

1. Radical language isn’t a crowd winner. Making “Taxation=THEEEEFFFFFT!!!” a part of your platform is not going to win anyone over. The Austrians (Which are apparently the dominant force in Libertarian politics these days, or at least you would think so by watching anything involving Ron Paul) are the biggest offenders here. Anarchism will never be a major popular movement, at least in my lifetime. (Or likely my children’s lifetime, or theirs…) If you want to win people over, you have to work slowly (Or relatively slowly). Present your viewpoints in a moderate manner, and to be honest- just don’t mention the anarchism thing.

2. Stop the infighting. Whenever I go on the mises forums I never fail to find a few people who curse the “Catoite” libertarians, the “Friedmanites” or the “Positivists”. Stop it. The differences between to the two to the average person are nil. If you ever want your ideas implemented, you must be united.

3. Stop gunning for the presidential election every damned year. Sfcalimari often brings this up and he’s 100% correct. Libertarians need to start small and build up a base before going straight for the top. Make a heavy push for libertarian-minded leaders in local positions, building up to state and then try for federal.

My ideas for a winning strategy:

1. Adopt a presentable, more moderate form of Libertarianism to the public. Focus on the maximization of individual liberty in both social and economic sectors. Try and steal the Dem voters who usually vote based on social issues and try to steal the Republican voters who usually vote based on economic issues. Oh, and on racial discrimination- just don’t mention repealing any current civil rights acts. I recognize that it is a principled position and rarely is it due to racism, but it is not a popular thing. The only people you will win over with this are racist hillbillies- but they will be turned away by tolerance of ***s.

When I say “presentable” I don’t mean “Use a ton of latin words no one knows”. The platform needs to be simple, understandable and somewhat palatable to the average joe. Going into deep intellectual arguments about why some such government policy is an example of the evils of a tyrannical state may work if you are talking to highly educated philosophy-minded individuals, but the average American isn’t highly educated and they sure as hell aren’t philosophy-minded.

This would probably look a lot more like the Cato model of libertarianism than the Austrian model, but I would think even Austrians could agree that it is much better than the current party platforms.

2. Start local and build up. Again, focus 90% of your energy on building a local base.

Well those are my thoughts. What are yours? I’m sure I pissed at least a few people off here. Sorry. [:D]

2

why do i feel like im being scolded even though i’ve done nothing wrong?

3

Yes, libertarians are horrible at influencing others. However, it has nothing to do with the libertarians themselves.

4

It’s largely pointless trying to conquer the political structure. There is a sound praxeological reason why libertarians suck at politics.

Libertarians should focus on conquering the S&P 500 instead.

5

Apparently libertarians are also not good at influencing libertarians.

6

Historicaly dramatic shifts occur only in the most testing of times. And in such times people look towards radical solutions. It would be an elementary strategic mistake to embrace moderate language and moderate positions just as the roof is coming down. Now is the time to point the finger saying we told you so and press the attack. Not go moderate and grant legitimacy to the scoundrels, just as they will be needing it most.

And BTW Neoliberals? You must be having a laugh.

7

Real quick…

Of course not. But there is no point in not telling the truth just because people can’t handle it. Taxation is theft.

The infighting is about arguing towards truth, not power.

www.cato.org

The internet makes everyone local. Americans and to a lesser degree Britons and Canadians ignore the 3rd world at their own peril. Seeds of liberty need to be sown in India, China, South America and Africa. America is not going to be leading anyone anywhere with the looming bankruptcy. Canada and Briton not far behind with police state socialism.

Activist Libertarianism (inmy opinion) is about pushing state boundaries, not working within them.

8

I came on to this topic expecting to agree with it, apart from the radical language part, which has nothing to do with radicalism itself, I found nothing.

There’s no problem purging bad elements.

9

but i like radical language/ cant i have it? please?

whats the fun of being a radical if you cant talk like a radical [H]

10

He’s correct, the “government is a bunch of theives” line, gets nobody anywhere.

11

Worked fine for the Bolsheviks.

12

And it’s far easier to convince people who’ve lived their whole life under the state that we simply need the right people and the right policies than it is to convince people that we don’t need any state whatsoever.

13

i disagree. if you are concilliatory and make excuses for them, forgive them they know not what they do. they are trying to intervene cause they are public spirtited and through economic ignorance and lack of insight into the morality of politics they err.

you are almost saying that the state can be reformed or improved, it needs better decisionmaking whatever. why should people adopt anarchy or even minarchy if states arent evil, and if they can be expected to be good (not theives).?

14

No you’re not, you’re saying that good will isn’t enough. The economic arguments take over from there.

As I’ve said. The best way to go is to present the incentive structures of democracy and compare them to those of monarchy. Ultimately finding the latter to be superior. Once the belief in democracy has been shaken it is far easier to convince people.

15

I only care about the truth, I am stoic about whether the rabble agrees with me.

16

Mises and Hoppe influenced me to become a libertarian.

17

Libertarian should be focusing on economic solutions instead of political solution. We’re good at entrepeneurship but in generally we’re shit at politics. Beside, building a business is more self-subtaining than battling political attacks all day long and trying to win majority votes. At least with business, we don’t have to like…capture 90% of the market in order to win.

If anybody is any good at politics, it might make sense to do local elections and build up popular support from Libertarian business owners.

18

Exactly! This is the best tool we have.

19

I think you are in the minority. I only considered libertarianism seriously after reading Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell (both are far from being radical).

20

even God is utterly, completely and regularly denied. If the maker of your mind has a tough time converting you, what hope do a few austrians have? The devil has a much easier time. Thats just the condition of man.

Truth has a higher cost and everyones waiting for their fiat