I doubt he is in the minority as far as Austro-libertarians go.
It`s interesting you include the Classical Liberals, but propose toning down. If you look at it historicaly the Classical Liberals did not gain influence by toning down. They gained influence through consistency. In fact they were so radical they did not shy away from revolutions. How many Liberal Revolutions were there beetwen 1775 and 1848?
I read Milton Friedman long before Mises and it didn’t convince me one bit.
Ditto.
Dare I say Ron Paul has probably led more people to libertarianism that most anyone else. So shooting for the stars was the correct strategy. As for my path Rand → Paul → Mises/et al. Probably prior to paul, rand had a large influence in getting people to look into these ideas, as objectivism is closely linked to libertarianism.
This is only plausible if our strategy is mass conversion. Strategies like microsecession do not require mass changes in public opinion.
Furthermore, even if our goal is mass conversion, there are still strong arguments in favor of radicalism. As Brad Spangler put it: “For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps.” Also see Hoppe.
I think a good rule to follow is: “Don’t do strategy until you’ve finished theory.” Dilettantes should not be working on strategy. For example, the average conspiracy theorist/Zeitgeist/Ron Paul fan will think supporting politicians is the best way to go. But if they learned anarchism, they would see that reformism is impractical, and that radical strategies are more viable.
actually think most people agree with libertarians but attach a stigma to the term “libertarian”. We can bemoan that the statists stole the term liberal from the true liberals, but that doesn’t really help the cause. I think if you address most people on a individual level, they will agree with many lines of reasoning that are the core of the message. For instance, “what’s mine is mine” or “what goes on in my house is my business” or “I don’t need anyone else to tell me how to raise my children.” When you extend these simple lines of reasoning to “inflation degrades your hard work,” it’s not difficult for a lot of people to understand. I also imagine that you could convince a 5th grader (someone with an elementary mastery of arithmetic) why inflation doesn’t solve anything.
I wish it’d be easy to explain to someone that “the only two things the government can do really well is tax people and kill them. Everything else they muck up horribly.” I feel it’s something someone has to come up with on their own.
I wouldn’t tone down the message at all, because as those curious people do begin to wake up, the reasoning that comes from the Austrians shatters their pre-conceived notions of the world. Some people will just look at the most controversial parts of the discipline and create a bulleted list in their mind and decide whether or not to give it more thought. These people will never be reached. They just want the Cliff’s notes on life.
That being said, I wouldn’t try to convince someone by recommending that they read “Defending the Indefensible” at first. I like giving out DiLorenzo books for that.
Maybe if it’s phrased that way. But if you show how taxation and robbery are categorically identical, i.e. as nonconsensually coercive activities, people will definitely have a hard time wrangling their way out of it. See, for example, pages 3-5 of Christopher Wellman’s Is There a Duty to Obey the Law?
Good ideas, all. Another idea:
When taking about social or political issues, do not make yourself the egoist. Make yourself the altruist and you opponent the egoist.
Right:
I think that since you have a right to your property, you should not have to spend one cent of your earnings on me if I’m doing something you don’t approve of. If you let the government spend your money however they want, they are less accountable to you.
Wrong:
I think that since I have a right to my property, I should not have to spend one cent of my earnings on you if you are doing something I don’t approve of. If l let the government spend my money however it wants, it is less accountable to me.
Another way to do just that is to show how government aid for the poor hurts the poor. I tell people that welfare brings temporary relief for the poor, but the taxation prevents new capital formation that raises the standard of living for everyone and makes life for the poor much better than welfare ever could.
I have a great strategy to argue against people that want building codes for housing. My opponent will say that building codes are necessary to ensure safe structures. I reply that people will choose safer structures, but if they cannot afford a safer structure, they can live in a more unsafe structure at a lower cost. They usually reply that it is harmful to the poor to put them in an unsafe structure. I then say that if the unsafe structure didn’t exist, the rental cost would be higher and the poor person would be unable to afford the housing, and he will be living on the street. I then ask, “Is it safer for a person to live in a building that isn’t quite code compliant or is it safer for a person to live on the street?” If they have any sense they will pick the former and I will have won right there.
Unless, of course, he brings up rent control. I will then reply that rent control creates shortages in low rent housing because no new structures are being built by landlords to accomodate low-rent tennants because they aren’t making as much of a profit. This puts people on the street who can’t find low-rent housing. It also makes current buildings fall into disrepair because there are no more competing low-rent housing developments for the tennant to move to, so there is no incentive for the landlord to make repairs.
This argument really makes you come out on the side of the person that cares about the poor. It turns your opponent’s argument around completely.
Me too let’s share 
Yes I agree. The differences are to a point that you basically say apples and oranges are essentially pears.
Utilitarians are not libertarians. The big difference is individualism vs. collectivism. Libertarians are subcribed to Individualism. This, and nothing else, is the litmus test. To throw collectivists, even pro market collectivists into the same basket as individualists, and than call that basket libertarian is just frivolous at least, and pure destructive evil at worst. Individualists have already lost the term Liberals to the collectivist, there is no need to give up the term libertarian to the same side of the aisle that claimed the first term.
Wouldn`t this limit libertarians to only anarchists though?
Really, mass conversion is a waste of time. Those that are freedom loving will be won over easily. Those that are not can take years of one on one conversations to win over.
If you think that an anarchist and an individualist is the same thing, than … yes.
There simply is no coherent way to come from Freedom to collectivism. Collectivism requires to believe that a group has rights that individuals have not.
Where does this “special right” evolve from? From the group itself is the only possible answer.
Yet, groups are just catagories for items with common attributes. So, how does a group get an additional attribute without receiving it from the members of the group? It is absurd.
If you buy into collectivism, than you have to give up freedom. What you receive is freedoms as humbly granted to you by the group.
Liberalism and Collectivism are contrary. You can not be both, a utilitarian that believes the highest goal is to maximize the utility of the society even if individual parts of the society have to be sacrified, and, at the same time believe in selfownership.
If you do so you are incongruent, because one of your beliefs contradicts another. In psychatry this is called a split personality -which most of us seem to be in one way or another(includes me).
why do i feel like im being scolded even though i’ve done nothing wrong?
You are being scolded for being an idealist. “… I was an idealist.” - Adolf Eichman
Defining theft as the forcible taking of property is not workable as no matter what you do if you have a set of rules, there is going to be a property dispute between individuals inwhich one party refuses to give up the property they have, but belongs to someone else. Perhaps Mises.org should run an article, or even write a book, about when force is permisible. Please do not respond to this with a discussion of taxation=theft, that is going on endlessly in another post, please do write an article explaining the use of force in your proposed system of rules.
did you just compare me to a Nazi>?
But do you yourself find induvidualism and minarchism compatible?
[:(]
No I compared you to an idealist.
Perhaps you should get acquainted with a philosophy called classical liberalism which deals specifically with that issue.