While I agree with you that people should be polite and libertarians should be polite, as well, I don’t think that we’re dealing with a problem of evangelism, here. We’re dealing with a problem that is bigger than just winning popular support for libertarian ideas. Ultimately, the only thing that will really change things is actual action. And by “action”, I don’t mean protests or lobbies or campaigns to repeal bad laws or reform corrupt government agencies. Rather, I mean taking action on a personal level to simply secede from the Statist order, what I’ve heard Guido Hulsmann term “originary secession”, the withdrawal of moral consent from the Statist order. The more people who withdraw their moral consent from the Statist order, the higher the opportunity cost will become to those who do not and the greater the attraction will become for them to withdraw their consent.
Being nice is certainly the part of decency and etiquette, don’t get me wrong, but in the grand scheme of things I think it’s not important. Liberal philosophy is not just another denomination of political ideology, it is the eschewing of the political means and withdrawal of moral consent to the regular practice of the political means by those in power.
Clayton -
Clayton,
I think it obvious that if Mr A opts out of statism, it makes life easier for Mr B to do the same. There is a symbiotic relationship among all the opters out.
Thus, increasing the numbers of opters out is a great benefit to all libertarians. Which means we should consider how best to educate that it is in ones best interest to opt out. And the old adage about honey drawing more than vinegar seems to apply.
But I guess I’m saying that if the crankiness of libertarians is the only thing stopping people from morally seceding from the State, then our cause is lost, even if libertarians start being nice. There must be something more to it (specifically, I mean the individual benefits of escaping the power of the State) and, if there is, then the crankiness of libertarians isn’t that big a deal. I don’t think each additional “convert” to anti-statism makes any difference in my life but I think the act of seceding will make a difference in his own life. That’s the selling point. Secede and prosper.
Clayton -
I suppsoe if you disavow the value of evangelism then there’s no need to worry about the delivery. If you don’t then I’d say that the delivery is more important than the message.
I think this runs into the problem of subjectivism. Being better off financially and in one’s freedom is only one aspect. To me there is a huge psychic benefit to less people dying who I don’t know.
And that’s the problem: they don’t understand that it is propertarian freedom that leads to peace. Nor do they understand that it is that kind of freedom that leads to improvements in their life.
We should be extremely friendly to those who cannot see the benefits of this, because it is precisely not being able to see the benefits of these things which is such a tragedy and a sign of abuse.
Hmm, I guess I agree with you but I think you would be mistaken if you think that very many people beside yourself place a lot of weight on less people dying. This is only natural, we evolved in an environment where “us = good” “them = bad” and our brains are optimized to not care about people (in the “them” category) dying. People do care about what they perceive to be their own (“us”) which originally was family, then clan, then tribe and now nation. Nationalism (modern tribalism) no longer even remotely serves the purpose for which it evolved and is entirely maladaptive. But the vestiges remain and that’s why George Bush can launch a war (and Obama - supposedly a pacifist - continue it) that’s killed over a million Iraqis while the Big-Mac-slurping, minivan-driving, college football fanatic doesn’t even blink an eyelash. But these people will never change their attitudes if it is left up to making the case that saving the lives of a million “goatherders” in some remote mountain region will be a psychic benefit to them. In fact, it is not.
But finding prudent ways to avoid the State’s regulations, red-tape, bureaucracy, controls, and so on is in each person’s self-interest. I take a very stark view of the present political order: we are, in effect, slaves of the State. Learning how to deal on the side with the other slaves without getting caught is in each slave’s self-interest and, more importantly, facilitates the building of capital. I don’t need to persuade anyone of any political philosophy, any ideology, or appeal to a sympathy they probably don’t have because they’ve never cultivated it (universal empathy towards all human beings). All I need to do is say “Hey, if you could be sure to get away with not paying taxes on X Y or Z, you should do it because the State never had any moral right to your money in the first place.”
Clayton -
You’re not addressing my objection to this line of thought. People don’t understand that libertarian freedom can greatly benefit them (psychicly, monetarily, morally, culturally, etc). People have massive blockages in their thoughts and feelings about it, which is why I argue to deal with that in a sensitive way.
PS You might like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5ruBkDVOMM