How to Win Libertarian Converts and Influence Voters

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Check out this great article: http://josiahschmidt.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-to-win-libertarian-converts-and.html

What do you guys think?

 

[FrankRep]

How to Win Libertarian Converts and Influence Voters

I don't like the term "Libertarian" personally. The movement will be much more successful with the general population by calling yourself Constitutionalists.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

I don't like the term "Libertarian" personally. The movement will be much more successful with the general population by calling yourself Constitutionalists.

What do you think about the article, though?

 

[Cone0]

"I believe this is one of the fundamental paradigm shifts the liberty movement requires: we need to view everyone--and I mean everyone, including the Glenn Becks and Keith Olbermanns of the world--as a potential friend. Rather than being an angry, cynical, disgruntled movement, we need to be a movement that reaches out to people and makes people want to be a libertarian."

^this

I liked the article

 

[oyarde]

"I believe this is one of the fundamental paradigm shifts the liberty movement requires: we need to view everyone--and I mean everyone, including the Glenn Becks and Keith Olbermanns of the world--as a potential friend. Rather than being an angry, cynical, disgruntled movement, we need to be a movement that reaches out to people and makes people want to be a libertarian."

^this

I liked the article

Sounds reasonable . Have to work on everyone .

 

[FrankRep]

What do you think about the article, though?

I have a Conservative mindset (Pro-God, Pro-Morality, Small Government) and Libertarian principles turn me off like open borders, pro-liberalism, gay marriage, anti-military, and pro-anarchy stances.

The term "Libertarian" make me automatically reject whatever have to say because it's an emotionally loaded term for me.

I'm giving you an honest opinion about your article.

 

[Sentient Void]

"I believe this is one of the fundamental paradigm shifts the liberty movement requires: we need to view everyone--and I mean everyone, including the Glenn Becks and Keith Olbermanns of the world--as a potential friend. Rather than being an angry, cynical, disgruntled movement, we need to be a movement that reaches out to people and makes people want to be a libertarian."

^this

I liked the article

I completely agree - and this is how I go about it. I'm not able to convert everyone, but I've 'converted' a lot of people - and I've gotten many others to at least rethink their stances - sewing seeds of liberty in peoples' minds. Personally, I like the term libertarian - the statists have tried to marginalize it, but I've had good success turning it into a good thing, even an intellectual philosophical stance.

That - and if they're resistant - point out their logical slippery slopes and moral/logical inconsistencies through the socratic method.

 

[Sentient Void]

I have a Conservative mindset (Pro-God, Pro-Morality, Small Government) and Libertarian principles turn me off like open borders, pro-liberalism, gay marriage, anti-military, and pro-anarchy stances.

What's so bad about letting more workers come into the country? Isn't having more people working and producing wealth in our country beneficial to all of us through increased competition for wages, increasing production, lowering costs of living and thus raising the standard of living? Economically speaking, such things can only help our economy and contribute to it's growth. If you're concerned about welfare - statistics show that only 4.7% of welfare is going to illegal immigrants.

What civil liberties (this 'liberalism' you're referring to) are you against where you're willing to hold a gun to someone's head in order to keep them from doing peaceful activities? How do they affect your person or property negatively?

How are gays getting married having a negative effect on your person or property? Are you really willing to put a gun to their head to restrict their ability to get married and engage in a peaceful voluntary contract with another gay person?

What do you mean by 'anti-military'? most libertarians believe in strong defense - just not initial aggression and offense (which we engage in now in a major way).

Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, libertarianism is a fairly wide spectrum that generally acknowledges maximizing individual liberty in civil and fiscal liberties - and that this can only be accomplished through minimizing government intervention in those same areas. Libertarians range from anarcho-capitalists, to minarchists, to constitutionalists. Only a few are 'pro-anarchy' - but generally speaking, if a libertarian is open to logical and intellectual discussion, it becomes easier over time to accept the logical conclusion of ancap - or at least saying they wouldn't be opposed to it if it could be done/accomplished somehow.

 

[emazur]

Great article, I agree with everything written

 

[AuH20]

What's so bad about letting more workers come into the country?

Ask the Germans. They are regretting letting the Turks come in en masse to their country in the 1960s, in order to alleviate cheap labor shortages. The newly arrived Turks in time simply became distrustful of the Germans, refused integration and became dependents of the German state. Transplanting blocks of foreign nationals into another country or a long abandoned region (see ISRAEL) is not wise policy down the line. It's the equivalent to taking a mongoose and a cobra & throwing them together into a 5 by 5 box. The individual must willfully want to be part of something, instead of luring a homogeneous block of a couple million for purely economic reasons.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Ask the Germans. They are regretting letting the Turks come in en masse to their country in the 1970s, in order to alleviate cheap labor shortages. The newly arrived Turks in time simply became distrustful of the Germans, refused integration and became dependents of the German state. Transplanting blocks of foreign nationals into another country or a long abandoned region (see ISRAEL) is not wise policy down the line. It's the equivalent to taking a mongoose and a cobra & throwing them together into a 5 by 5 box. The individual must willfully want to be part of something, instead of luring a homogeneous block of a couple million for purely economic reasons.

But was the problem with the Turks in Germany the fact that the Turks were very good at competing for jobs in the 1970s, or was it the fact that the German welfare state incentivized getting onto the dole over making an honest living?

 

[AuH20]

But was the problem with the Turks in Germany the fact that the Turks were very good at competing for jobs in the 1970s, or was it the fact that the German welfare state incentivized getting onto the dole over making an honest living?

It was two-fold. In Turkey there was a population explosion and a massive bout of unemployment, and German industrial leaders were looking for a counter balance to escalating wages & benefits. What finally exacerbated the eventual cultural conflict between Germans and the Turks were the family reunification programs which skewed the demographics of the country even further. Based off the current birth rates, the Turks will eventually surpass the Germans as the dominant ethnicity in Germany.

 

[axiomata]

I have a Conservative mindset (Pro-God, Pro-Morality, Small Government) and Libertarian principles turn me off like open borders, pro-liberalism, gay marriage, anti-military, and pro-anarchy stances.

The term "Libertarian" make me automatically reject whatever have to say because it's an emotionally loaded term for me.

I'm giving you an honest opinion about your article.

I certainly share the conservative's pro-God, pro-morality and pro-traditions stances but the anti-immigration and pro-protectionism populist wings are absolutely revolting. They are both immoral positions and economically flawed positions. Secure borders types I can work with. Anti-gay marriage advocates should use libertarian arguments for separating all marriage from the state and I don't care who they marry in their churches.

 

[Sentient Void]

But was the problem with the Turks in Germany the fact that the Turks were very good at competing for jobs in the 1970s, or was it the fact that the German welfare state incentivized getting onto the dole over making an honest living?

Exactly. And Germany is one of the more productive and prosperous nations in Europe (though it has potential for much more if not for their and EU's govt policies) as well. I'm not saying that this caused it, though it is certainly correlative - but at the least you definitely can't say such policies hurt economic growth and prosperity. So there's no real utilitarian / economic argument against it.

It was two-fold. In Turkey there was a population explosion and a massive bout of unemployment, and German industrial leaders were looking for a counter balance to escalating wages & benefits. What finally exacerbated the eventual cultural conflict between Germans and the Turks were the family reunification programs which skewed the demographics of the country even further. Based off the current birth rates, the Turks will eventually surpass the Germans as the dominant ethnicity in Germany

Logically or morally, why is it so important to maintain a specific cultural/racial homogeny? Isn't america the 'great melting pot' and part of what made it so great? Weren't people saying the same exact thing you're saying about the Irish, Italians, et al - and these ultimately became the very people that have done so much to create so much wealth, prosperity, business and culture in the US?

And ultimately, you still have the choice to engage in business or social interaction with people of whatever other ethnicities or cultures - you aren't forced into adopting their language, culture, etc. I just don't see any legitimate logic or importance of being against such things on this basis of the desire to maintain homogenity.

 

[StateHate]

I have a Conservative mindset (Pro-God, Pro-Morality, Small Government) and Libertarian principles turn me off like open borders, pro-liberalism, gay marriage, anti-military, and pro-anarchy stances.

The term "Libertarian" make me automatically reject whatever have to say because it's an emotionally loaded term for me.

I'm giving you an honest opinion about your article.

I respect anyone who doesn't wish to put the point of a gun or the threat of a cage to my children as a manner of control to create their vision of civility that goes beyond God's natural law!


thanks for your openness!!!

but I must say, gay marriage, liberalism, anti-military, are not libertarian issues.




1) the state has no place in the spiritual union of two people, let alone the voluntary contracting of property...

this is what has led us to state endorsed homosexual marriages (all Christian churches that endorse such actions are defunct)



2) liberalism is a relative term, as it is currently used most often by establishment conservatives, is too often it is associated with special interest privileges seeking groups like the homosexual lobby or teacher unions.

being "liberal" may be, the belief that one's body being their property is subject only to the will of creation and natural law, but as Dr. Paul points out... this is a cornerstone in a free republic and absolutely necessary to free thought and practice of religion, etc





3) when looking at the timeline our nation as an example of more freedom to totalitarian governance, our military was tiny and stayed within the moral bounds that we people expect.

the current military industrial complex does not represent the proper defense of a free people, but of a coerced mass of consumers moving towards total global empiralism.

In a perfect society there will be no violence, but life isn't perfect.





Conclusion: Libertarian is relative, and comparative.

I obviously advocate for a society where we do not have to force others by violence and manipulation to live as we wish.

So philosophically you could call me a voluntary minded person, but in today we are so far beyond this...

I must fight and protect my families freedom as realistically as I can.

You cannot give a name to living natural... and anyone who hinders my life, liberty and property has committed a crime. Whether I seek vengeance, they will answer to the almighty for their transgression.

 

[FrankRep]

I certainly share the conservative's pro-God, pro-morality and pro-traditions stances but the anti-immigration and pro-protectionism populist wings are absolutely revolting. They are both immoral positions and economically flawed positions. Secure borders types I can work with. Anti-gay marriage advocates should use libertarian arguments for separating all marriage from the state and I don't care who they marry in their churches.

1.) I'm not anti-immigration, I'm against open borders.
2.) On protectionism, I'm against trading with Communist countries who use human capital (slave labor) to make products.
3.) I agree with removing government from marriage and keeping it a purely cultural practice.


Also, Libertarians get associated with Pro-Abortion/Pro-Choice issues that that's a MAJOR turn off for me.

 

[AuH20]

Logically or morally, why is it so important to maintain a specific cultural/racial homogeny? Isn't america the 'great melting pot' and part of what made it so great? Weren't people saying the same exact thing you're saying about the Irish, Italians, et al - and these ultimately became the very people that have done so much to create so much wealth, prosperity, business and culture in the US?

I could care less about racial purity. The blueprint for freedom is encoded in our culture unfortunately as opposed to other regions of the world. So we must do all in our power to retain and protect this culture and/or transplant it to another willing ethnicity, whomever that may be. But time is running out. White caucasians cannot be the only ones carrying the burden of the constitution and free markets on our shoulders.

Secondly, to compare and contrast modern day migrants with those europeans at the turn of the century, is foolhardy IMHO. Many of the immigrants from that time were subject to the 'guillotine effect', in that they were separated from their homelands by an entire ocean in a time when air travel was non-existent. It should also be noted that the modern welfare state and it's enticing entrapments did not exist at that time as well. Immigrants were forced to assimilate and become active participants of the country for better or worse. Today, thanks to the plague of multi-culturalism, we have closed off pockets of distinct ethnicities which increases dissension and resentment among all parties. The era of the hyphenated american has brought this country nothing but heartache and strife. I'm certainly not asking potential new American citizens to completely surrender their cultural identity, but please meet us half-way. Take a step towards us and we will take a step towards you.

 

[StateHate]

1.) I'm not anti-immigration, I'm against open borders.
2.) On protectionism, I'm against trading with Communist countries who use human capital (slave labor) to make products.
3.) I agree with removing government from marriage and keeping it a purely cultural practice.


Also, Libertarians get associated with Pro-Abortion/Pro-Choice issues that that's a MAJOR turn off for me.

addressing your second point... *do not forget that our automotive bailouts basically put us in nearly the same category as most of these nations*

will you kill or cage my child if they wish to trade with the child of a "communist" nation???

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

I could care less about racial purity. The blueprint for freedom is encoded in our culture unfortunately as opposed to other regions of the world. So we must do all in our power to retain and protect this culture and/or transplant it to another willing ethnicity, whomever that may be. But time is running out. White caucasians cannot be the only ones carrying the burden of the constitution and free markets on our shoulders.

Secondly, to compare and contrast modern day migrants with those europeans at the turn of the century, is foolhardy IMHO. Many of the immigrants from that time were subject to the guillotine effect, in that they were separated from their homelands by an entire ocean in a time when air travel was non-existent. It should also be noted that the welfare state and it's enticing entrapments did not exist as well. Immigrants were forced to assimilate and become active participants of the country for better or worse. Today, thanks to the plague of multi-culturalism, we have closed off pockets of distinct ethnicities which increases dissension and resentment among all parties. The era of the hyphenated american has brought this country nothing but heartache and strife. I'm certainly not asking potential new American citizens to completely surrender their cultural identity, but please meet us half-way. Take a step towards us and we will take a step towards you.

Actually, according to international polls taken on the subject, East Asians are more firm believers in individual liberty and free market capitalism than Americans are. In fact, Chinese people have the highest ratio of people who believe in libertarian principles.

In 2005, Globescan polled twenty countries. China had the highest proportion of respondents in the world who agreed that the "free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world." Over 74% of Chinese polled agreed with this, as compared to 71% of US citizens. A multinational survey, held by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in 2006 found 87% of Chinese agreeing with "globalization, especially the increasing connections of their country’s economy with others around the world, is mostly good for their country." Only 60% of Americans surveyed agreed with this statement. Lastly, the same CCGA survey found that 65% of Chinese agreed that "international trade is good for the job security of workers." In contrast, only 30% of US citizens surveyed agreed with this statement. Given the proportional size of their population (China has over four times the population of the United States), it may be safe to say that there are more market capitalists in China than in the United States.

Also, Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson, Hayek's Road To Serfdom, and CATO's Toward Liberty are all currently on the best seller list in China.

 

[axiomata]

1.) I'm not anti-immigration, I'm against open borders.

I wasn't speaking specifically of you. Being against open borders is not a clear position anyway. How about saying you are for controlled borders. Then the question becomes, once we control our borders, are you in favor of a liberal immigration policy? If not, why? (Note immigration is different from citizenship.)

2.) On protectionism, I'm against trading with Communist countries who use human capital (slave labor) to make products.

Sweat shops are not good working conditions, but they are not slave labor. If people choose to work in those conditions then that means their alternatives are worse.

3.) I agree with removing government from marriage and keeping it a purely cultural practice.


Also, Libertarians get associated with Pro-Abortion/Pro-Choice issues that that's a MAJOR turn off for me.

Libertarians are associated with those positions because pro-life people with libertarian tendencies have traditionally not fought hard enough within libertarian circles. Ron Paul libertarians have changed that.