Libertarians would do better if they stopped leading with their desire to legalize child porn and recreational drugs. No matter how you cut it, as soon as most people hear that, they're going to run the other way and not listen to anything else you have to say.
I think we also should paint a picture of what life would look like, if we returned to a constitutional government. We spend way too much time talking about what everyone is doing wrong; instead of what should be done.
This is true. I made a thread on another forum about how we should get rid of age of consent laws once, and all I got was ridicule and anger. Not that some people dont try the same tactic when i post about abolishing the Fed, but at least there I can win the debate with facts, and the large majority of people who dont have strong personal feelings about the Fed are able to be swayed. I'm against the drug laws, but honestly, its nowhere near as important as abolishing the Fed or ending our empire. And if focusing mainly on the latter two for marketing purposes is more effective, that's the route I think we should go.
I think a lot of it is about marketing your ideas. Wearing a shirt with cannabis on it that says "LEGALIZE POT" for instance is just asking to have your ideas marginalized. Instead, we should broach the subject with more caution. For instance I was discussing this with my evangelical extended family this summer, and the convo went something like this. (They agreed with me on a lot of the stuff I said about finance, but as soon as the subject turned to drugs, they got defensive)
Them: Marijuana is so BAD. The government has a responsibility to keep our children safe by prosecuting people who use this stuff.
Me: I agree that drug abuse is a nasty thing. That's why I'm so passionate about having our laws reformed so that families, friends, and churches can deal with these issues instead of the federal government.
Them: But how can families friends and churches make someone quit taking drugs?
Me: They can't always make them quit, but they can often provide the support and help they need to reform their lives. Look at alcoholism. Think about many lives God has turned around by providing alcoholics with support groups and prayer partners. I'm not "pro drugs". I agree that drug abuse is a problem. But it seems like our difference is how to deal with that problem. I favor reform, and you favor incarceration. Prohibition and incarceration never worked with alcohol, and its not working with drugs. Just as is true with the economy, more government is never the best solution to dealing with a social problem. And besides, its not Constitutional in this case either.
Them: What do you mean it isn't Constitutional?
Me: Prohibition required the 18th amendment because the federal government knew it didnt have the authority to ban the sale or purchase or alcohol given that such authority was never enumerated in the Constitution, and the 10th amendment gives all non enumerated power to the states and the people. Nothing has changed since then, but the government now just creates statutes outlawing drugs even though they have no Constitutional authority to do so.
I didn't have anyone turning to my side after the argument, but I was able to present my case without being told I was a hopeless heathen. I knew my audience, and I managed to appeal to their religious conviction and to the Constitution while arguing my case. So while they initially assumed my position was "radical", I marketed it in a way that carried their own conservative premises to a logical conclusion that contradicted the one they previously held.
Don't let people try and pin you as being on the fringe or being the radical in the room. Point out that our ideas all point back to the Constitution, and that following the Constitution is as pro liberty and pro American as it gets. Abrogating our responsibility to follow our own laws is what's radicall
