Monthly Archives: August 2017

When trying to attract members from the center of both the left and the right into libertarianism, its extremely tempting to carve out a spot in the middle in order to attract the centrists. Its not all a bad strategy, but its best to be careful not to win a battle and lose the war. Its important to consider that only by convincing people of the merits of libertarianism that they will become true supporters. There is a good case against moderating for the sake of moderation.

In most cases, the desire to moderate for gaining greater influence extends from the belief that most people are in the middle, and therefore, a more moderate message will bring more people into the fold. The two major US political parties have, more often than not, made this mistake in their primary elections for decades, and they have also made the same mistake in attempting new legislation and new ideas. The entire debacle of fixing health care has been stymied by members of the GOP who believe that moderating their stances will gain greater support from constituents. The problem is that stances without principle become utterly unconvincing.

Because a desire to moderate often extends from a desire to make messaging have a broader appeal, it is essentially marketing that is being considered. There are three parts to marketing: product, price, and promotion (the three Ps). The product, in this case, would be the core of libertarianism and all its representative philosophies. It is what defines libertarianism as true political ideals. If the product is modified, then it is no longer libertarianism, but then becomes something different, like centrism.

There is nothing wrong with centrism, in and of itself. It is a real set of political positions and philosophies that can be principled. However, it is a different product. It is not the same thing as libertarianism. Changing the product is doing something different from changing messaging. One does not have to become a centrist to make libertarianism convey a message appealing to centrists. This refers to both the price and the promotion.

There is a term in economics called opportunity cost that expresses the cost of an opportunity not taken. For example, I might pass on an opportunity to buy Bitcoin and instead use my money for a down payment on a new car. If the value of Bitcoin doubles, then I have had an opportunity cost of that gain versus the value I place on owning a new car. In the case of political marketing, I would think of part of the price portion to be similar to opportunity costs. If one accepts a political position, there is an opportunity cost of having rejected an alternative. So, by accepting a candidate for office that subscribes to libertarianism, one is rejecting alternative philosophies, such as the left or the right and in some cases even the center. Maybe someone from the center might say to themselves, If I select a libertarian, I am losing out on some policies that taxes the rich more heavily than the poor, or I am losing out on some socially conservative policies that I believe make the country a safer place. But, I am gaining a position of social acceptance and less extreme government spending.

So, the second part of that equation the centrist might be considering is the promotion part of the marketing. The promotion is the messaging of what benefits are gained for the opportunity costs paid. If I have a customer come into my retail store, in order to have the best chance at making a sale, I present the benefits of the potential product of interest in a way I think will most interest the customer. I would be a fool if I attempted to sell the customer something by presenting him with everything I think he might dislike about the product. I am not hiding anything. If he asks me about the negatives, I happily discuss them with explanations of why I believe they are actually a positive for him, in the end.

While business marketing demands a serious consideration of changing a product when it isnt selling well, that isnt much of an option for political philosophies. We have to focus more on the price and promotion. We do not have to change libertarianism in order to sell it. We simply present the aspects to each group of potential supporters to fit their interests. When people say there is a benefit to changing libertarianism to a more centrists stance, and when people want to moderate libertarian positions to make them more palatable to non-libertarians, they are changing the product. We can present a different and appealing message without changing the underlying principles. Moderating for the sake of moderation is unprincipled, and people see right through nearly every time. In almost every case where a moderate position is sought out for the sake of creating a moderate position, it does not sell. Without the principles to back up the position, it cannot stand.

There is nothing wrong with tailoring a message, and there is nothing wrong with trying to recruit centrists to support libertarianism. There are very open opportunities for doing so, especially in the US, where centrists dont typically have a very good voice. However, positions must always tie back to core principles that do not change. Truth always remains truth, and if you believe you have the truth, there is absolutely no reason to step away from it until someone convinces you otherwise. We dont have to hide things away from people because we fear they might not like it, but we should always present the benefits different groups of people will like the most.

This post was written by Danny Chabino.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

Here is the original post:
Red Dirt Liberty Report: Unprincipled Moderation - Being Libertarian

The split between left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians has reached a fever pitch after Jeff Deist, Director of the Mises Institute, gave an iconic speech during his annual Mises University event about blood and soil libertarianism, an idea encompassing cultural conservatism as a barricade against state power.

It is reasonable to believe that a more libertarian society would be less libertine and more culturally conservative for the simple reason that as the state shrinks in importance and power, the long-suppressed institutions of civil society grow in importance and power, Deist said.

And in a more libertarian society, its harder to impose the costs of ones lifestyle choices on others. If you rely on the family or church or charity to help you, they may well impose some conditions on that help.

While these sentiments may seem benign in nature, they were immediately picked up upon by frenzied analysts at the Cato Institute as inherently racistfilled with dog-whistles that appeal to the alt-right bogeymen that they have imagined is lurking around every corner.

If you keep saying things like heil Trump and blood and soil and putting slightly-modified Nazi flags in the backdrop of your [social media picture], you really, REALLY need to stop complaining about the way people react, Cato analyst Adam Bates wrote on social media in an attempt to equate Deist and his supporters to racists. Quit pretending youre being misunderstood. Youre not that smart, and the rest of us arent that dumb.

Fringe academic Steve Horwitz, also connected to Cato, first implied that Deist was a Nazi before launching a bizarre rant bemoaning Ron Pauls success in growing the libertarian movement.

Comparing Deists words to that of Holocaust deniers or sympathizers, Horwitz said, I await the new [Mises Institute] lecture on how entrepreneurship and personal responsibility help spread liberty, which will surely be titled Work Will Set You Free.' Work Will Set You Free was the slogan posted by the Nazis at Auschwitz and other concentration camps.

Although Horwitz compares blood and soil libertarianism to Nazism, he has no problem standing for blood and soil when it comes to the state of Israel. Horwitz is an avid Zionist, and sees no hypocrisy in his reflexive defense of nationalism and ethnic pride when defending his beloved Jewish state.

Horwitz followed his Nazi hysteria with a condemnation of Ron Paul saying, I have no love or admiration for Ron Paul. I think his contributions to building a sustainable libertarian movement are overrated and his role in attracting folks who found the alt right attractive has been damaging.

This rift within the libertarian movement has been festering for decades, and shows no signs of slowing down. When it is all said and done, libertarians will need to decide whether they are going to choose leaders who want to form common bonds with ordinary people or leaders who want to collect paychecks in Washington D.C. and promote degeneracy. The choice should not be very difficult.

Enjoyed the article? Make a contribution to support our work via Patreon!

More here:
The Libertarian Split Continues As Blood And Soil Speech Triggers Another Racial Witch Hunt - The Liberty Conservative

Millennials, millennials, millennials it seems as if we cant ever stop talking about these kids.

As a millennial, I always find it amusing to watch the old guard try so desperately to get a grasp of our motivations and often times our lunacy.

I imagine elders trying to understand the youth of the day is a concept as old as society itself.

I find that most contentions with millennials are precarious in nature, but there is one that I find genuine: the rise of socialism and other Marxist ideas among my peers is downright terrifying.

Many have tried to articulate why this particular ism is so popular with todays youth. Some say its because of a lack of historical and economic knowledge; some say its because of the bleak and uncertain economic future that has been bestowed upon the generation. These points are valid, but I feel they miss the mark almost completely.

Forget about your rationality for a moment and you may be able to see what I see.

I see a generation living in a truly rational era. We are long past God is dead, we are now living on his all but entirely rotten corpse. So very little is intact of the cornerstone of Western society, that it makes sense to me that millennials are the most susceptible (generation) to the dangers of isms because their options are to either grasp desperately to dead ideologies or slip into a dark nihilistic abyss.

How else do you expect us to learn up from down?

The rational mind is a deceptive one. You can make a logical argument for anything there are people actually fighting for pedophile acceptance!

So, therefore, the first man to come along screaming of revolution can take full advantage of the youthful craving to change the world and most importantly give them their first sense of purpose ever.

A purpose is what were looking for, nothing more.

This criticism can be said for anyone who whole-heartedly believes in any ideology; its just that libertarianism, or say, liberalism or conservatism has never killed 200 million people, so Im less concerned with those particular beliefs.

In a post-God is dead society, we will continue to see the rise in utopian ideals and the massacres that come along with those ideals until we find a way to revive God himself with our rational minds.

I understand the criticisms of Christianity; Ive been quite the critic myself. But, Im beginning to understand the father like representative that God is to Western society.

David Foster Wallace once said, The postmodern founders patricidal work was great, but patricide produces orphans.

When you have an overbearing father, the best way to combat his militance is to become strong and independent, to become your own separate entity.

Just because you find your father tyrannical doesnt mean you should murder him in cold blood, youve got to find a way to bring him down to size.

We live in a time where we could be cultivating the greatest minds in history.

Information is abundant and affordable the majority of historys greatest books are available for free, or at most, for 99 cents.

But instead, the youth and the majority of elders are captivated by ideologies and hold no interest in becoming individual thinkers; because that would be difficult, it would require the type of discipline only a father could provide.

* Christian Farrar is a comedian, podcast host, and often times and accidental provocateur. He has been an activist for libertarianism for the last three years.

Like Loading...

See the original post:
Godlessness Leads to Socialism - Being Libertarian