We Need In And Out

August 15, 2009 by Mike Barskey
Filed under: Essay

This was written by Andrew Carroll in response to recent discussion about in-the-system activism versus out-of-the-system activism, specifically in this thread.

People come to the “ideas of liberty” through different routes. These people think differently, grew up in different cultures, and have different values. Different things attract their attention, different things make them think, and different things change their minds.

Therefore, if we really want to spread our message to as many people as possible, it is important we market ourselves in as many ways as possible. Aside from certain actions which are bound to be utterly counter-productive (such as direct violence against the State, which leads to sympathy for the State, and is not worth even the small minority of people that may find it agreeable), all activism – political or otherwise – markets our ideas to different audiences.

Running for office, refusing to shut off your camera, gardening, holding marijuana, protesting in IRS offices, placing money in empty parking meters: all of these things market libertarian ideas to different people who believe different things. Each of these activities catch the attention of different individuals and expose them to the philosophy of freedom.

Now, if it is true that different people our “turned on” by different activities, then it is certainly true that those same people are “turned off” by others. However, let us measure the gains and losses of even the most controversial of activism and, based on that net gain or loss, decide what truly is “productive.”

“Productivity” we will define as accomplishing one of the following things:

Introducing our ideas to new people in a way that garners agreement or sympathy.
Changing the minds of people to support our ideas.
Getting people to move to New Hampshire to aid in the fight for freedom.

Let us define “counter-productivity” as the opposite:

Introducing our ideas to new people in a way that garners disdain or disagreement.
Changing the minds of people to fight against our ideas.
Getting people to move away from New Hampshire or to decide not to make the move.

Now, let us take, as an example, parking meter activism, which involves filling empty parking meters with change so as to help our fellow individuals avoid tickets. Let us take Individual A who watches a video about this; and let us decide how this person will react.

If the individual is watching a video then it can be assumed he/she already agrees with our ideas (it is more likely that someone who agrees with us watches our videos then someone who disagrees). Therefore, this person has just been introduced to a new type of activism. It is assumed more than likely that he/she agrees with the message behind the activism – but what if he/she disagrees with the means of expressing it?

Well then, let us decide what is more likely to happen next. Will this person, perhaps living in an outside state and, let’s say, planning to move to New Hampshire soon – is this person more likely to cancel his moving plans due to this one particular piece of activism? No. Of course not. It is VERY rare that someone give up completely on the Free State Project, or the cause of liberty, after encountering one, or even several, activism events that they disagree with.

However, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY that this one event could garner even more of their support, and gain further sympathy for the cause. Even still, it is more likely that this one event will CONVINCE THEM to make the move to NH!

Our activism has a selection bias within libertarian circles, and therefore is more likely to convince people to love our ideas even more – or to finally decide to make the move – then it is to drive them wholly away. Especially when you take into account the fact that there are plenty of other different kinds of activism occurring in NH at the same time! Even if a fellow libertarian discovers one protest he/she disagrees with, he/she is still likely to find so much to love about other activism in NH that he/she will still make the move.

In other words, activism – of every stripe – brings in more people then it turns away.

What about non-libertarians, you ask? Well, again, our activism has a selection bias to have a great effect on those who agree with the idea behind it and less of an effect on those who disagree. So long as we continue to market our ideas differently, we will appeal to different individuals. This allows every individual to find their own way to the fight for freedom. It also allows, in time, for individuals to not see us all as “Free Staters”, but to begin to recognize “us” as a very diverse group of individuals with different values and, even, different goals.

Activist A can always explain to Potential Libertarian X that Activist B is a “nutjob” or “out of the mainstream” or “not representative of average libertarians” or “someone who does things [Activist A] personally does not agree with.” Therefore, Potential Libertarian X begins to discriminate between different libertarians, and see the subtle shades of gray between us. Potential Libertarian X will then slowly gravitate towards the activism he/she agrees with, and AWAY from the activism he/she disagrees with – even finding more agreement with the agreeable activism after comparing it to the disagreeable activism.

At the end of the day, all these different types of activism – all these individuals expressing their ideas in different ways – will market our ideas to different people; and, as Potential Libertarian X sifts his/her way through the various activism and the various individuals behind the activism, he/she will come to more and more of an agreement with the libertarians he/she finds to be doing agreeable activism.

Trust me, the phrase that begins with, “You know, some of those Free Staters aren’t half bad…” is a wonderful phrase. But it is one that will never be heard if we continue to push for homogenization within the movement.

In conclusion, I say:

Let the political people do their political activism! And let it bring to the ideas of freedom all those who find that type of activism agreeable. And let the out-of-the-system people do their out-of-the-system activism! And let it bring to the ideas of freedom all those who find that type of activism agreeable.

At the end of the day, both forms of activism – and MOST subtle shades in between – will bring MORE people to the philosophy of freedom then it will ever turn away; because when Potential Libertarian X turns away from the “parking meter activism”, he/she suddenly finds himself seeing the libertarian running for office to be THAT MUCH MORE agreeable. And when Potential Libertarian Y turns away from the “dirty political activism”, he/she suddenly finds himself seeing the libertarian putting quarters in a parking meter to be THAT MUCH more agreeable.

Either way, two more minds have been reached! With any luck I will be able to successfully do in-the-system AND out-of-the-system activism, so that I can reach as many minds as possible in ways that excite and inspire them.

Lpviper

It was a typo, but then when I went back to fix it I was like, 'Naaaaa…'

LOL

Great comment, good read, thanks elkfart
elkfart

you're almost *too* welcome…LPVIPER = Naaaaa-T-Baaaaad, he typed sheepishly….SOMALOL (almost like ROFL, but you're still sitting more-or-less upright….somalol = sitting on my ass, laughing out loud
Anton Lee

if even a fraction of a cent of mine was stolen and used on some project, I'm going to go ahead and consider myself a part owner of that project. Thus I been stolen from enough to pay for a constitutionally limited government for the duration of my life. I'll choose to use whatever government services I damn well please since I paid for them already. I simply choose not to use many because I feel it gives creedence to the system of stealing to fund new forced ownership opportunities.
Brodie

<blockquote cite=""> Talk of peace and harmony from people who support or validate the state in one way or another rings a little false.

The only way to validate the state is to sign a contract. As far as I know, Ian has never signed a contract agreeing to obey the state. Also, he has never supported them voluntarily either. Support under duress is not voluntary.
theodorelogan

George,

You keep claiming that use of state services somehow "validates" the state. Could you clarify what you mean by "validate" please?
http://georgedonnelly.com George Donnelly

validate: "demonstrate or support the truth or value of"
ELKFART

"validate: “demonstrate or support the truth or value of”"….Thank you, George Donnelly, for demonstrating the truth of the *STATE*, and supporting the value of the *STATE*, every time you speak out against it. If the "state" truly is as devoid of legitamacy as you claim, George, just what is it that you protest against, and why?…&please try to answer this Q? head-on. You won't weasel your way past ELKFART, friend!….
The Bob

Our homeboy Charley Hardman said at August 16, 2009 @ 5:24 am:

<blockquote cite="">…if such a blanket position is sound, it withstands extreme tests such as jews waiting to be gassed in the 40s.

Exacly how? I thought that resulted with the creation of a Jewish homeland.

Charley, go back to the drawing board and figure out a better argument against peaceful resistance.
The Bob

My homeboy Charley said at August 16, 2009 @ 5:24 am:

<blockquote cite="">and of course you continue with the usual indefensible FK pooh-poohing of violence in reaction to the state, otherwise correctly known as self defense. if such a blanket position is sound, it withstands extreme tests such as jews waiting to be gassed in the 40s

Exactly how did it fail? Didn't that result with the creation of the Jewish homeland?

You're a smart guy Charley. Why don't you grind out a better argument against peaceful resistance?
ELKFART

Bob, please include the post # – (81872, in this case…) to help the rest of us find what you're referring to…I went back & re-read Hardly-a-man's post – *CAREFULLY* – & I see some good points that I want to blog on later….If a Swanzey Cop can murder a guy and skate, why can't I use lethal force in self-defense???…more later….*LIVE FREE or DYE!….
Andrew Carroll

@Charley Hardman:

I do not feel that at this time, with the potential libertarians that we are marketing our ideas to, that direct violence against the State (such as blowing up city hall or some nonsense like that) is a very productive action.

I feel that it only lends sympathy to the State and makes the State look like a victim rather than an assailant.

If we want people to recognize the State as the aggressor, then it is important that we reveal it as such through acts of peaceful civil disobedience.

Also, please no ad hominem attacks. I never said anything about Ghandi, and I do not think peaceful civil disobedience is the only justified way of achieving our goals. All I said was, at this time, peaceful civil disobedience, rather than direct violence against the State, is a better way of marketing our ideas. That's the only claim I made.

I never said that we should all sit down with our legs crossed and light ourselves on fire 'till the State disappears, lol.

And I have noted in the past that, if some government workers ever come to my house and try making me report to "mandatory civilian service" camp, that I will NOT let that happen; and will use violence to prevent that if I need to.

I never said violence couldn't be used for good (obviously, self-defense is a great thing if someone is attacking you). I just said, at this time, it's BAD, BAD marketing under MOST circumstances. That's all.

Thanks for your comment.
Noor

I don't believe you should try and end abortion by becoming an abortion doctor in order to explain to people the evils of abortion.