Those who take the opposing side to peace and liberty share a lot of similar characteristics. Whether it be in economics, where Paul Krugman dares not speak Rothbard's name, or the war-peddling Anne Applebaum, who blocks people on Twitter that disagree with her.
Today, Daniel McAdams, Director of The Ron Paul Institute For Peace & Prosperity, noticed that he too is on the Applebaum blocked list:
How funny to go looking for @anneapplebaum 's latest piece for WaPo and see this when I call up her Twitter page: pic.twitter.com/lEe9EePcdf
— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) February 10, 2015
Our opposition lives and thrives in the echo chamber. They seek to keep all opponents (i.e., those that speak truth) away from their loyal fans. Daniel jumping into any of Applebaum's conversations is obviously seen as a threat to her echo chamber. What if they hear an opposing view? Worse yet, what if they pop over to The Ron Paul Institute? They may be persuaded to peace!! The dread!!
This is the exact opposite path that libertarians, who seek to spread the ideas of liberty, should take. I know that when I spend time spreading the ideas on social media, about 95% of it is spent on opposition turf. I jump into the progressive swamp, the keynesian sewer, and the neocon rat hole.
Those are the people who need to hear the ideas of liberty! They're the ones who need to be persuaded. Of course, most of the time they don't want to hear it, but prefer to snuggle in their echo chamber. I don't care. I'm searching for the remnant when using these unbelievable communication tools that are at our disposal.
Progressives, Keynesians, and Neocons are not going to come to you. They're naturally going to fear your point of view. It might mean change on their part. So if they're not going to come to you, it means you have to go to them. Social media makes that possible. And if libertarians don't go to them, chances are excellent they're going to continue to support mounting police state actions and war.
Sure, I pay attention to my very favorite libertarians on social media, but I'm not looking to talk circles with them. They don't need to be convinced. I don't need to persuade Tom Woods to the cause of liberty.
The Krugmans and Applebaums are different. The echo chamber is their life blood. In our digital communication age, that's the wrong strategy to embrace.
Chris Rossini is author of Set Money Free: What Every American Needs To Know About The Federal Reserve. Follow @chrisrossini on Twitter.
Fully agree with this. A few months ago Chris Cantwell explained why he wasn't joining that social network Tsu that some in the movement were billing as the libertarian alternative to facebook. Among the reasons is that joining a libertarian echo chamber really doesn't help the movement just for the same reasons you stated Rossini. If the movement is going to beat back the statism pushed by liberals, neocons and paleocons it has to do it on platforms that the masses use which include facebook, twitter, youtube, etc.
ReplyDeletehey, but we also need internal education. we also need to speak to ourselves, to each other as libertarians. of course no one needs to convince Tom Woods, or any other libertarian leader of the benefits of liberty, on the case for liberty, but, aren't there still issues on which even bone fide libertarians disagree? For example, Murray Rothbard is pro choice, and Ron Paul is pro life. shouldn't we also, in addition to trying to convert the heathen, talk about issues such as these amongst ourselves?
ReplyDeleteYes. I think it was Woods himself who in a recent talk defended libertarian preaching to the converted. He likened it to religious people attending church every Sunday and reading the bible every night.
DeleteParishioners are already converted of course, but they want to continually expand their understanding of their principles and explore the worldly applications. The more extensively one grasps the principles underpinning one’s own beliefs and studies how to properly apply them in various contexts, the more effectively one can convey these principles to non-believers, convincingly respond to objections, and pick apart common fallacies.
People also go to church to recharge their emotional batteries and find inspiration to persevere (reading just about any Rothbard article does this for me – god bless the man) despite daily pressures to just conform to the ways of the dark side. Libertarians are a disparaged minority struggling to navigate through a depressingly statist world. More than any, they crucially need and deserve continuous community support and reassurance that it is indeed not they, but others who are crazy.
Arguably it should be some balance between time among the converted and time among the heathen.
Yes...of course. I do not disagree with Walter or sonepatchworth.
DeleteMy point in seeking conversations with our intellectual opponents was not meant to mean the simultaneous discarding of debate amongst libertarians. My almost daily writing for Target Liberty should prove that, as our audience is skewed very highly to libertarian readers.
I was speaking mainly on capitalizing on the tools that are now available to us, and using them to bring the ideas of liberty to our opponents. Libertarian debate and enlightenment is not beneath or secondary to that task. Target Liberty and EPJ would not exist if that were the case.