Levels of the Libertarian Battle

 On Monday, Tom Woods wrote this in his daily email:

I [keep] saying: we need a quiz, where people look at charts of deaths or hospitalizations and without knowing which state is which, choose which line they think corresponds with which state...

And every time, they'll be wrong.

The point of the quiz is: none of these interventions seem to have done a bit of good, since it's impossible to tell which state did what by looking at the charts -- and if these disruptions of our lives were justified, we'd darn well better be able to see it on the charts...

Now let me address a recent critic, who wonders: "Why does Woods focus so much on the charts? Even if the charts showed the opposite, the principle is the same! Freedom! He should say that!"

Well, here's how I think: I favor using the argument that is most likely to work.

I am convinced that I am vastly more likely to get people to think by showing them that the sacrifices they have been asked to make haven't made a whit of difference, and that the people recommending them are therefore not worth listening to, than I am in any other way.

The situation is precisely analogous to the arguments against the minimum wage. Sure, I could simply say that employers have the right to pay whatever wage people agree to and just leave it at that.

And I will make zero progress with anyone.

But if I say that the minimum wage was introduced to benefit certain preferred groups at the expense of despised groups, that it makes it difficult for people with no experience to get a start, that state regulation is not actually how wages rise, and that very few people earn the minimum wage anyway (especially over time), I am much more likely to be heard.

Woods is correct, the critic is missing a very important point. There are many levels to the libertarian battle.

On one end, there is the high-philosophical level on the other end there is the street-level battle.

To be sure, I advocate the private property society, but that doesn't mean I am going to launch every battle against me on such high philosophical grounds. 

If a mugger comes up to me and wants to take my wallet, I am not going to give him a lecture on Chapter 8 of Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person. 

If it looks like I can take him, I am going to smack him in the head.

It goes the same with those who want to force government lockdowns on me. These are not what you would call people who are deep thinkers.

As a first step, I am just going to want to get them off my back.

In other words, I am going to talk to them like a child.

When I tell them that masks might be dangerous or if I use some Woods' charts to make a point, I am really insulting them because I really don't think they have the intellectual capability at that point to understand the greater high-level liberty argument (I post these arguments here at Target Liberty to provide ammo for readers against the shallow).

I save the high-level debates for people who I believe have the ability to debate on a high level.

But there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a shallower argument against a shallow thinker. To think otherwise, that you always have to take it to the deep philosophical levels (with idiots!), is to really be close to what Marxists-Leninists called a sectarian.

Leon Trotsky explained:

The sectarian looks upon life as a great school with himself as a teacher there...Though he may swear by Marxism in every sentence the sectarian is the direct negation of dialectical materialism, which takes experience as its point of departure and always returns to it...The sectarian lives in a sphere of ready-made formulae...Discord with reality engenders in the sectarian the need to constantly render his formula more precise. This goes under the name of discussion. To a Marxist. discussion is an important but functional instrument of the class struggle. To the sectarian discussion is a goal in itself. However, the more he discusses, the more the actual tasks escape him. He is like a man who satisfies his thirst with salt water; the more he drinks, the thirstier he becomes.

Deep discussion has its place but generally not with the shallow who want to use government to point a gun at your head and prevent you from acting freely. For the shallow, a brain bomb may be the best approach.

Charts, with their added bonus of imagery (always good with the shallow), are a great approach.

-RW