Volume 13, Number 4 | March 1, 2008
The Liberator Online
Contents
PRESIDENT'S CORNER
GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
PERSUASION POWER POINT
#244
ASK DR. RUWART
PRODUCT REVIEW
Dear friends, I was so pleased to get this email from a Liberator Online reader a few days ago:
Thank YOU! One of the Advocates' key missions is to help
libertarians become successful,
That's why every issue of the Liberator Online features communication methods and techniques by such experts as Michael Cloud and Mary Ruwart. That's why successful communication is a major focus of our publications, including our Web site, our books and our audios and videos. And our seminars. And our other products and programs, including, of course, the most popular and famous libertarian outreach tool in the world, the World's Smallest Political Quiz. We have so many great resources, publications and
tools to help with effective libertarian But keep reading the Liberator Online, and visit out our Web site, and you'll be sure to find something of value to you, whether you're new to communicating the ideas of liberty or a seasoned spokesperson for our ideas. We have helped many thousands of libertarians become ever more persuasive presenters of the ideas of liberty -- and they in turn have reached untold numbers of people around the world. And we've got some GREAT new communication resources coming in the months ahead! You'll hear about it first in the Liberator Online, so stay tuned. Every minute of every day, the Advocates is building an ever larger, ever more effective libertarian movement -- a movement that is creating a more abundant, more peaceful, and more free world. Thank you for being part of it! * * * Welcome to 458 new Liberator Online subscribers this issue. Thanks for joining our subscription "family" of over 70,000 liberty-loving readers in more than 100 countries! To learn more about the Advocates and our work for
liberty: To learn more about libertarianism: PS: We have a very special, limited-time offer for you: Save 40% on "The Best of Harry Browne!" Take advantage of this, and you'll get... * Harry Browne's last published book, LIBERTY A-Z. (A
$13.95 value.) All of this is yours for only $20 (plus shipping and handling). This is a $33.95 value -- so you save $13.95. That's more than a 40% savings on two great speeches and an extraordinary book by one of America's greatest libertarian communicators. Act today! This offer is good through March 12, 2008. To order, or learn more, see "Product Review" at the
end of this issue. Or
visit: Your purchase supports the great work of the Advocates. Thank you!
What's Happening With The Advocates * Heartland Libertarian Conference: Sharon Harris will be the dinner speaker, and joins a great list of speakers at this Kansas City, Missouri event, including former U.S. Congressman Bob Barr; Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory; and 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. Also featured: a debate between 2008 Libertarian Presidential candidates. Co-sponsored by the Kansas Libertarian Party, the Missouri Libertarian Party, and the Cass County Libertarian Party. April 4-5, 2008. http://www.lpmo.org/heartland2008/ * Advocates on the Air: Advocates President Sharon
Harris recently appeared on "Straight Talk Online," the outstanding
liberty-oriented radio show hosted by Jerry Hughes on the Accent Radio
Network. Great show, Jerry! * Advocates in Print: Sharon Harris was quoted by the
Toledo (Ohio) Blade in a lengthy profile of renowned libertarian radio
talk show host (and longtime Advocates friend) Brian Wilson. Wilson is
now program director and host of the 3 to 6 p.m. weekday talk show on
station WSPD 1370 AM, Toledo. Check it out, Toledans! * QUIZ ON FACEBOOK: The Advocates has brought the World's Smallest Political Quiz to Facebook, the world's fastest-growing social networking site! Over 1,000 people per day are already using it! FACEBOOK USERS: See how you can use our new Quiz
Facebook app to spread the ideas of liberty throughout the Facebook
community: NOT FAMILIAR WITH FACEBOOK? Learn more about it, why
you might want to join and how easy it is, and how you can begin to
network for liberty: ******
by James W. Harris According to the Washington Post: "D.C. police are now watching live images from dozens of surveillance cameras posted in high-crime parts of the city, hoping to respond faster to shootings, robberies and other offenses and catch suspects before they get away. "Since August 2006, the city has installed 73 cameras across the city, mostly on utility poles, at a cost of about $4 million. But until recently, officers were using them mainly as an investigative tool -- checking the recordings after crimes were committed in hopes of turning up leads and evidence." Now, however, under a new policy, police watch live feeds from a dozen or so cameras. And they want to greatly expand that. Live police surveillance of citizens via camera is already standard policy in U.S. cities including Baltimore, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia. U.S. cities are following the model of London, where 500,000 surveillance cameras allow government agents of Big Brother to peer at citizens around the clock. The average Londoner is caught on camera several hundred times a day. Many U.S. politicians and enforcers are eager to follow London's example. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg toured London last year and virtually salivated at the widespread surveillance there. He dismissed critics of government surveillance as "ridiculous," and, observing that London has a camera in every bus and subway car, declared, "We are way behind and we really do have to catch up." Similarly, D.C Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier told the Washington Post: "I'd love to have the whole city wired like London." According to the Washington Post: "The District's cameras have quite a range ... Officers can rotate angles for different views. They can zoom in on faces of potential suspects and pick up license plate numbers from cars several blocks away." Around-the-clock government surveillance of streets and public spaces fits in nicely with other developing government trends, like the REAL ID national ID scheme (discussed last issue), the continuing erosion of Fourth Amendment protections, plans for the creation of massive government databases on U.S. citizens, and reports of new levels of federal electronic eavesdropping. Does anybody see a trend here? (Sources: Washington Post, February 11, 2008 * * * The High Cost of the War on Marijuana According to a 2006 Bureau of Justice Statistics
report, 12.7 percent of state inmates and 12.4 percent of federal
inmates incarcerated for drug violations are there for marijuana
offenses. * * * Did the Founding Fathers Want Federal Gun Control? The following is excerpted from an op-ed entitled "A Sure-Fire Argument on the Second Amendment," by Rick Lynch, published by the Future of Freedom Foundation, February 18, 2007: With the Supreme Court's decision to examine the constitutionality of D.C.'s gun ban, the nation once again turns to an intense examination of the wording of the Second Amendment. One way to understand an amendment whose words have confused generations is to study its somewhat confusing text. But another way is to examine at whose request the amendment was written. ... The Bill of Rights was written by Congressman James
Madison to fulfill a promise made to the Anti-Federalists after pressure
from that group had cost him a Senate seat -- pressure brought to bear
because of his opposition to amending the Constitution with a bill of
rights. The Bill of Rights, then, as any history book will confirm, came
into being
That is the all-important context in which the Bill of Rights was created. The Anti-Federalists, men filled to varying degrees with fear, mistrust, and loathing of the new federal government, insisted on a bill of rights as additional shackles imposed on that new government. Knowing that alone, knowing that the famous Bill came into existence only to please those most apprehensive of the new government, definitively ends any confusion or debate surrounding the meaning of the Second Amendment. There is simply no way on Earth the Anti-Federalists would have surrendered to the new and mistrusted government the right to own any gun they wanted at any time they wanted in any number they wanted. To believe differently, to believe that the Second Amendment actually gives the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, one must believe the absolutely unbelievable. One must believe that the Anti-Federalists, fearing and loathing federal power, compelled Madison to compose this laundry list of rights, this list of things over which the government was to have no authority and, very near the very top of the list, these people in fear of the federal government desired a clause that reads, "Despite the fact that Article I, Section 8 does not empower you federal government people to infringe our firearms rights, we hereby correct that mistake and surrender to you a right which we previously held, but wish now to give away." ... Picture in your mind for a moment the rough-and-tumble individualist who gave birth to this nation, a man who had tamed a wilderness, fought Indian wars on and off for 180 years, and successfully faced down the world's mightiest empire. Hold a picture of that man in your head for a moment and then try to imagine his being told that this new federal government would have the power to regulate his ownership of firearms in any manner it saw fit, including imprisoning him for possession of any firearm for any reason at any time. No honest or serious person could ever claim to believe that any part of the American electorate in the 1700s desired federal gun control, let alone the Anti-Federalists who forced the creation of the Bill of Rights. (Source: Future of Freedom Foundation * * *
* SMOKING BANS ARE DANGEROUS; OR, LAWS HAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: "Smoking bans can be hazardous to some
people's health. A rigorous statistical examination has found that
smoking bans increase drunken-driving fatalities. One might expect that
a ban on smoking in bars would deter some people from showing up,
thereby reducing the number of people driving home drunk. But
jurisdictions with smoking bans often border jurisdictions without bans,
and some bars may skirt the ban, so that smokers can bypass the ban with
extra driving. There is also a large overlap between the smoker and
alcoholic populations, which would exacerbate the danger from extra
driving. The authors estimate that smoking bans increase fatal
drunken-driving accidents by about 13 percent, or about 2.5 such
accidents per year for a typical county." * YOUR WAR COSTS, SO FAR: The Congressional
Budget Office has released costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from
2001 to present. Jim Harper of the Cato Institute analyzed the figures.
The results? "A little over $8,600 per U.S. family, or $2,700 per
person." And, of course, rising. * THE HIGH COST OF FREE HEALTH CARE: "If you
think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs
when it's free." -- P.J. O'Rourke, 1993. * * * * * * * *
Please Don't Try to Feed the Liberty Anorexics by Michael Cloud In 2000, I traveled with Harry Browne during his Libertarian Party presidential campaign. One time, I saw something that hooked my curiosity. After one of Harry Browne's speeches, an audience member criticized Harry for his position on the War on Drugs. Harry Browne made a brief, strong, and impassioned case for repealing all drug laws and ending the Drug War. The challenger was unfazed. He responded, "I don't care what you say. You can't make me change my mind. I hate drugs. I want to keep them illegal. I want to punish people who sell them, buy them, and use them." What's going on here? I thought. I considered several possibilities, but nothing really clicked. So I filed it away. I recently watched a TV broadcast of a free market economist giving a speech and then answering questions from members of the audience. One of the questioners vigorously argued for raising minimum wages. The free market economist quickly offered statistics, evidence, and argument in favor of repealing minimum wage laws. He ended his remarks by saying, "Minimum wage laws increase minority unemployment. They make things worse for the very people you're trying to help." "I don't care what your facts and figures and research show," said the questioner. "Anyone can prove anything. Raising the minimum wage sends a message. I want higher minimum wages." I flashed on my earlier experience with Harry Browne -- and realized what was going on. Liberty anorexia. Anorexia is a condition where a person has little or no appetite -- and an aversion to food. If some human beings can have a condition that causes them to not want food, to be revulsed and repelled by food, and to avoid eating -- then mightn't it be possible that there are people who do not want freedom, who are revulsed and repelled by it, and who avoid and reject freedom? Liberty anorexics. What if there are people who do not want liberty? What if they don't want freedom -- even if it makes almost everyone much better off? What if -- no matter what benefits liberty creates -- they still do not want it, are repelled by it, and avoid it? If you're like me, your first reaction to the idea of liberty anorexia is to reject it. To think it impossible. But is it any more impossible than food anorexia? Maybe your second reaction will be to think: "They ought to want liberty." Or: "They ought to be receptive and responsive to evidence and argument and reason." Or: "They ought to be teachable or persuadable about freedom." Please remember: "Ought to be" ain't "is." Things are what they are. Water's wet. Wind blows. Gravity doesn't play favorites. Maybe you've been in a few conversations with liberty anorexics. Maybe you did *not* fail to convince them. Maybe they were impervious to persuasion. Depending on how tightly you define food anorexia, it afflicts somewhere between 1 in 30 1 and 1 in 1,000 people. I suspect that liberty anorexia afflicts and affects a larger percentage of the population. Often, we can identify liberty anorexics by using "The Magic 'If'" technique that I teach in my book Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion. A few examples. "If you looked at the evidence on the Drug War, and concluded that it didn't work and made things worse, would that change your mind on ending drug prohibition?" "What if you carefully examined the facts and figures on the War on Drugs, and you personally saw that it was a dismal failure -- if that happened, would you consider ending it?" Or: "If you looked over the strongest arguments and evidence for minimum wage laws, and you saw -- with your own eyes -- that it destroyed jobs for minorities, and increased minority unemployment, would that change you mind about minimum wage laws?" "You tell me that all your friends support minimum wage laws. I accept that. But if they were mistaken, if they were in error, if minimum wage laws made things worse for low income Americans, would you want to know? If there were evidence available, would you be willing to read it with an open mind?" If they answer "Yes," then get them the information
they need. If they answer "Maybe," But if they answer "No," they may well be liberty anorexics. If they answer "No," move on to another topic or another person. Please don't try to feed the liberty anorexics. * * * * * * * * In 2000, Michael was honored with the Thomas Paine Award as the Most
Persuasive Libertarian Communicator in America.
HARD EVIDENCE FOR LIBERTY
Dr. Mary Ruwart is a leading expert in libertarian communication. In this column she offers short answers to real questions about libertarianism. To submit questions to Dr. Ruwart, see end of column. * * * MY SHORT ANSWER: Libertarians believe that everyone owns their own body and therefore people should be free to gift, sell, or keep their organs as they choose. When a person dies, his or her heirs would be able to do the same, unless the deceased left instructions to the contrary. Many people initially find the idea of the sale of organs abhorrent. But thousands of people die each year awaiting transplant. The U.S. organ donor waiting list is approaching a record 100,000. An average of seven Americans die every day waiting for organs. The total suffering is unimaginable. Yet studies suggest that a payment of just several hundred dollars would increase the supply of cadaver organs enough to give virtually everyone a good match. We pay the doctors who perform the transplant very well, yet the most critical part is supplied by someone who -- by federal law -- receives nothing in return. Why shouldn't the person who gives the gift of life be allowed to receive some compensation? (LEARN MORE: "The Right to Sell Organs" by Sigrid
Fry-Revere: * * * QUESTION: Libertarians believe that all transactions should be voluntary. So doesn't the act of giving birth to a child violate this basic libertarian view? In other words, since libertarians strongly oppose forcing an action onto another, shouldn't they oppose giving "nonconsensual" births -- that is, all births? MY SHORT ANSWER: Libertarians are opposed to the initiation, or threat of initiation, of physical force (e.g., assault, theft, fraud). Creating life and giving birth doesn't fall into these categories, so it wouldn't be considered a violation of libertarian principles. Obviously, we have no way of determining if a person wants to be born. If an adult decides that he or she doesn't want to continue to live, however, libertarians won't initiate force to make such people go on living, although they might try hard to help those who are suicidal improve their lives rather than end them. Suicide wouldn't be against the law in a libertarian society as it often is today. * * * * * * * * Due to volume, Dr. Ruwart can't personally acknowledge all emails. But we'll run the best questions and answers in upcoming issues. Dr. Ruwart's previous Liberator Online answers are archived in searchable form at: http://www.TheAdvocates.org/ruwart/categories_list.php Dr. Ruwart's outstanding books "Healing Our World" and "Short Answers
to the Tough Questions" are available from the Advocates:
http://www.TheAdvocates.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv
Be a Name-Dropper for Liberty by Sharon Harris, Advocates President Soft drink commercials use them. So do lobbying groups. And you should, too. I'm referring to celebrity endorsements. Celebrity endorsements are extremely powerful, especially when targeted to an appreciative and appropriate audience. That's why businesses use celebrities to sell their products -- and why successful political movements use celebrities to advance their agendas. You can do this for libertarian ideas. The Advocates has made it easy! We have a "Libertarian Celebrities and VIPs" Web site. There you'll find hundreds of prominent people --
including some
You can easily and effectively put this to use. Instead of just saying "I'm a libertarian," you can say to your movie-fan friend: "I agree with Clint Eastwood: people should be free to live their lives in any peaceful way they wish." To your conservative or economics-minded friend: "Like Milton Friedman, I believe the War on Drugs is a failure on both moral and economic grounds." Our list is extensive. We have authors, movie and TV stars, rock stars, syndicated columnists, and more. Share them with your friends. Sprinkle their names in your conversations. Use their quotes in letters to the editor and speeches. Rightly or not, people care about what famous people say and do and think. Its not that people will become libertarian simply because Clint Eastwood is one. But quoting a celebrity gets your foot in the door. People know that celebrities rely on their good names to maintain their position as celebrities. So prominent public figures wont endorse a product (or an idea) unless they truly believe that product or idea is legitimate and wont discredit the spokesman. In this way, a celebrity endorse lends credibility and believability. Thus, a person hearing about libertarianism for the first time will be far less suspicious of the label if its already been tried out by someone who is putting their reputation on the line. There's a reason why soft-drink and sneaker companies have celebrity spokespersons as do endless numbers of political groups. It works. So why not put that proven strategy to work advancing freedom? Go ahead -- be a name-dropper for liberty! See more One-Minute Liberty Tips!
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home
| Library |
Publications |
Programs | Celebrities
| Quiz
| Store
| Search |
About us |
Donate |
Contact Us |
|
Contents copyrighted © The Advocates for Self-Government,, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization. Donations tax-deductible in U.S. All rights reserved. |
to satisfy the single most suspicious, vociferous, and
relentless foes of the new federal government. 
ask them what else they need to know
to turn their maybe into a "Yes." 
of the most famous celebrities in the world -- who are
proud libertarians. You'll also find quotes in which they declare their
enthusiasm for libertarianism. 
