Volume 12, Number 10 | May 17, 2007
In This Issue:
The Liberator Online
Contents
PRESIDENT'S CORNER
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE ADVOCATES
GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
PERSUASION POWER POINT
#227
ASK DR. RUWART
PRODUCT REVIEW
Dear friends, The Advocates for Self-Government doesn't endorse political campaigns or candidates. Our focus, as a non-profit educational organization, is to take libertarian ideas to the public, and to help libertarians become effective and persuasive communicators of those ideas. From that perspective alone, U.S. Representative Ron Paul's run for president is incredibly exciting -- and offers great opportunities. Here is a principled, respected, hardcore libertarian -- running a highly-publicized campaign for president of the United States. Congressman Paul's campaign is pushing the word and the concept
"libertarian" into the consciousness
Paul's campaign is letting the media and the public know there is more to American politics than just right and left, liberal and conservative. By his very presence, Paul is letting them know that libertarians are a large and fast-growing segment of the American public -- a segment that can no longer be ignored. Paul is also showing how libertarians can build support for bold libertarian policies among the left and the right. Small-government conservatives admire his unquestioned record as the greatest fiscal conservative in Congress. Anti-war and pro-civil liberties liberals and leftists admire his defense of the Bill of Rights, personal freedom and a foreign policy of peaceful non-intervention. This makes your work -- as a person interested in spreading the ideas of liberty -- more vital than ever. We can expect more people from the left, right and center asking what libertarianism is, and why they should support it. We must be able to answer those questions in persuasive, appealing terms. We have the opportunity to take the libertarian message to millions of people who have never heard it, thanks to Congressman Paul. The Advocates is here to help you with this. Our tools -- such as the World's Smallest Political Quiz, Libertarianism.com, Libertarian Celebrities and VIPs, Operation Politically Homeless, and others -- can help libertarians take maximum advantage of this opportunity. The communication techniques we teach in this publication, at our Web site, and in our books and audios, can make the difference between successful and unsatisfying libertarian conversations. Congressman Paul has opened a great window of opportunity for libertarian education and outreach. Let's go for it! * * * Welcome to 168 new Liberator Online subscribers this issue. Thanks for joining our subscription "family" of over 69,000 liberty-loving readers in more than 100 countries! To learn more about the Advocates and our work for liberty:
To learn more about libertarianism:
-- Sharon Harris, President | Email: sharon@TheAdvocates.org PS: GREAT GIFTS FOR YOU as our "Thank you!" if you can make a donation to the Advocates now. A few days ago, I sent out a request for donations. My heartfelt thanks to those who responded. We still need additional donations. This is a difficult time of year for many nonprofits - including the Advocates. So your gift, always greatly appreciated, is ESPECIALLY needed right now. The Advocates does vital work for liberty! You can read about it -- and learn about our thank-you gifts for you -- here: http://www.theadvocates.org/spring-report-2007.html Or you can go directly here to make your secure donation:
Or check out Product Review at the end of this issue for more information. Your support is truly needed and very much appreciated. It makes the great work of the Advocates possible. Thank you!
What's Happening With The Advocates * New Advocates Board of Directors members: A big welcome to these three new members of the Advocates Board of Directors: Cathy Cuthbert, libertarian writer, member of the Board of Directors of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, and home schooling mom; Craig Franklin, Senior Vice President of Advanced Products at Green Hills Software, Inc., longtime libertarian activist, and libertarian singer-songwriter; and Chris Rufer, founder and CEO of Morning Star, the world's leading tomato processor, which harvests, processes, cans, and processes fully one fourth of California's tomatoes, for customers around the globe. Welcome aboard! * Sunny spring days are here - perfect weather for Operation
Politically Homeless (OPH) libertarian outreach! Learn how this
acclaimed "event in a kit" can help you discover dozens or even hundreds
of libertarian-leaning folks in your community. Details here:
by James W. Harris In a time of soaring gas prices, the Wisconsin state government has forced a gas station owner to... raise his prices. Raj Bhandari wanted to help his community -- and drum up some business -- by offering 2 cents off for senior citizens and 3 cents off for supporters of a youth hockey league. But Wisconsin regulators told the Center City BP station owner he was in violation of the state's "Unfair Sales Act" -- a law that requires gasoline be sold for 9.18 percent more than the wholesale price. Yes, that's right -- it's "unfair" and illegal to sell gas cheaply. And if he didn't cease and desist, the state said, he could be sued, and penalized for every discounted gallon he sold. As Investor's Business Daily wryly noted, "We can only imagine how severe the punishment would be if he had given the gas away." The "Unfair Sales Act" supposedly prevents large gas companies from selling gas cheaply to put smaller stations out of business, and then taking advantage of that situation to raise prices and exploit consumers. But that's bogus economics. The results of strangling competition this way are high gas prices and higher government-protected profits for lazy gasoline sellers. Patrick McIlheran, an editorial columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, notes: "The state averages about 430 minimum-markup complaints a year, generally from other retailers ticked off that someone else is treating customers illegally well." Yes, it's stupid and tyrannical. But don't single out Wisconsin. Every state government is riddled with anti-market, anti-competition laws that benefit some favored businesses by keeping prices high, restricting entry, and insuring profits -- all at consumer expense. A sad thing indeed in the supposed "land of the free." (Sources: Investor's Business Daily: * * * Two More Famous Libertarians The number of prominent people who are declaring themselves libertarians continues to rise. Here are two examples we've recently encountered. * Jimmy Wales is world-famous as the creator of Wikipedia -- the
online, user-generated encyclopedia. Wales is a follower of Objectivism,
the limited government / individual rights philosophy of Ayn Rand. Wales
calls himself an
Wales told CSPAN's Brian Lamb in September 2005 that his guiding principles were "freedom, liberty, basically individual rights, that idea of dealing with other people in a matter that is not initiating force against them." That's a pretty solid definition of libertarianism, and when Lamb asked Wales to label his political views, Wales told Lamb that, though he disliked political labels, "libertarian" would fit. Wales is also a great admirer of the pathbreaking libertarian economist Friedrich von Hayek. He says Hayek's writings on "spontaneous order" were a major part of the inspiration for Wikipedia. * Donald L. Luskin is familiar to millions of TV viewers as a regular
guest on Kudlow & Company, Bloomberg TV, CNN, and Fox News. He's a
And he's Chief Investment Officer of Trend Macrolytics, an economics consulting and research firm serving institutional investors. Luskin regularly refers to himself as a libertarian, particularly in the no-holds-barred commentary at his personal blog, The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid (URL below). Prior to founding Trend Macro, Luskin was CEO of MetaMarkets.com and creator of OpenFund, the world's first online interactive mutual fund. He was Vice Chairman of Barclays Global Investors (formerly Wells Fargo Nikko Investment Advisors), one of the world's largest investment management organizations. He's the author of two books on investing. In a short review of the late libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick's masterpiece Anarchy, State and Utopia, Luskin notes: "Nozick built the foundation for the resurgence of libertarianism as an intellectual force with this masterful book. Solidly in the tradition of formal philosophy, it explains the moral basis of a minimal state, the immorality of anything more than the minimal, and why the minimal is the closest we'll ever get to utopia." (Sources: Jimmy Wales * * * Ron Paul: Hate Crime Laws Threaten Liberty "Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called "hate crimes." The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim's race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment's limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as "hateful." "There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate? "HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts -- as opposed to willful criminal acts -- is inconsistent with a free society. "HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592's supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher's parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves. "Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government. "Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society." -- libertarian U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) * * * * * * * * QUICK SHOTS... OUR EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT: "But just how effective is the government? According to the Office of Management and Budget, just 17 percent of federal programs are 'effective' while 25 percent are deemed 'not performing.' The federal government wastes billions (trillions?) of dollars each year thanks to mismanagement, fraud, and abuse. As Chris Edwards notes in 'Downsizing the Federal Government,' 'erroneous and fraudulent payments to Medicare cost $20 billion annually,' 'overpayments in federal rental housing subsidies cost $2 billion a year,' and a single inside deal at the Pentagon 'would have wasted up to $2.5 billion of taxpayer money.'" -- "Happy Bureaucrat Week," Brandon Arnold, director of government
affairs at the Cato Institute: * * * CHANGE IN IRAQ: "According to a new State Department report, the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq jumped 91 percent from 2005 to 2006, many of the attacks planned and executed by al-Qaida, and several of those attacks using deadly chlorine gas. That's right, people: Iraq and al-Qaida, working together with weapons of mass destruction... finally Iraq has become the country we thought it was when we invaded." -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, Nay 11-12. * * * * * * * *
Why Most People Reject Your Libertarian Proposals by Michael Cloud "In 1996, when I was on talk radio shows, calling for the end to Drug Prohibition and the Drug War, the phones would light up," said Harry Browne. "The callers' voices would go up 2 octaves as they opposed and attacked me and my libertarian proposal." "But in 1999 and 2000, during my second presidential campaign, when I appeared on talk radio shows, my proposal to immediately end Drug Prohibition generated very few phone calls. Those who called, were calm and respectful toward my proposal -- even when they disagreed." Had the talk show listeners and callers changed their minds? Were they now in favor of repealing Drug Prohibition? Some had changed their minds. But most had not. What happened to the listeners' freaked-out reactions? What happened to their stress and shock on the issue? Harry Browne and other persuasive libertarian speakers had dissolved
the Immediate rejection. Without examination or consideration. Without investigation or deliberation. Reflexive rejection as immediate as pulling your fingers off a hot stove. That's how people first react to unfamiliar ideas. To the foreign, the strange, the different. That's what you're up against the first time you tell others about libertarianism. That's why people reject your libertarian proposals. Are there ways of getting around this barrier? Are there solutions to Yes! And one way is simple and easy to use. It's called: The Exposure Effect. The more often that people are exposed to something, the more comfortable and positive they feel toward it. The less often that they're exposed to it, the more uncomfortable and negative they feel toward it. The first time a person hears or reads something way outside his comfort zone, way outside his familiarity zone, he immediately, reflexively rejects it. The second time, he quickly rejects it. The third, he rejects it. The forth, he treats it skeptically. The fifth, he may see some interesting or valuable points. The sixth, a little more. And so on, until he's comfortable examining it -- because it's become familiar. "Time makes more converts than reason," wrote Tom Paine. He's right -- when people are frequently exposed to the idea. You can do this with your libertarian proposals. How? 1. Expect rejection the first time you offer your libertarian idea to a person. Be reasonable and courteous. 2. Expect opposition and rejection the second, third, and fourth time you talk with the person about your idea. Tell the person why your proposal dramatically reduces or removes problems to them, costs to them, pain to them -- and to those they care about. Tell them how and why it gives them benefits they do want. Why it gives them what they really want. 3. During your fifth or sixth or seventh conversation with them, they will move from opposition to skepticism, from resistance to receptiveness toward some or all of your libertarian proposal. 4. You may need to engage in this process with each libertarian idea or proposal. Making your friends and family familiar and comfortable with ending Drug Prohibition does NOT make them familiar and comfortable with separating education and government. Nor about replacing government welfare with private charity. Nor about making government small. Each proposal may require time-released doses of the Exposure Effect. Weekly or monthly exposure makes your friends and family more
comfortable Harry Browne and other persuasive libertarian communicators made
unfamiliar You can start doing the same thing. Starting today. By taking advantage of the Exposure Effect. * * * * * * * * In 2000, Michael was honored with the Thomas Paine Award as the Most
Persuasive Libertarian Communicator in America.
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. * * * QUESTION: How would a free-market, libertarian society prevent vast deforestation? MY SHORT ANSWER: Contrary to popular opinion, most deforestation is promoted by government policy on lands which are part of the commons (i.e., government-controlled "publicly owned" land). In the U.S., for example, logging companies are permitted to cut down large areas of our national forests at below-market costs. Taxpayers pick up the tab. In Brazil, farmers get tax breaks for clear-cutting rain forests for farming. Because rain forest soil isn't suited for crops, it is quickly exhausted and more rain forest must be cleared. Most rain forests are populated, but the homesteading rights of the native people are not recognized. When the forest is cleared by would-be farmers or by corporate interests who have paid government officials for the privilege, the forest dwellers are driven away. Protecting the property rights of the native people keeps the forest in the hands of those who have lived and cared for it for centuries. Libertarians would protect all forests by recognizing the homesteading rights of inhabited forests, and by privatizing those forests now claimed by government. Most private owners protect the forests far better than bureaucrats, since they stand to lose the most by abusing them. * * * QUESTION: Why does Mexico have such a poor economy? MY SHORT ANSWER: Even though Mexico has great mineral wealth, it has very little economic freedom relative to the U.S., Switzerland, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Hong Kong has almost no mineral wealth and must even import some of its fresh water; nevertheless, it has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world because regulations that restrict wealth creation are very few. Economic freedom is the greatest single determinant of a nation's wealth. Any country can become rich simply by cutting back on government spending, doing away with trade restrictions, and lowering taxes. In recent years, both New Zealand and Ireland have implemented these measures and turned into "economic miracles" when their wealth creation soared as a result. For more detail, see the "Freedom of the World" Annual Reports at * * * * * * * * 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
Brand Names, Concrete Examples, Part 4 by Sharon Harris, Advocates President (Continuing our discussion of how specific, well-known, concrete examples can make the case for liberty come alive for your listeners.) Here's another private-sector protection for consumers that we're all familiar with, but seldom think about: brand names. A grocery store's name -- say, Piggly Wiggly -- is a brand name. Go inside the store, and you'll see thousands of other brand names -- the names of individual products gathered for sale under Piggly Wiggly's roof. These brand names give you, the consumer, tremendous protection and guarantees of quality. How? First consider the store brand name. Piggly Wiggly wants
customers to feel completely
Now consider a product. Acme Canned Peas must assure Piggly Wiggly that their canned peas will satisfy Piggly Wiggly's desire that customers feel good about their products. If Piggly Wiggly finds that Acme Canned Peas is of poor quality, or generates customer complaints, the store won't tolerate it. They won't dare risk losing customers to other grocery stores. They'll yank Acme off their shelves and offer other brands instead. Shelf space is valuable real estate, and products are lined up to get on those shelves. I'm using grocery stores and food products as my examples, but of course this applies to almost any industry. If government regulation vanished tomorrow, private regulatory services -- like the ones I discussed in my past three columns -- would instantly spring up to help companies like Acme Peas prove to retail stores that their products were safe and met high standards. This isn't because Acme Peas or Piggly Wiggly love you. It's because they can't risk losing your trust. Because when you don't trust them, you go elsewhere -- and they go out of business. Here's one example among many. Prior to 1997, Burger King was the biggest customer of beef produced by the huge Hudson Food Company. As part of their contract, Burger King insisted upon a separate production line that required stricter sanitation procedures than mandated by U.S. law. In 1997, some Hudson beef was found to be contaminated with E. coli bacteria. Though the beef prepared for Burger King wasn't affected, Burger King nevertheless took immediate action: they canceled their contract with Hudson Foods and publicly announced they would never buy beef from the company again. Public trust is simply too essential for a brand to risk. Brand names and store names are all around us. We hardly think about
them, but they are a strong and very visible way the market protects and
serves consumers -- without government.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Home
| Library |
Publications |
Programs | Celebrities
| Quiz
| Store
| Site Map |
About us |
Search |
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. |
of America as never before. The
media now routinely refers to him as a libertarian. Just a decade or so
ago, such casual use of the word would have been unthinkable. 
"Objectivist to the core." Indeed, he named his
daughter Kira after the heroine in Ayn Rand's novel We the Living.
Contributing Editor at both SmartMoney.com and National Review Online.
confident in the foods they sell. They
don't want customers wondering if the food is possibly contaminated or
dangerous. 
Liberator Online -- that the liberty
movement has come to rely on.