Volume 12, Number 8 | April 19, 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
#224
ASK DR. RUWART
PRODUCT REVIEW
Dear friends, The horrible massacre at Virginia Tech is provoking discussions around the world about guns and gun control. In general, when an issue is so hot, and so emotionally charged, it's not a good time for productive and persuasive talk. However, many of us will undoubtedly find ourselves talking with friends, families and others about this issue. Here are some arguments that may be useful. * Gun ownership can stop campus killings. Guns were prohibited at Virginia Tech. By administration policy, even those with a state-issued concealed carry permit could not have guns on campus. That policy didn't keep the Virginia Tech killer from bringing guns on campus. But it did keep law-abiding gun owners from having their guns nearby, to possibly stop the tragedy. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum points out: "In shootings at other schools, armed students or employees have restrained gunmen, possibly preventing additional murders. Four years ago at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Va., a man who had killed the dean, a professor and a student was subdued by two students who ran to their cars and grabbed their guns. In 1997 an assistant principal at a public high school in Pearl, Miss., likewise retrieved a handgun from his car and used it to apprehend a student who had killed three people." And Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America notes: "All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last ten years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen -- a potential victim -- had a gun." * Gun ownership prevents mass killings. In a 1999 paper, economists John Lott and William Landes examined all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999. They found that "when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent." * Gun ownership prevents crime. A landmark 1996 national study by John Lott and David Mustard found that violent crime fell dramatically in those states that made it legal to carry concealed firearms. Their study found that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent, aggravated assault by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent. An example is Florida, where, in the fifteen years following the passage of a concealed carry law in 1987, the homicide rate fell 52 percent. * Every day, Americans successfully use guns to protect themselves from crime -- more than 2 million times a year, according to a 1993 study by criminologist Gary Kleck. Most of these uses are non-violent; merely showing a weapon sends the criminal fleeing. * Gun control *increases* crime and violence. The Lott and Mustard study cited above extrapolates that, if those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided -- yearly. Here are sources for the figures and quotes above: Gun Owners of America press release: Finally, it should be remembered that the main issue here is not what kind of policy on gun ownership schools should have. The libertarian view is that schools should be privately owned, and decisions on gun policy -- like all other school issues -- should be made by the school itself, not the government. Parents, students and teachers should then be free to choose the schools that best suit their beliefs and preferences. The terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech was an anomaly. Regardless of whether their campus gun policy was wise or foolish, the rampage does not justify calls for increased gun control. Our deepest sympathy goes to all those affected by this horrendous crime. * * * Welcome to 189 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: Don't forget to check out our Product Review special. This issue: Order Michael Cloud's great book SECRETS of LIBERTARIAN PERSUASION now and receive a wonderful $10 Cloud CD -- FREE! See details below, or visit: Thank you!
What's Happening With The Advocates * April 21, 2007: Advocates President Sharon Harris will join other
leading libertarian speakers, including author Wendy McElroy, at the
2007 Libertarian Party of Minnesota state convention. The convention
theme is "Women in Liberty." Enjoy a dinner buffet, bid on auctions,
purchase pro-liberty gear, browse exhibits, meet candidates, party
officials and more! Location: the Hilton Garden Inn in Bloomington, MN.
* MORE OPH SUCCESS: The libertarian-leaning Republican Party of Lane County, Oregon sent us news of their great success with the Advocates' Operation Political Homeless (OPH) booth kit. Writes Frank Plaisted: "In late August of 2005 and 2006 the Republican Party of Lane County presented the World's Smallest Political Quiz in their booth at the six-day Lane County Fair in Eugene Oregon. Numerous Lane GOP volunteers gave the Quiz to over 1200 fair attendees in 2005, and over 800 in 2006. In 2005, the booth and Quiz were featured in a news segment on the KMTR television station. "The Quiz was taken by all of the officers and executive committee members of the Lane GOP and our Republican congressional candidate. All of them fell within the libertarian quadrant. The Quiz was also taken by officials in the local and state Democratic party and prompted numerous return visits and very friendly discussions with Democrats regarding the Quiz and the meaning of their Quiz results." Thanks, Frank! If you want *your* organization to enjoy the great
benefits of turning an ordinary outreach booth into a crowd-drawing,
exciting *event*, learn how OPH -- our 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 U.S. taxpayers, using any of the 1040 tax form series, will spend an average of 24.2 hours and $207 completing their returns this year. Furthermore, tax laws are now so complex that no one, inside or outside the government, really understands them. That's according to a new study from the National Taxpayers Union's (NTU). "The federal income tax system has become so complex that no one outside or even inside the Internal Revenue Service understands it," said NTU Senior Counselor and study author David Keating. "Last year taxpayers were forced to give up half a billion hours more of their time than they did in the year 2000, all because of new IRS paperwork burdens." Among the study's shocking findings: * Americans spent 6.65 billion hours in 2006 complying with the tax laws; the IRS accounts for nearly 4 out of every 5 paperwork burden hours imposed by the entire federal government. Assuming an average total hourly compensation rate of $23.75, this time is worth $75.5 billion. * Approximately 3.45 billion of those hours were incurred by
businesses. The value of this time is $156.5 billion -- an amazing 44
percent of total corporate income taxes collected in 2006! Consumers, of
course, eventually bear the brunt of this. * Some taxpayers fare far worse. In 2006, self-employed taxpayers had
to toil for over 80 hours -- two 40 hour work weeks -- to satisfy filing
requirements. Keating also notes that the Alternative Minimum Tax, a Byzantine scheme that could trap over 30 million taxpayers by 2010, could make compliance burdens even worse. NTU is a non-profit, non-partisan citizen organization that works for lower taxes and smaller government at all levels. (Source: NTU; entire study is online: * * * Over Half of Americans Now Dependent Upon Government Money Over half of Americans -- 52.6 percent -- depend on government money "in a major way," according to an analysis by economist Gary Shilling. That's an increase from 49.4 percent in 2000, when a strong economy and welfare state reforms cut government programs. And it is WAY above 1950, when only 28.3 percent of Americans received significant government money. Shilling predicts that fully 60 percent of Americans could be significantly dependent on government by 2040, as baby-boomers retire and receive Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Shilling also found: * About 1 in 5 Americans holds a government job, or a job dependent
on federal spending. All this obviously poses a major challenge for those who want small, limited government. These programs create a huge permanent constituency with a strong self-interest in voting for Big Government. Repeatedly in surveys, a majority of Americans say taxes are too high. Yet, with over half of Americans dependent in a major way on tax handouts, many Americans are obviously conflicted on the issue. "I fear that we may be on the path to becoming a decrepit, high-unemployment welfare state," Daniel Mitchell, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told the Christian Science Monitor in a story about Shilling's findings. (Source: Christian Science Monitor: * * * An Easy Way to End the Personal Income Tax The federal government seemed plenty big at the start of the Clinton administration in 1992. In fact, it seemed downright gigantic, bloated, monstrous and overbearing to millions of Americans. Yet since then, it's grown far larger. In fact, according to author Laurence M. Vance, we could *completely eliminate the personal income tax* if we simply reduced federal spending to that 1992 level. "According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total revenue of the federal government during its most recently completed fiscal year (FY 2006) was $2.406 trillion. Individual income taxes accounted for $1.043 trillion of the government's total take. Besides individual income taxes, the government's revenue also comes from corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous receipts. "Individual income taxes could painlessly be eliminated if federal spending was simply reduced to about the level it was at the beginning of the previous administration... "[I]f you subtract the income taxes collected from total revenue you end up with $1.363 trillion for the federal government to spend. That is just a little less than the government spent during the fiscal year in which Clinton began his first term." Eliminating the income tax -- a pretty radical-sounding idea -- suddenly doesn't seem so radical after all, when you think of it that way. Especially when you consider the alternative. (Source: "Real Tax Reform," Laurence M. Vance * * * * * * * * QUICK SHOTS... EXTRA TAX COSTS: "This year, individuals and companies will spend
about $300 billion on tax preparation costs. To put that in perspective,
that is a 20% levy on top of the $1.5 trillion they will actually pay in
taxes." "PUBLIC UPRISING" NEEDED: "[The U.S. tax code] has grown into a
67,204-page tangle of giveaways and attempts at social engineering.
Given the more self-interested and venal form of politics practiced
today, a public uprising may be needed to untangle it." * * * * * * * *
How You Can Profit from Harry Browne's Most Powerful Persuasion Principle by Michael Cloud Harry Browne revealed it again and again. In his books and essays. In
his It's in plain sight. Yet Harry Browne's Most Powerful Persuasion
Principle To their detriment. And yours. When you fail to use it, you usually fail to win others to liberty. When you forget to use it, it costs you dearly. You are forced to pay
higher What is Harry Browne's most powerful persuasion principle? And how
can you Talk about Big Government or liberty solely in terms of their impact
on your How carefully will your friends, family, and co-workers listen to you when every word you speak is about them and their best interests? When "you" is the first word in your sentence, they will give you
their full For example: "You will get back about $1,000 each year if you vote for this tax cut initiative, if we win the vote. So will every one of your friends and neighbors up and down your street." "Your government has doubled your property taxes in the last nine
years. Are "You won't be able to prune your own trees in your own yard if this referendum passes. Neither will your friends and neighbors. Will you vote 'no' and protect your home -- and theirs?" Make a "You"-Turn in your political conversations -- and watch everyone's ears perk up when you speak. And when you add "...and here's how that affects you" -- they'll be riveted to every word you say. Here are a few phrases that will engage your listeners: "Here's how much that tax increase will cost you every year: [specific amount]. That's $X during the next six years. Wouldn't that pay for your daughter's freshman year at college? Or for that family vacation you've always wanted?" "Here's the costs and consequences of that government construction project on your family: [add up the total costs to their family for the full term of the tax bond, NOT just the first year's property tax hike.]" "Here's what that would mean to you..." "Here's how you and your family will benefit from this government spending cut..." "Here's how that government program will hurt your family..." "You and your family will be forced to pay $X [specific amount] for
this "Here are the huge, immediate, direct benefits to you and your family from ending this government program, ending this government spending -- and cutting taxes by the same amount..." "Here's exactly how your family will better off by repealing this law..." * When talking about Big Government, talk about costs to your
listener, * When talking about individual liberty, talk about the advantages and benefits to your listeners, the savings and profits to your listener, the relief to your listener, and why freedom is wanted and needed by your listener. When you talk about political proposals solely in terms of your listener's wants and needs, solely in terms of their impact on him and his life -- he will hang on your every word. You will be listened to. You will reach their hearts and minds. You will bring your listeners to liberty. * * * * * * * * 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: Do libertarians support affirmative action? MY SHORT ANSWER: Libertarians don't support government-mandated affirmative action because it forces peaceful employers to hire someone other than their first choice. Libertarians believe that force should be used for defense against aggressors only. Laws which force peaceful people to do something that they wouldn't voluntarily do usually hurt the very people that they are supposed to help. This is true of affirmative action. The taxes to support the affirmative action enforcement bureaucracy
are the Even employers who stay in business must pass the extra taxes on to consumers by raising prices. The poor can least afford these high prices. A few minority workers may gain well-paid positions in government or industry, but their success comes on the backs of the most disadvantaged of their peers. When affirmative action laws are in effect, minorities are looked upon with disdain by their coworkers, who feel that the minorities were hired just to meet a quota. Consequently, these minority workers often begin a new and challenging job without the respect and goodwill of their colleagues or the supervisors who were forced to hire them. With two strikes against them, they may not perform optimally, fueling pre-existing prejudices or even creating new ones. Affirmative action backfires, hurting the very people it was intended to help! * * * How can there be marriage without government licensing? QUESTION: I understand that libertarians do not support the licensing
of MY SHORT ANSWER: Couples would choose and/or write their own marriage contract, just as businesses write their own partnership agreements. The courts would enforce the contract as it is written; thus, each couple, like each business partnership, would be bound by a different law -- a law of their own choosing. Clergy and churches may decide to only recognize marriage contracts that contain certain provisions (e.g., no same sex couples, no previously married partners, etc.). In constructing their marriage contract, each couple would decide whether such provisions would be included. * * * * * * * * 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
It's Kosher! Specific, Concrete Examples, Part 2 by Sharon Harris, Advocates President Specific, well-known, concrete examples can make the case for liberty come alive for your listeners. One example of a working free market solution can be more persuasive than a hundred abstract theories. Last issue I offered the example of Underwriters Laboratories as an illustration of how the market can provide reliable safety standards. Here's another. Many people fear that, without government regulation, there would be no way to insure food and drug safety. However, in the U.S. today we already have a proven, highly effective, non-government, voluntary food certification system in place -- one that is actually more precise and trustworthy than the federal government's system. Orthodox Jews eat only kosher food. Other Jews also prefer kosher foods. Kosher dietary laws are complex and extensive. This complexity, plus the lack of reliable kosher information on U.S. food labels, long ago led some Jewish organizations to offer food companies the opportunity to display labels certifying their food as kosher. However, these companies can only display the kosher label after rigorous and ongoing inspections. This is an entirely voluntary offer. No company has to participate. However, huge numbers do. Indeed, 75 percent of all U.S. prepackaged foods have some kind of kosher certification. Today in the U.S. there are dozens of companies certifying hundreds of thousands of products. You have probably seen kosher labels (usually a K or U in a circle) on many products you buy. There are hundreds of kosher certifying organizations around the world. Kosher certification is completely self-funding, as the tiny cost of kosher certification is more than paid for by the advertising benefits the kosher label provides. Certification makes products more attractive to a multi-billion-dollar U.S. market of Jewish customers and non-Jewish consumers (such as Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, and the lactose-intolerant) who value the information a kosher label provides. Further, kosher labels are far more precise and reliable than government food labels. For example, some Orthodox Jews prefer dairy products from milk that has been under constant rabbinical supervision from milking to bottling; the label "Cholov Yisroel" guarantees that. Compare that strictness to U.S. law, where, for example, "non-dairy" food can in fact have a small amount of dairy product, and the phrase "natural flavors" can have multiple meanings. Obviously, given the chance, similar methods would quickly emerge to replace today's expensive, coercive, and less stringent government labeling system. And consumers would be safer and better informed.
HOW TO ORDER
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
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. |
Do
you sincerely want to convince others to become libertarians?