Volume 12, Number 9 | May 3, 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
#226
ASK DR. RUWART
PRODUCT REVIEW
Dear friends, Libertarians are winning! Our ideas are changing the world. Certainly not as fast as we'd like. And we certainly have major battles ahead. But taking a longer-term view, the progress of the ideas of liberty has been astonishing. Fareed Zakaria, the highly-regarded editor of Newsweek International, made that point a decade ago, in a review of Charles Murray's book What It Means To Be A Libertarian: "The reason that libertarians seem extreme and odd is not that they are a furious minority, angry at a world that seems to have passed them by, but rather the opposite. They are heirs to a tradition that has changed the world. Consider what classical liberalism stood for in the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was against the power of the church and for the power of the market; it was against the privileges of kings and aristocracies and for dignity of the middle class; it was against a society dominated by status and land and in favor of one based on markets and merit; it was opposed to religion and custom and in favor of science and secularism; it was for national self-determination and against empires; it was for freedom of speech and against censorship; it was for free trade and against mercantilism. Above all, it was for the rights of the individual and against the power of the church and the state.... "The reason that libertarianism seems narrow and naive is that having won 80 percent of the struggles it has fought over the last two centuries, it is now forced to define itself wholly in terms of the last 20 percent. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice if you were in Prussia in the 1850s, but in America in the 1960s? Libertarianism has become extreme because the world has left it no recourse." You can argue about Zakaria's 20 percent figure. I think it's higher. Still, I find this an inspiring perspective. I found that quote in a review, by David Boaz of the Cato Institute, of the new book Radicals for Capitalism by Brian Doherty. Boaz also gives this similar quote from Doherty: "Libertarians can believe, with some justification, that we are in some sense already living in their world... We are not living in Karl Marx's world... We live in a world energized and shaped by the beliefs of Marx's political-economic rivals and enemies -- the classical liberals, the thinkers who believed a harmony of interests is manifest in unrestricted markets, that free trade can prevent war and make us all richer, that decentralized private property ownership helps create a spontaneous order of rich variety." This, again, is inspiring. Of course, there are still great struggles to fight, and more victories -- and hearts and minds -- to win. But history is on our side. We have won much, and we are poised to win more. That's great news -- and well worth remembering! (Source of quotes: David Boaz: http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/04/libertarianism-the-stuggle-ahead/ * * * Welcome to 157 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: http://www.TheAdvocates.org To learn more about libertarianism: http://www.Libertarianism.com -- 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 "Libertarian Celebrity and VIPs" profiles: We've been updating and revamping this world-famous section of our Web page. New profiles, and newly updated ones, are prominently highlighted on the title page. Check out what's new: http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities.html * 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:
http://www.theadvocates.org/oph.html
by James W. Harris "Making martial law easier." That was the startling title of a recent editorial in America's staid, establishment paper of record, the New York Times. The editorial denounced an almost unknown provision of the Defense Authorization Act, passed in October 2006 -- a provision that, as the Times put it, was "quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration's behest." This provision does nothing less than give the president enormous and unprecedented new power to override local and national law and declare martial law. The provision weakens two very old and very vital restrictions on presidential power. It overrides "posse comitatus," the post-Civil War doctrine that bans the military from engaging in law enforcement. It also overrides the Insurrection Act of 1807. That Act, explains the Times, "provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president's use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights." But under the new provisions, notes the Times, "the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any 'other condition.'" Any "other condition." More open-ended wording cannot be imagined. Further, the president can do this without the consent of Congress. The provision states only that Congress must be informed "as soon as practicable." It is impossible to overstate the seriousness of this. As bestselling award-winning libertarian journalist James Bovard notes in American Conservative magazine: "'Martial law' is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. ... 'Martial law' means obey soldiers' commands or be shot." It should also be clear that, once a president has the power to unilaterally declare martial law, we are living in a de facto military dictatorship. That the president has not used that power does not change the fact that, once such power is vested in him, he is a de facto dictator. At the moment such powers are granted, our freedom exists only at the president's pleasure. This is an astonishing shift. As libertarian Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com notes, "This use of the military to enforce domestic order is a new development in American history, one that augurs a turning point not only in terms of law, but also in our evolving political culture." And this assault on American freedom was made with no public debate, no hearings, no announcement. Writes Raimondo: "Such a measure would once have provoked an outcry -- on both sides of the aisle. When the measure passed, there was hardly a ripple of protest: the Senate approved it unanimously, and there were only thirty-something dissenting votes in the House." Indeed, the provision was supported by prominent conservatives and liberals alike. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy endorsed it, as did Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Bovard again: "Some will consider concern about Bush or future presidents exploiting martial law to be alarmist. This is the same reflex many people have had to each administration proposal or power grab from the Patriot Act in October 2001 to the president's enemy-combatant decree in November 2001 to the setting up the Guantanamo prison in early 2002 to the doctrine of preemptive war. The administration has perennially denied that its new powers pose any threat even after the evidence of abuses -- illegal wiretapping, torture, a global network of secret prisons, Iraq in ruins -- becomes overwhelming. "There is nothing more to prevent a president from declaring martial law on a pretext than there is to prevent him from launching a war on the basis of manufactured intelligence. And when the lies become exposed years later, it could be far too late to resurrect lost liberties." Thankfully, some citizens and politicians are fighting back. Senate Bill 513, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Christopher Bond (R-Missouri), and a House counterpart, H.R. 869, would repeal this stealth attack on American liberty. They are backed unanimously by the governors of all 50 states. But passage is not at all certain. And until they are passed, Americans need to ponder the consequences of living in a de facto military dictatorship. (Sources: * * * If We Scored Bowling the Way We Tax "Under the scoring rules of bowling, you get rewarded, not penalized, for being successful. If you get a spare, the scoring system rewards you by adding the pins from the next ball into the current frame, and if you get a strike you get rewarded by adding your next 2 balls into the current frame. "Under our progressive income tax system with 6 tax rates increasing from 10% to 35%, you get penalized, not rewarded, for being successful, productive and entrepreneurial, because the more you earn, the higher the tax rate you pay. The top marginal income tax rate has been as high as 91% in the 1950s and 1960s, and 70% in the 1970s. "If we scored bowling the way we tax income, we would subtract, not add pins for a spare or strike, i.e. penalize successful bowling. "If we taxed income the way we score bowling, we would reward success by reducing the tax burden for the most productive workers, not increasing it." -- Economist Mark Perry, from his excellent blog Carpe Diem. (Source: Carpe Diem http://mjperry.blogspot.com/ ) * * * Ron Paul: Congress and Iraq "What is the best way forward in Iraq? Where do we go from here? First, Congress should admit its mistake in unconstitutionally transferring war power to the president and in citing United Nations resolutions as justification for war against Iraq. We should never go to war because another nation has violated a United Nations resolution. Then we should repeal the authority given to the president in 2002 and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then we should start bringing our troops home in the safest manner possible. "Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the willing participation of Congress, through measures like this war funding bill, that our policy continues to veer off course. Additionally, it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true." -- U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), April 30, 2007 Queen Elizabeth II of England is coming to the U.S. this week, to mark the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in the United States. So the Washington Post helpfully offered this bit of etiquette coaching to Americans who might encounter her: "You don't have to curtsy or bow. That requirement went out a generation ago." Wrong, counters David Boaz of the Cato Institute: "Um, actually, the United States is a republic. ... That requirement went out in 1776." (Source: David Boaz, "This is a Republic" * * * * * * * * QUICK SHOTS... LEADING CONSERVATIVE JOURNALIST SAYS 'LISTEN TO LIBERTARIANS': "No
conservative should commit to a policy without first consulting the
libertarian position. Indeed, once conservatism forgets to ask, "Should
the government really be doing this?" it will have ceased conserving
what is best about conservatism." -- Jonah Goldberg, syndicated
columnist and editor of National Review Online. * * * FOUND ON THE WEB: "If 'con' is the opposite of 'pro,' what's the opposite of 'progress?'" * * * * * * * *
Permission to Persuade by Michael Cloud Has anyone ever tried to push or pressure you into an unwanted, unwelcome conversation? Maybe the subject was religion, politics or sex. Perhaps it was life insurance, network marketing, or a personal development program. Or maybe it was gossip or current events. One thing was sure. You did NOT want to talk about it. And you couldn't wait to get away. How did you feel toward that person? How did you feel about the topic? Did you talk about it with your family, friends, or co-workers? How did they react? And -- how did you feel the next time you ran into the guilty party? I'll bet you felt uncomfortable, frustrated, and a little hostile. And you probably kept your guard up when you were around them. Why? Because that's how I felt when it was done to me. You and I are lucky. You and I know how it feels to be on the receiving end of this kind of insensitive, aggressive behavior. We never want to go through it again. Nor do we want our friends, family, or co-workers to suffer through the experience. Especially through OUR actions. Through our conversations. You and I want to make certain that we do NOT try to shove our libertarian opinions down other people's throats. We want to make sure we do NOT trick or trap people into silently suffering through our libertarian pitch. Problem: How do we make sure that our listeners are interested and willing to hear our ideas about freedom and small government? Solution: Ask for permission to talk with them about it. Make it easy for them to say "no." How do you ask for permission? 1. In a short sentence, tell them that you have an idea or proposal about the subject. 2. Tell them that it's okay if they do NOT want to hear about it. 3. Ask if they want to hear it -- or not. A few examples. "You've brought up some very important points about the shooting incident at Virginia Tech," you say to the person. "I have a couple of suggestions that would reduce the number of people injured or killed -- and might even prevent something like this from happening. Would you be interested in hearing them? It's okay if you don't want to hear my suggestions. Would you be willing to hear them -- or not?" "You're right. The federal government really messed up with Katrina relief and rebuilding," you say. "I have a couple of ideas that would dramatically reduce the number of disaster victims and the cost of repair and rebuilding. Maybe you're interested. Maybe you're not. Would you like to hear my ideas -- or would you rather do something else?" "You've got your finger on the problems and consequences of drug prohibition and the drug war," you say. "I have a few proposals that would probably make things a lot better. Maybe you're open to non-mainstream solutions. Maybe you're not. Would you like to check out my ideas -- or would you rather not?" Ask for their permission to offer your ideas. Ask for their permission to talk about liberty. It reduces the chances you'll be a conversational stalker. It increases the chances you'll be listened to. Get permission to persuade -- and you will change people's minds. * * * * * * * * 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: Why do developed countries still keep on saying that "free trade" is beneficial to poor Third World countries, even though free trade actually hurts the small-scale domestic farmers of poor countries? MY SHORT ANSWER: Truly free trade does benefit poor countries, because it allows the poor to sell their goods to developed nations. However, most so-called "free trade" treaties actually place limitations (quotas) on what poor countries can sell in order to protect the domestic industries of rich nations. Bangladesh, for example, used its foreign aid to build garment factories so that it make money exporting inexpensive clothing to wealthy nations. But instead of letting the poor help themselves, the industrialized nations quickly put up trade barriers. Eventually, many of the Bangladesh factories were abandoned. True free trade consists in eliminating existing barriers and not establishing new ones. So-called "free trade" treaties that run hundreds of pages in length, like CAFTA and NAFTA, are more likely to regulate trade for the benefit of the rich. * * * QUESTION: What is the libertarian position on labor unions, collective bargaining and their influence on politics and worker-employee relationships? MY SHORT ANSWER: Libertarians believe that workers should be free to organize, bargain, and strike for better wages and conditions. Employers should also be free to hire new employees who are willing to work under existing wages and conditions. Each side is free to do as it pleases as long as they don't defraud, steal from, or assault each other. Today, however, most employers are legally prevented from hiring new workers during the strike. Union violence is often ignored. Thus, unions have the advantage in any negotiation and union wages are usually artificially high. As labor costs rise, and businesses on the edge go under, the most disadvantaged workers lose their jobs first. Thus, the un-unionized poor end up subsidizing the more skilled union members. Because most countries don't prosecute union aggression, the more a nation is unionized, the higher its unemployment rate. * * * * * * * * 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
Seals of Approval, Concrete Examples, Part 3 by Sharon Harris, Advocates President Last issue I wrote: "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." In the past two issues I've given the concrete examples of Underwriters Laboratories and kosher certification as well-known examples of how the market can provide reliable safety standards. Such examples answer the widely held concern that, without government regulation, there would be no way to insure the safety of food and drugs and other products. Here are some other examples that your listeners will likely be familiar with: * The American Dental Association (ADA) Seal of Acceptance: Since
1931, this well-known symbol has assured a dental product's safety and
effectiveness. Although it is strictly voluntary, more than 300
companies participate in the Seal program. More than 1,100 common dental
products -- such as toothpaste, floss, toothbrushes, as well as products
used by dentists -- are tested to carry the Seal of Acceptance. * The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval: Since 1909, the legendary Good Housekeeping Seal has been given to products whose ads appear in Good Housekeeping magazine. If a product bearing the Seal proves to be defective within two years of purchase, Good Housekeeping guarantees it will replace the product or refund the purchase price. To certify products, the Good Housekeeping Institute has research and testing departments specializing in engineering, chemistry, food, food appliances, nutrition, beauty products, home care and textiles. It reviews more than 2,000 products annually. http://magazines.ivillage.com/goodhousekeeping/consumer/institute/articles/0,,284511_290570,00.html * Financial rating services: Companies such as Dun & Bradstreet;
Moody's Investors Service; and Standard and Poors emerged to meet the
urgent need of investors for reliable financial research and analysis of
commercial and government entities. Such companies also rank the
credit-worthiness of potential borrowers. They are highly regarded, and
their success depends upon the accuracy and integrity of the information
they provide. The marketplace is rich with many other examples, used and trusted by consumers every day. Consumers want assurances that the foods and drugs and other products and services they purchase are safe and reliable. Businesses are eager to show customers their products are trustworthy, to increase sales. The market responds to these desires. Such market-based "regulations" set high standards, and meets
consumer needs *better* than government -- as these everyday examples
illustrate. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
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. |
