Defending liberty sometimes means defending the rights of people to do things you, and many other people, may personally consider immoral, reprehensible, stupid, and self-destructive.

The great 19th century libertarian Lysander Spooner put the libertarian view succinctly: "Vices are not crimes." Libertarians defend the rights of people to engage in activities such as prostitution, pornography, and drugs. Libertarians defend the free-speech rights of bigots to spread their hatred in their publications.

All of this is vital, and even heroic. Many important battles for liberty are fought on these issues.

But in doing this, it's important to remind many audiences of one key point: just because libertarians believe an activity should be *legal* does not mean we necessarily think it is *moral* or wise.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It argues that drug use and prostitution and so forth should be legal; it does not tell us whether these activities are wise or moral.

For some audiences it is crucial that you make this distinction very clear. You should also be careful not to leave yourself open to the charge that you *support* a controversial activity you believe should be legal, if in fact, you do not.

Sometimes, in our passion to defend the rights of individuals engaged in such activities, we may fall into the trap of sounding too much like we are *advocating* those activities. We may unintentionally sound like "libertines" instead of "libertarians." This can turn some audiences away from our ideas.

The ringing defense of free speech often attributed to Voltaire -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- is a good guideline for libertarians. We are on the side of freedom, even for activities we may personally disagree with.

Christian libertarians can agree with non-Christians that prostitution should be legal. Opponents of drug use can support drug relegalization. Anti-racists can defend the free-speech rights of the Ku Klux Klan.

Saying something should be legal is not the same as saying it is moral or wise. By making this clear, you can build rapport with your audiences -- and win them to your side.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Word Choices: "Capitalistic Acts between Consenting Adults"

Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick was one the most respected and influential philosophers of the past century.

In his 1974 masterpiece Anarchy, State and Utopia, he wrote this:

"The trouble with government regulation of the market is that it prohibits capitalistic acts between consenting adults."

That's a wonderful phrase: "capitalistic acts between consenting adults."

It can be very useful in discussing free market ideas with our friends on the left.

Many on the left say they believe any acts "between consenting adults" should be legal. They are referring to such activities as drugs, sex, prostitution, pornography, and so on. Here they agree with libertarians.

Adding "capitalistic acts" to the commonly-used phrase "between consenting adults" is a marvelous twist -- and can potentially expand our areas of agreement. The resulting phrase is eye-opening, thought-provoking, paradigm-shifting. At the very least it can help those on the left better understand what libertarians believe. And it may win them over to our side on some issues.

You could also point out that such activities as prostitution, pornography, and drug use all have strong economic components. One could hardly purchase drugs if they were not manufactured and sold, for example.

A useful variation on Nozick's phrase might be something like this: "I believe that all voluntary, consensual, non-violent economic exchanges between adults should be legal." That puts the onus on your opponents to justify and defend the use of government force to interfere in the peaceful and personal choices of adults -- a position many will find uncomfortable.

Learn Robert Nozick's little phrase and put it in your communication toolbox!

(PS: Let me take a moment to point out, as most of you already know, that just because libertarians believe an activity should be *legal* does not mean we necessarily think it is *moral* or wise.)

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Be a Name-Dropper for Liberty

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.
www.TheAdvocates.org/celebrities.html

There you'll find hundreds of prominent people -- including some 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.

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. It’s 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 won’t endorse a product (or an idea) unless they truly believe that product or idea is legitimate and won’t 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 it’s 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!

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Word Choice: Separation of SCHOOL and State

There are lots of ways to describe the libertarian position on education. Parental choice in education. Privatization of education. Getting government out of education.

One of the most powerful ways to state this is to use the phrase "separation of school and state."

Everyone is familiar with the phrase "separation of *church* and state." It is a bedrock principle of a free society. It has very positive connotations for most listeners.

"Separation of *school* and state" has the same ringing sound. It is clear and bold.

Using the phrase will grab your listeners' attention. You can then tell them you favor this for exactly the same reason you favor separation of church and state: because education -- the molding of the minds and souls of our children and citizens -- is far too important to put into the hands of government. And far too easy for the government to abuse. Government education is as dangerous and as inappropriate as government religion.

You can then, of course, add to your argument the many other reasons why private education is far superior to government education.

An additional benefit is that the phrase has grown enormously in popularity. In 1994, when Advocates Founder Marshall Fritz first created an organization called the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, the phrase was obscure.

Now, however, it is beginning to be widely used. It represents a growing national movement. A Google search finds nearly 27,000 entries for the term.

"Separation of school and state" is one of those magic phrases that win attention, open minds, and provide listeners an instant "aha!" insight.

It isn't appropriate for all times and audiences. No phrase is. But it packs a powerful punch in the right circumstances.

(To learn more arguments for the separation of school and state, visit:
http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm  )

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Add the Eye-Catching Animated Quiz Graphic to Your Web Site

Put our eye-catching animated Quiz graphic at you Web site, blog, or online journal -- and it will work for liberty, 24 hours a day!

It's easy and it only takes seconds. Just visit this page:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/lib-word-link.html 

... and right-click on the animated Quiz GIF to download it. Then place the Quiz GIF at your Web site. That's all there is to it!

Your visitors can then click on it and take the Quiz -- and also, if they wish, learn about the ideas of liberty from the great resources we've assembled.

Use the amazing power of the world's most popular libertarian outreach tool to help spread the ideas of liberty. Whether you have a several visitors a day or several thousand, the cumulative effect of thousands of links to the Quiz brings the libertarian message to vast numbers of people around the world.

Over 13,000 sites already link to the Quiz -- ranging from small sites to huge ones. They are all making a difference. Make *your* Web site part of this exciting outreach!

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Word Choice: "Government Schools," Not "Public Schools"

I still remember the first time I heard someone use the term "government schools" instead of "public schools."

It stunned me. Wow! What an immediate and powerful insight!

And how true it is. So-called "public schools" are actually government schools. They are owned and operated by government. Every employee is a government employee. The textbooks and lesson plans are dictated by the government.

The use of the eye-opening term "government schools" drives this very important fact home to your listeners. "Government school" has an undeniably creepy feel to it. And it is so self-evidently true.

With government ownership comes, inevitably, a host of evils: repeated failures, lack of innovation, coercion, lack of accountability, political manipulation, indoctrination, hostility to many deeply-help personal or religious convictions... and much more.

Most people know this to some degree nowadays. The increasing failure of government schools has opened them to more criticism in recent years than ever before.

However, we have grown up in a society where state-controlled schools are the norm, are known by the misleading label "public schools," and are constantly praised (usually even when criticized).

Using the term "government schools" blasts through this, and can open your listeners' minds and leave them wanting to learn more.

Once people wake up to the fact that "public" schools are actually *government* schools, and understand the full consequences of that, they will be far more open to considering alternatives.

Of course, you must then be ready to show that education freedom is a viable option. You must be able to show the advantages of freedom of choice in education for teachers, parents, and children. For the poor and the disadvantaged.

A great source for such information is the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, which was founded by Advocates Founder Marshall Fritz.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Word Choice: "Re-Privatization"

Several years ago my friend Jim Cox, author of the great book The Concise Guide to Economics, introduced me to a word I'd never heard before: "re-privatization."

What a useful word! Libertarians, of course, have long advocated privatization of government services, and privatization has become a familiar notion to the public. Some listeners and audiences respond very positively to the concept of privatization.

When speaking to such listeners, using the words "re-privatization" or "re-privatize" gives you the opportunity to create a mind-opening "Aha!" moment for them.

Here's why. Many services that the government currently monopolizes or dominates have been provided very effectively in the past by the free market. To name just a few: public utilities, education, care for the poor and needy, currency, retirement savings, health care, many licensing and inspection services, roads, passenger trains... the list is almost endless.

However, because of decades of government monopoly, many people now think these services can only be provided by government, or, at the least, have never before been provided by the market.

Saying you favor the "re-privatization" of a service gives your listener an immediate and valuable insight. They are instantly made aware that, sometime in the past, the market has actually provided the particular service you're referring to.

Of course, you must then be ready to back that up -- to show how and when the private sector did provide the particular service you want to "re-privatize." And you must be able to tell your listener that not only is the "re-privatization" you advocate possible, but that it is desirable -- that they will be better off.

But the word "re-privatization" is a great way to get that conversation started. Thanks, Jim!

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

The Power of Repetition

While speaking for liberty, have you ever worried that you might sound like a broken record -- saying the same things over and over again?

It's a common concern of many people who have the opportunity to speak out for liberty -- whether it's for a candidate, for an initiative or referendum, against a tax increase or stadium bond, or appearing before the city council. We might think that we always need fresh material, new things to say.

In fact, it's best to say the same old thing! (That is, if your "same old thing" is a tried and true soundbite for liberty. Learn how to develop your soundbites here:
http://www.theadvocates.org/one-minute.html#Soundbites  )

Once you're comfortable with your soundbite and able to deliver it persuasively and with conviction, the key is to say it over and over and over again.

There are two reasons to do this:

1. People are listening who have never heard it before. If you've gotten your point down to your best shot, you want as many people as possible to hear it.

2. For those who've already heard it, the repetition reinforces the messages and makes it more likely that the listeners will remember it. People may even start quoting you!

The late great Harry Browne was an expert at this. Some libertarians complained "I've heard him say that same sentence before," but those critics didn't realize the two points above. Harry was able to greatly multiply the effectiveness of his well-developed points by repeating them to as many people as possible.

If you follow the Ron Paul campaign, you'll notice that Congressman Paul does the same thing -- driving home his key points, time and time again.

So, go ahead -- sound like a broken record. It's sweet music to liberty-loving ears!

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Word Choice: Instead of "Isolationism"

Ron Paul, like most libertarians, favors a foreign policy of peaceful non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations.

Unfortunately, this is too often described as "isolationism."

Ron Paul vigorously disagrees that this term describes his views. And, although some libertarians still use that word, I believe Paul is right to reject it.

"Isolationism" has many negatives. For decades in America, "isolationism" has been a smear word. In many circles it is associated with hostility towards foreign nations and cultures, nativism, and ignorance.

And in fact, many U.S. isolationists in the past weren't just for political non-intervention. They wanted to restrict trade and travel. To build a "wall" around America, creating a so-called "Fortress America." Some even felt America should be totally self-sufficient: trading with no one.

None of that, of course, has anything to do with libertarian foreign policy views. Libertarians favor free trade, the freedom to travel, diplomacy, and lively and ongoing cultural interaction with people worldwide.

A far better word for this is "non-intervention." Libertarians are "non-interventionists."

That's still a clumsy word, unfortunately, and it is better understood when coupled with a short description of what it means, such as I gave two paragraphs ago.

It's also sometimes helpful to describe this as "America's original foreign policy" or "the Founder's foreign policy," and to quote the classic Jefferson line: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Some wit once said that the difference between "isolationists" and "non-interventionists" is that the former are hermits, while the latter are gentlemen.

Ron Paul has put it very well: "Non-interventionism is not isolationism. Non-intervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

(More by Ron Paul on non-intervention:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm  )

Finally, it is sometimes useful to point out that the current U.S. foreign policy of endless intervention in the affairs of other nations, U.S. troops and military bases in almost every nation, sanctions, trade barriers, travel restrictions, and aid to tyrants and dictators is increasingly isolating America from the rest of the world. In this sense, the true "isolationists" actually are the interventionists.

When someone labels libertarians as isolationists, they are knowingly or unknowingly smearing us and misrepresenting our views. This should be corrected, in a friendly and persuasive way, so our true ideas can be understood and embraced.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

The Myth of the "Atomistic Individual"

There are many fallacies and misconceptions about libertarianism. Unfortunately, they often prevent people from embracing liberty.

So it's vital that libertarians recognize them -- and effectively and persuasively squash them.

One of the most common is also one of the strangest. "The myth of the atomistic individual" is the absurd idea that libertarians believe every person is, or should somehow be, detached from all others, totally autonomous, completely self-reliant and self-sufficient. That libertarians want a dog-eat-dog world devoid of human relationships, cooperation, or social interactions -- a world without society.

This is bizarre, and completely untrue, yet widely believed. As the great libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard noted:

"This is a common charge, but a highly puzzling one. In a lifetime of reading libertarian and classical liberal literature, I have not come across a single theorist or writer who holds anything like this position."

A good example of this can be found in the current issue of TIME, discussed in my President's Corner column this issue. Michael Kinsley, a brilliant writer who should know better, describes (some) libertarians as "a generation of smart loners, many of them rich and some of them complacently Darwinian, convinced that they don't need society -- nor should anyone else."

What nonsense! Libertarians not only acknowledge the existence and the necessity of society, we celebrate it, and defend any and all peaceful, voluntary relationships.

In fact, libertarians, more than most people, recognize that the modern industrial world is made possible only by people constantly cooperating in both personal and economic matters. Libertarians understand how the free market works -- through countless voluntary interactions and relationships.

And we understand the vital role of non-business social organizations like families, churches, charities, book clubs, community theaters, civic groups and so on.

Libertarians also understand how government actions can damage and sever these precious economic and personal relationships, often with terrible consequences.

In fact, libertarians are *the greatest defenders* of the vast network of personal and economic voluntary interactions that makes up society. Libertarians oppose, as Rothbard put it, only "the compulsory pseudo-'cooperation' imposed by the State."

So the next time you hear this bizarre and bogus fallacy, correct it -- using the polite and persuasive communication techniques the Advocates teaches, of course. And maybe invite your questioner to an upcoming libertarian meeting, where they'll see lots of libertarians acting, not as atomistic individuals, but as members of a group, cooperating to defend society and create a freer world.

(NOTE: For a lengthy and scholarly rebuttal of the "atomistic individual" notion, see this excellent article by Cato's Tom Palmer:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n5-1.html  )

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Don't Begin with an Apology

Suppose you had a really nice house you wanted to sell. When a prospective buyer came by, would your opening line be, "You may have heard about houses like this falling down, but that's not true about this house."

If you owned a restaurant, would you advertise, "Our burgers aren't the kind that make people sick -- honest!"

Of course you wouldn't. But that's exactly what I've heard many libertarians do when they're introducing others to libertarian ideas.

They begin with, "There are lots of misconceptions about libertarianism." Or, "I know you've heard that libertarians don't care about the poor, but I'm not like that." Or, "Despite what you may have heard, it's not true that Lyndon LaRouche is a libertarian."

While it's important to correct misunderstandings and falsehoods about libertarianism (when they come up), it's even more important to start your discussion of libertarianism in a positive way.

Opening with a negative or apologetic statement immediately plants seeds of doubt in the mind of your listeners. Most people believe that, where there's smoke, there's quite possibly a fire.

It also invites attack and argument, since you start by putting yourself on the defensive.

But most importantly, many people -- if not most -- have a very positive overall impression of libertarianism. It's self-defeating to begin by apologizing for some misconception or falsehood they may not even be concerned about.

Once you've given them an honest, positive description of libertarianism they'll be able to clearly see the benefits of liberty. And if they hear negative things about libertarianism, or have concerns, they can ask you -- or, even better, they'll correct the misconceptions themselves!

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Overcoming Fear of Public Speaking

The liberty movement needs more public speakers, and maybe you would like to be one of them. Great! But you might find yourself nervous about the idea.

If so, you're not alone. You know how deer freeze in their tracks when they see headlights? Well, rumor has it that it's not because they're afraid of cars -- it's because they think the light is a spotlight and they're expected to give a speech!

It's normal to be nervous before making a speech. But don't let it stop you. Here are a few tips that will help control your nervousness:

1. The biggest thing that will set you at ease is confidence that your speech is a good one and you can deliver it effectively.

To create that confidence, do these things:

* Plan your speech. Outline the speech in advance. Then write out your entire speech and read it out loud to see how it sounds, before you begin learning it.

* Time your speech. Know the time allotted for you, and make sure you don't go over the time limit. Allow extra time for audience response, particularly if you're using humor (because, hopefully, the audience will interrupt you with laughter!).

* Practice, practice, practice. Give your speech in front of a mirror. Record your speech and play it back to yourself so you can assess your progress.

* Be ready. Look forward to sharing your thoughts with others. Remember that you have something valuable to say. Remind yourself that you are prepared.

2. Right before the speech, use these techniques to get ready:

* Take deep, slow breaths and relax as much as possible before it's your turn to speak.

* Let your nervousness work for you. If you pay attention to the physical effects of nervousness you'll notice that they are very similar to the physical effects of excitement. Tell yourself you're not nervous -- you're excited!

* Visualize yourself giving a great speech and your audience enjoying and benefiting from it.

3. Finally... take the plunge! Over and over again. Take advantage of every opportunity to speak, and give the same speech numerous times. As Tony Robbins says, "Repetition is the mother of Mastery." You'll improve each time -- and experience will prove to you that you can succeed.

There are few things as satisfying as successfully delivering a speech. It's a great feeling. Go for it!

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Word Choices: Instead of "Capitalism"

For some audiences, the word "capitalism" is a positive word, and is fine to use.

But be aware: for many people, the word "capitalism" has major negative connotations. When they hear it, they instantly think of such things as: heartless runamok corporations looting customers, employees and investors; monopolies limiting choice and extorting the public; rich corporations exploiting impoverished third-world countries; and factories belching poisons and destroying the environment. They may actually picture ugly, greedy men smoking huge cigars! For many the word evokes anger, resentment and fear.

Is this what you want them to hear, feel and see in their minds when you describe your vision of an ideal world?

Remember this iron rule of good communication: What matters in communication is what the listener HEARS. Once a word has commonly accepted bad connotations, it really doesn't matter what the actual definition is. Especially if you have only a short time to speak with, and connect with, a person or group.

If there are liberals or liberal-leaning people or young people in your audience, the word "capitalism" likely will not convey your message to them, and will likely turn them off.

Instead, try "the marketplace," or "free markets," or "free enterprise."

Not only do these phrases lack many of the negatives of "capitalism," they are actually more accurate. After all, libertarians defend any kind of voluntary economic arrangement, including communities based on consensual socialism or communalism. While the great majority of us prefer capitalism, and feel it is the best choice, a true free enterprise or free market system respects the right of individuals to conduct their economic lives in any peaceful and consensual way they choose.

Further, in today's world, far too much "capitalism" is actually "state capitalism" or "crony capitalism," where big businesses partner with the government for legislation that gives them unfair advantages in the marketplace. And this is something libertarians strongly oppose. (This arrangement, of course, is what produces a lot of the negative imagery I mentioned above.)

Correct word choice is crucial to effective communication. You're not trying to deceive your listeners (and we would *never* recommend you do that). You're trying to communicate with them -- in language they understand. Don't handicap yourself unnecessarily with language that immediately creates barriers.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

A "Good Neighbor Policy" for Libertarians

One of the best ways to win others to libertarian ideas is simply to be a nice person - a nice person who also happens to be a libertarian.

This is one of the things that the late, great Karl Hess -- one of the most influential libertarians of the past century -- often talked about: the importance of being a "good neighbor." In his West Virginia rural community, Hess pitched in and helped his neighbors build barns and do other chores. As a result, they liked this friendly, helpful neighbor -- and they respected his out-of-mainstream libertarian ideas.

Libertarian philosopher Tibor Machan puts another spin on the same notion: "People tend to be more interested in what you have to say if they already know what kind of wine you like."

It's common knowledge that people will be more likely to try a new product, or a new idea, if someone they know and respect suggests it. That's as true of political ideas as it is of restaurants or jogging shoes.

So one of the best ways to help people become open to our ideas is to first let them get to know you as friendly, nice, interesting, interested, and helpful. Then, when they find out you are also a libertarian, they'll be interested in learning more. The ideas will be "vetted" because they already respect you.

Yes, it's simple, it seems obvious -- but how many of us practice this as often as we might? Be a good friend, relative, neighbor, co-worker -- and your ideas will carry far more weight.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

The Power of Saying "I Don't Know"

Are you an expert on politics, economics, world history, philosophy, geography, the environment, science, biology, current events, and half a dozen other major subjects?

Probably not. So, at some point in your conversations about liberty with friends, or in speeches about freedom to the public, you're probably going to be asked a question you don't know the answer to.

Be ready for it, because it happens to everyone. And relax -- the answer is easy!

First, know what NOT to do. Don't fall prey to the temptation to bluff your way through it or pretend to have knowledge you don't have. This can really make you look bad.

Instead, first compliment the questioner: "That's a very good question." Then, just be honest: "And it's one that I don't know the answer to."

How refreshing this will be to your audience! It's not often that people encounter this kind of honesty -- and they appreciate and respect it.

You now have the opportunity to let your audience know there is a large libertarian movement, where such questions have been discussed and answered. Tell them there are dozens of libertarian think tanks and organizations, and thousands of publications from libertarians on every conceivable topic -- including this one. Let them know you will find the answer and get back to them right away.

If you don't already have it, be sure to get contact information for the questioner and follow up promptly.

You've turned a difficult situation into an opportunity for further contact, and you've shown yourself to be human, honest, and reliable. Congratulations!

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

"Hey, What's a Libertarian?"

One day, you're going to be asked: "Just what is a libertarian, anyway?"

It may happen while you're calling into a talk radio show. "So tell us,", the host may ask you. "What do libertarians believe, anyway?"

Or you may be running for office and a reporter gives you the opportunity to "define yourself" for his story.

Your answer could be very important. It might reach thousands. Or it might reach just one person who is very important to you.

Don't hope for inspiration. Instead, be prepared.

Have a clear, short, persuasive and easy-to-understand definition on the tip of your tongue.

I strongly suggest you *memorize* your favorite definition -- and practice delivering it -- so you don't have to even think about it when asked.

That's what two of America's most successful libertarian communicators -- presidential candidates Harry Browne and David Bergland -- both told me they did.

You can write your own definition. You can also use someone else's, or modify someone else's to fit your own style.

Here's some definitions to try on for size:

The American Heritage Dictionary: "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state."

Here's what I usually say: "Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that you own your own life and property, and you have the right to make your own choices as to how you live your life -- as long as you simply respect the same right of others to do the same. We believe in individual liberty and limited government."

And here's a great one from David Bergland: "Libertarianism is what you probably already believe. Libertarian values are American values. Libertarianism is America's heritage of liberty, patriotism and honest work to build a future for your family. It's the idea that being free and independent is a great way to live. That each of us is a unique individual, with great potential. That you own yourself, and that you have the right to decide what's best for you. Americans of all races and creeds built a great and prosperous country with these libertarian ideals. Let's use them to build America's future."

Find more great short definitions.

Speaking of our libertarianism.com site, keep that URL in mind! It's very useful to be able to add, after your definition: "If you want to learn more about libertarianism, there's a Web site that can answer your questions: www.Libertarianism.com ."

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

"Cross-Dressing" For Liberty

What if you want to convince a conservative friend that the War on Drugs should end? Suppose you want to persuade a liberal relative that anti-gun laws are a bad idea?

You'll likely get nowhere talking with the conservative about civil liberties and the right of an individual to decide what goes into his body. And you may scare the liberal half to death if you start talking about bearing arms.

There's a better way. Dubbed "political cross-dressing" by persuasion coach and author Michael Cloud, it dramatically increases your chances of changing someone's mind. (And no, it doesn't require changing your clothes.)

The key is to tailor your message to your audience. Think about the specific concerns of the person you're talking to. Conservatives are typically concerned about law and order and about economic issues. Liberals are typically concerned about civil rights and taking care of those less fortunate.

Fortunately, libertarian solutions address ALL of these concerns.

To the conservative, talk about the tremendous cost of the drug war, the fact that it actually causes more crime, that it diverts law enforcement resources away from fighting violent crime, and that it actually makes drugs more available to children.

To the liberal, present the idea that guns can -- and often do -- protect the weakest among us. Talk about guns being "equalizers" for women, give examples of totalitarian governments disarming citizens, show gun ownership as a civil liberty.

So lead with your strong suit! You'll start out on the same page as your listeners, and they'll be much more open to seeing the issue from a different perspective.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Making Libertarianism a Brand Name

McDonald's doesn't sell hamburgers. It sells Big Macs. Coca-Cola doesn't sell cola drinks. It sells Cokes.

These companies want you to think of *their* stores and *their* products when you are ready to buy. And they want you to come back. Again and again.

For the same reason, when you are talking or writing about libertarian ideas, use the words "libertarian" or "libertarianism."

This accomplishes two vital things.

1) It helps people become aware of those words. It helps them understand that libertarianism is a distinctive political philosophy -- a political "brand."

2) Unless you brand your idea as libertarian, your letter to the editor or your conversation may become an "ad" for conservatism or liberalism instead of libertarianism.

For example, a letter to the editor against gun control that fails to mention the word "libertarian" will, by default, be seen by virtually all readers as a conservative letter. Similarly, a speech opposing the War on Drugs will be understood by many listeners to be a liberal speech -- unless the word "libertarian" is used in it.

When you get hungry for a burger, McDonald's wants you to think of them. When people get hungry for solutions to political problems, we want them to think of libertarians. A letter or conversation that brands solutions as "libertarian" will send customers to the libertarian "store" -- where they can sample our other "products," that is, other libertarian positions and the libertarian ideology.

Unless you brand your ideas as libertarian, people will miss the opportunity to learn about our movement that is devoted to liberty on every issue -- and to become a part of it!

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Listen Up! The Benefits of Listening

One of the most important -- and frequently overlooked, and surprisingly difficult -- secrets of truly successful communication is LISTENING.

In our eagerness to tell people about the ideas of liberty, we may miss out on the big benefits of simply stopping and listening.

Here are some of those benefits:

1. You learn what the other person's primary concerns and interests are. This gives you a chance to address those concerns, instead of talking about something the other person doesn't care about.

2. You find out about any misconceptions they may have about libertarianism. This gives you a chance to clear those up.

3. You can discover areas of agreement, thus creating invaluable rapport.

4. You show the other person that you are interested in them. People tend to be reciprocal, and therefore will be more interested in you.

To be a good listener, you must REALLY listen - not just pretend. Breathe and focus on what the other person is saying.

While this is SIMPLE, it's certainly not EASY. (If you think it is... try it.) But trust me, this is powerful.
So be sure to listen up! The benefits make it well worth the effort.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Give specific, concrete examples

I always enjoy speaking to college political science classes and sharing the libertarian vision with students. One thing I noticed early on was that many of the students had glazed-over eyes when I spoke in general terms about the enormous benefits of the free market. It was difficult for many of them to get excited about such an abstract concept.

To remedy this I learned to quickly move from the abstract to the concrete, by giving specific and vivid examples of how the marketplace works.

Here's a good one to use. In the late 19th century, there was a tremendous growth in the use of electrical devices. This created problems. Faulty wiring caused lots of house fires. Many electric appliances were risky and dangerous.

Along came an organization called Underwriters Laboratories. They solved the problem by setting standards for electrical devices. You've seen their familiar UL symbol. It's become a universally-recognized guarantee of safety.
UL standards were quickly adopted by manufacturers, who wanted to assure consumers their products were safe. Electricity-related deaths, injuries and destruction decreased enormously. Safer products quickly appeared and consumers could easily find them, thanks to the UL seal of approval.

Many people are amazed to discover that government was not involved in this solution. Underwriters Laboratories, a private non-profit organization, was formed and financed by insurance companies and businesses that wanted to save money by reducing fires and lawsuits.

When you use examples like this, you'll see instant "Ah-ha!" expressions replace those glazed-over eyes. Students, and almost everyone else, learn quicker from stories and examples than from abstract discussions.
As an added benefit, a story is easy to remember. So your audience will probably share it with others.

(You can learn more about Underwriters Laboratories in this excellent article by economist Mark Thornton: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=193 )

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Specific, Concrete Examples, Part 2: It's Kosher!

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.

Here’s another example:

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.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Specific, Concrete Examples, Part 3: Seals of Approval

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.

Here are some more 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.
http://www.ada.org/ada/seal/index.asp

* 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.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,830983,00.html

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.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Specific, Concrete Examples, Part 4: Brand Names

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 confident in the foods they sell. They don't want customers wondering if the food is possibly contaminated or dangerous.

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.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Instead of an argument

Alas, some libertarians consider arguing their favorite sport. It certainly can be fun, but often it is self-defeating.

Next time you find yourself tempted to argue, put yourself in the other person's shoes: how many times have YOU changed your mind about something because someone attacked your position or told you your ideas were stupid?

Libertarian humorist Dave Barry says about himself (hopefully he's joking!): "I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often -- as a sign of their great respect -- they don't even invite me." Ouch!

Productive alternatives to arguing include: actually listening to the other person, developing rapport, asking questions to discover his or her concerns, finding common ground, and sharing stories of how free-market alternatives have solved problems in the past.

These techniques and many more are described in detail in past "Liberty Minute" columns, in the Liberator Online's "Persuasion Power Points" columns, in Michael Cloud's book Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion, in Cloud's audio program Essence of Libertarian Persuasion, and at the Advocates’ Communication Center.

Arguing is the Little League of communication. Persuasion is the World Series. It takes longer to master, but it's a far better game and the pay-off is well worth it.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••