http://fee.org/freeman/detail/7-habits-of-highly-effective-libertarians
http://christophercantwell.com/2015/05/03/5-habits-of-highly-effective-radicals/
Discuss, compare, contrast.
You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Being highly effective
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/7-habits-of-highly-effective-libertarians
http://christophercantwell.com/2015/05/03/5-habits-of-highly-effective-radicals/
Discuss, compare, contrast.
The two lists are not really comparable. Notice how Jeffrey’s subtitle is “How to sustain a lasting passion for liberty”, which is very different from “How to achieve liberty as quickly as possible”.
Anyway, no-one can centrally-plan a push for liberty. All that we can do is for each person to work towards liberty in whatever manner they choose. It doesn’t matter how we get there, provided we are aiming in the same direction.
Only afterwards, looking back, will we know which was the “right” approach.
Several items in Cantwell’s list rebut items in Tucker’s list.
I think that how we get there does matter because this will determine what sort of foes we will have that try to re-establish a state after we end the current states.
By your criterion, Mathew, Tucker/s list is clearly superior. Should we maximize allies, or enemies.?
That depends entirely upon who those allies or enemies are and what they are capable of doing.
Most of the people whom we encounter have the potential to be either. Before Casey, Pugsley et al, educated me, I was a confirmed enemy, and a formidable one. Choose wisely.
It seems disingenuous of Cantwell to use the identical first paragraph from the Tucker article, and then to design his piece as a sort of debate without calling it a debate.
I used to be in sales, and to use the words of Dale Carnegie, I was very good at “winning people to my way of thinking.” I did it by being friendly, by educating the client about the products I had to solve their problems, and by never arguing. “You don’t like that thing? Let me show you this thing. You don’t like any of my items? Let me share with you some things you can look for out there to meet your needs.” I built a clientele because I helped them solve their problems.
To be good advocates of liberty & freedom, we should take this approach. This is basically Jeffrey Tucker’s approach. Honestly, who would you rather hang around with? Jeff Tucker, who universally finds ways to praise other people, or some grouch?
Fascinating. A beautiful study in love vs power. Jeffrey Tucker is clearly coming from love, for example,. “Oppose oppression but love liberty even more.” He says, “If you are going to change that pattern, you must have the confidence to listen carefully to other ideas and not be threatened by them.” Lovers listen more than they talk. “See everyone as an ideological friend.” Lovers see friends, power seekers see opponents. “Let’s work together to find the answers.” Lovers prefer to work with a cooperative model, power seekers see competition everywhere. “The opportunities to live out freedom are all around us.” Most lovers I know prefer to live and let live unless and until our personal liberty is threatened. “Be joyful.” Love is joyful
Just as clearly, Tom Woods is coming from power. “Get, Stay, And Make Others, Angry.” In my experience, anger is a manipulative tool of the power seekers. “Be Confident In Your Ideas, Then Read Broadly.” I see a thin line here between confidence and arrogance. Listening and granting others freedom do not appear to be high priorities here. “When asked “What would you do to obtain liberty?” your answer is simple. Anything. Write, speak, act, breed, vote, kill, die, whatever it takes.” NO, the end does not always justify the means. Character counts. “See Pretty Much Everyone as an Ideological Enemy.” Really? What a hostile world that would be!
Jeffrey Tucker’s approach is basically win/win, which is, in my opinion, the best reason to embrace liberty. In my opinion, the ideal is that all transactions be win/win.
Tom Woods? The second piece was written by Christopher Cantwell.
