How To Be A Super Communicator For Liberty

§,UæESSFUILY
SIlARINê
UæPTARIAN
IDEAç
,/*
SttA,RoN lJncRls
Janes W. llaRrus
Advocates for Se1f-Government

Cartersville, Georgia
Copyright @2014 by Shâron Har s end James W Harri6.
All rights reserved unde! Intemational end Pen-Americân copyright conventions. No

portion of this book mây be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sy6tem, or Eânsmitted in
any form or by any means-elecftonic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, scannin8, or
otier-except for bdef quotations with âttribution to the author, without prior w tten
permission of the âuthors or publisher.
Published in the United Stetes

by the Advocates for Self-Govemment
269 Market Place Blvd, #106, Caltersville, GA30121-2235
770-386-8372, TheAdvocates.org, info@TheAdvocâtes.org,
SPECIAL CONVENTION EDITION

Published June 2014
Herris, Sharon; Harri6, Jame6 W,

Hot ) to Be a SÜPER Communietor for Liberty
By Shercn Herds end Jâmes I^L Haûis
ISBN 978-0-9754326-9-3
1. Politics 2, Political communicâtion 3. Libertârianism

4. Communicauon techniques 5. Libertârian ouheach
L Tide II. Harris, Sharon III. Harris, James W
Illustations by Bâloo (Rex F. Ma, ând led Slampyâk

Cover design and typography by JPL Dêsign Solutions
Mânufactured ifl the United stâtes of Ame ca
This book is dedicated to
our parents
Joe Thomas Tisdale

Ellen Brawner Tisdale
James W. Harris Jr.
Edwina Crawford Wright Harris
who taught us the values of kindness and civility
and who proudly supported and encouraged us
in our work for liberty
and to
all libertarian communicators
past, present ... and future
ALSO FROM THE PUBLISHER
Libertarianism in One Lesson

by David Bergland
Liberty A to Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites

You Can Use Right Now!
by Harry Browne
Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion

by Michael Cloud
Unlocking More Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion

by Michael Cloud
Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage

by Jim Cox
The Haiku Economist

by Jim Cox
Short Answers to the Tough Questions, Expanded Edition

by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
Discovering Self-Government: A Bible-Based Study Guide

by Virgil L. Swearingen
Table of Contents
Introduction: The Great Cause That Makes All Other

Great Causes Possible .......................................... 9
1. Fundamentals ............................................... 13
The Golden Rule of Libertarian Communication ................................. 15
A "Good Neighbor Policy" for Libertarians ........................................... 17
Don't Begin with an Apology ................................................................ 18
Taking YES For an Answer ..................................................................... 20
When to Take NO for an Answer .......................................................... 23
BeingAgreeable--:-Even (Especially!) When You Disagree ................... 25
The Most Popular Radio Station in Town ............................................. 27
'Nuff Said ................................................................................................ 29
Listen Up! The Incredible, Free and Far Too Often Neglected
Benefits of Active Listening ............................................................... 32
The Power of Echoing ............................................................................ 35
Avoiding the "Curse of Knowledge" Trap .............................................. 37
Immoxelating the DCP or: How and Why to Avoid Abbreviations
and Jargon .......................................................................................... 40
Revving Up Your Visual Impact ............................................................. 42
Saying "I Don't Know" ....................................................................·....... 50
Put a Compliment Sandwich on Your Communication Menu ............. 52
Using the "Compliment Sandwich" to Get Useful
Personal Feedback .............................................................................. 55
Bert Decker's Three-by-Three Rule: Another Way to Get
Useful Feedback .................................................................................. 57
Put the "Five Most Important Phrases" to Work for Liberty .............. 58
Instead of an Argument ......................................................................... 60
Give Them Something ........................................................................... 63
Vision ...................................................................................................... 66
2. Word Choice ................................................. 69

Instead of "Abolish" ................................................................................ 71
Using "Once Again" and "Return To" .................................................... 74
WHEN, Not IF ........................................................................................ 76
The Power of NOW ................................................................................ 78
"You" Instead of "I" ................................................................................ 80
Instead of "Capitalism" .......................................................................... 81
"Free Enterprise" Instead of "Capitalism" ............................................ 83
Entrepreneurs: A Home Run Word ....................................................... 85
"Crapitalism" Versus Capitalism ............................................................ 86
Helping Listeners Understand Property Rights ................................... 89
Pro-Market, Not Pro-Business .............................................................. 91
"Small Business" Versus "Big Business" ................................................ 94
Privatize Business! .................................................................................. 97
Re-Privatization ..................................................................................... 99
"Abundance" Instead of "Prosperity" .................................................. 101
Instead of Isolationism: Non-Intervention and How to Argue
for It .................................................................................................. 102
"Trade Isolationism" ............................................................................ 107
No More "Dollars for Dictators" .......................................................... 109
"Consensual Crimes" Instead of "Victimless Crimes" ........................ 110
"Capitalistic Acts between Consenting Adults" .................................. 112
Separation of Marriage and State ....................................................... 115
Opposing Government Surveillance: The Right-and the
Wrong-Terms ................................................................................. 117
Try "Re-Legalization" Instead of Legalization .................................... 120
Politically Incorrect Drugs ................................................................... 122
Politically Incorrect Food ..................................................................... 124
Are You Against the "Federal Narcotics Price Support Program?" .... 125
"The War on Peaceful Americans Who ... " .......................................... 127
Guns: Reframing the Debate ............................................................... 128
Them, Not Us ....................................................................................... 132
Expose the Hidden Government Presence ......................................... 134
Government Monopolies, "Services," and Public "Servants" ............. 136
Government Schools, Not "Public Schools" ........................................ 137
Separation of SCHOOL and State ....................................................... 139
Sunday School and Monday School.. ................................................... 141
The Grandchild Tax .............................................................................. 142
How Do You Spell Relief? Try "Tax Relief" Instead of "Tax Cuts" ..... 144
Instead of "Government Subsidies" .................................................... 146
Blowback: Foreign and Domestic ........................................................ 148
A Radical Proposal. ............................................................................... 151
3. Libertarian Communication Errors:

An Illustrated Guide .......................................... 153
4. Liberty in Sound bites ...................................... 159

Success with Soundbites ...................................................................... 161
Over and Over and Over Again: The Power of Repetition ................. 164
"Hey, What's a Libertarian?" ............................................................... 166
Explaining How Libertarians Are Different from Liberals
and Conservatives ............................................................................ 170
Libertarianism Short and Sweet ......................................................... 172
Why Are You A Libertarian? ................................................................ 174
The "Daddy and Mommy" Metaphor .................................................. 176
Simple But Effective ............................................................................. 178
Breaking Your Legs and Giving You a Crutch ..................................... 180
5. The Power of Questions ................................... 183

The Million Dollar Question ............................................................... 185
Flipping the Question .......................................................................... 186
Comparison Questions: Questions that Make People Think ............ 189
The Government Is Not Us .................................................................. 191
When Libertarians Should Call for Raising the Minimum Wage ...... 193
Ask These Three Crucial Questions-and Dramatically Improve
Your Communication Success .......................................................... 197
6. Cool Tools & Super Strategies ............................ 201

Bi-Conceptualism and You ................................................................... 203
"Cross-Dressing" For Liberty ............................................................... 206
When People Discover Their "Inner Libertarian" .............................. 209
Answering Hostile Questions with the Amazing Ransberger Pivot .. 212
The Real Issue May Be Poverty ............................................................ 217
Putting Our "Strength in Numbers" to Work for You ........................ 222
Robert LeFevre's Three Zones of Libertarian Communication ......... 224
The Libertarian Denominator: Finding the Libertarian in
Everyone ........................................................................................... 227
How to Oppose "Common-Sense Rules of the Road" ........................ 229
Two Little Pigs: The Power of Stories ................................................. 233
A Law Isn't Just a Suggestion .............................................................. 237
If Guns Are Outlawed .......................................................................... 240
Too Radical? .......................................................................................... 241
Libertarians: Radicals-or the Real Moderates? ................................ 244
The Incredible Power of Specific, Concrete Examples ....................... 246
Libertarians Sometimes @.1/S~RE'i!: How to Use That in
Your Outreach ................................................................................... 257
Correcting a Hidden Totalitarian Assumption ................................... 260
The "Trickle Down Economics" Myth-and How to Refute It .......... 263
Successful Libertarian Dating ............................................................. 266
Add the WOW! Factor to Your Outreach ............................................ 270
Libertarian Features Versus Benefits .................................................. 272
Painting a Picture with Harry Browne ................................................ 275
The Best Outreach Tool in the Liberty Movement ............................ 277
7. Libertarianism Everywhere ............................... 281

Making Libertarianism a Brand Name ............................................... 283
Message Amplification Isn't Linear: Insight from Seth Godin .......... 285
Be a Name-Dropper for Liberty ........................................................... 287
Raising the Overton Window .............................................................. 290
OPH: The Fastest and Easiest Way to Find Lots of New
Libertarians-Everywhere! (PS: It's Fun!) ...................................... 295
8. Tips from Craig Cradswell, the World's Worst

Libertarian Communicator ................................. . 299
Tough Answers to the Short Questions .............................................. 301
I DARE YOU to Read This Article (You Spineless Jellyfish)! ............. 303
Using an OPH Booth to Crush Statist Pigs!. ....................................... 305
Finding-and Exposing-Hidden Statists ......................................... 307
The Case for Libertarian Pessimism ................................................... 309
9. Conclusion ................................................. . 311

The Weight of a Snowflake .................................................................. 313
Acknowlegements ................................................................................ 315

About the Authors ............................................................................... 317
Libertarian Communication Workshops ............................................ 319
More from the Advocates .................................................................... 320
How to Be a Super Communicator for Liberty 9
INTRODUCTION
The Great Cause That Makes All

Other Great Causes Possible
Why be an activist for liberty? Why take the time

to learn about libertarianism and then spend yet more
time trying to get others to understand and embrace
libertarian ideas?
When we think about why we are libertarians, this
phrase frequently comes to our minds: Liberty is the great
Cause that makes all other great causes possible.
Liberty makes possible virtually all the good things
in our lives. For only liberty creates the abundance and
tolerance that allows people to move beyond merely
struggling to survive, and lets them express their
compassionate, caring and creative sides.
Liberty brings with it peace, abundance, charity,
art, travel, creativity, innovation, technology, scien-
tific breakthroughs, dignity, and the opportunity for
everyone to follow their dreams.
Think of any great charitable cause-feeding and
clothing the hungry, eradicating poverty, ending war,
expanding education, funding the arts, medical research,
caring for abused and neglected animals, protecting the
environment-and you will immediately realize that
only liberty makes it possible.
Look around the world, and you will see that where
liberty is lacking, there is poverty, sickness, violence,
tyranny, misery. Where there is liberty, there is abun-
dance, harmony and the opportunity for happiness.
Liberty is literally a matter of life and death for the
people of the world. For the world itself.
10 How to Be a Super Communicator for Liberty
As a libertarian activist, you are not only helping to

set the world free, you are creating the conditions for a
truly humane, harmonious, and abundant world to grow
and flourish.
You should be very proud of the work you do for
liberty.
We have written this book to help you be successful in
your quest.
About This Book
This book is the result of decades of work on
the subject of libertarian communication that we
have done in association with the Advocates for
Self-Government.
Libertarians have great news to share! The Advocates
was formed in 1985 to help libertarians learn the very
best ways to do exactly that. We seek to empower those
who love liberty to successfully help the public encounter,
evaluate and, when ready, embrace these ideas.
The libertarian movement urgently needs competent
and caring ambassadors for liberty who can present our
ideas attractively and persuasively, honestly and without
compromise, and with both passion and compassion, in
ways that people can understand and relate to.
That's where you come in.
This book is packed with proven and tested commu-
nication ideas. Just a few of these-even just one or
two-can revolutionize your libertarian outreach.
Pick the ones you like best. Try them out. Use them to
make our world a freer and happier place.
We have enjoyed sharing these ideas with tens of
thousands of libertarians around the world. Now we are
excited to be sharing them with you in this book.
If you like this book, please tell other libertar-
ians about it. And for much more information along
these lines, please check out the many communication

resources available at TheAdvocates.org
Above all, thank you for your commitment to our
great Cause. We are confident that you are on your way
to becoming a SUPER communicator for liberty!
Sharon Harris
James W Harris
Rydal, GA
13
SECTION ONE
Fundamentals
Good libertarian communication begins here.

Start using the ideas in this section and you're
well on your way to becoming an extraordinary
ambassador for the ideas of liberty.
Bonus: These suggestions will transform your
communication effectiveness in any situa-
tion-making you a better spouse, parent,
colleague, boss, employee, or friend.
So while you're using these ideas to spread
liberty more effectively than ever before, feel
free to also use them to get a raise, a new job-or
a second date!
The Golden Rule of

Libertarian Communication
The Golden Rule, according to philosopher and scholar

Simon Blackburn, can be "found in some form in almost
every ethical tradition."
We often hear it in the positive form: "Do unto others
as you would have others do unto you."
It is also heard in a negative form (sometimes called
the Silver Rule): "Do not treat others in ways you would
not like to be treated yourself."
Libertarianism, with its prohibition against the initia-
tion of force, could be described as a variant of, or adjunct
to, this universal Golden Rule. No one wants to be forced
into doing something they loathe; no one wants to be
forcibly restrained from doing a peaceful thing they want
to do with their life or property. By not initiating force
against others, we are treating others as we would like to
be treated ourselves.
On a more humble level, the Golden Rule applies to
communication. We should, whenever possible, speak to
others in the ways we would like to be spoken to. We
should try not to speak to others in ways we would not
like to be spoken to.
This isn't just politeness. It is a central component of
effective communication.
Think about how you would like to be treated in a
conversation. How would you like the other person to
behave when they are trying to persuade you to share
their point of view?
Put yourself in their shoes. Would you like them to:
• Shout at you?
• Call you stupid or evil?
• Refuse to listen to your viewpoint?

• Interrupt you?
• Ignore your ideas?
• Talk for 30 minutes without taking a breath?
• Compare you to Hitler or Mao?
Of course not.
So let's apply the Golden Rule to our libertarian
communication:
• Be respectful of the other person and civil in the
way you talk.
• Listen to the other person's views, try to genuinely
understand them, and take their concerns into account.
• Find areas of agreement and compliment the
person on their insights.
• Refrain from arguing or getting angry.
• Don't lecture and don't interrupt.
We've written in more detail about each of these tech-
niques elsewhere in this book. Note that they're all things
that we would like others to do for us.
They are Golden Rules of effective libertarian commu-
nication. (Or any other kind of communication.)
Of course, the concept of following the Golden Rule
in communication (and elsewhere) is a simple one. But
please note: it's not easy. It doesn't come naturally. It takes
commitment and practice.
But the payoff is worth it. You will enormously
increase your success in persuading others to embrace
libertarian ideas.
And just as important, you won't turn off those who are
not yet ready to accept libertarian ideas. They will thus
be ready to listen to the next libertarian who approaches
them-who may further advance, or complete, the
process of helping them become libertarians.
A "Good Neighbor Policy"

for Libertarians
One of the best ways to win others to libertarian ideas

is simply to be a friendly, interesting, helpful, kind, fun-
to-be-with person-who also happens to be a libertarian.
This is one of the things that 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 came to respect his out-of-main-
stream libertarian ideas.
Libertarian philosopher Tiber Machan puts another
spin on the same notion: "People tend to be more inter-
ested 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, movies or jogging shoes.
So one of the very best ways to help people become
open to our ideas is to first let them get to know you as
friendly, nice, interesting, interested, reliable 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 and trust 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 political ideas
will carry far more weight.
Don't Begin with an Apology
If you owned a restaurant, would you advertise: "Our

burgers aren't the kind that make people sick-honest!"
If you were selling a gorgeous home, would your
opening line to a prospective buyer be: "You may have
heard about houses like this falling down, but believe
me, that's not true about this house."
Of course not. Yet that's exactly what too many liber-
tarians do when they're introducing others to liber-
tarian 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 most libertarians are hostile to religion."
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 minds of your
listeners. Most people believe that, where there's smoke,
there's quite possibly a fire.
"Hmmm... Evidently many people think badly of
libertarians. I wonder why?"
That's not what you want on your listener's mind as
you begin describing our glorious philosophy of liberty
for all!
An apologetic beginning starts the conversation on a
negative, low-energy note. Instead of discussing great
benefits and exciting ideas, you're apologizing and
worrying. That's not fun, and it's not fair to the ideas
you are so excited and passionate about.
Such an apologetic beginning also invites attack and
argument, since you start by raising contentious points
and putting yourself on the defensive.
Perhaps most important, it's completely unnecessary,
since many people-if not most-have a positive overall
impression of libertarianism.
This is true even of those who disagree with us. Those
on the right appreciate our defense of economic liberty.
Those on the left appreciate our support for civil liber-
ties and a foreign policy of peaceful non-intervention.
So it's self-defeating and poor strategy to begin a
discussion about libertarianism by apologizing for some
misconception or falsehood your listeners may not even
be concerned about or aware of.
Instead, begin by giving your listener a positive,
exciting, honest description of libertarianism, so they'll
be able to clearly see the goodness and the many benefits
of liberty. (Always be prepared with great soundbites.
See elsewhere in this book for more on soundbites.)
Then, if they have heard negative things about liber-
tarianism, or have concerns, they can ask you-or, even
better, they'll have learned enough from you to correct
the misconceptions themselves!
Taking YES For an Answer
Picture this scene:

A libertarian named Linda (we'll call her "L" for
"libertarian") meets a non-libertarian named Norman
("N" for "non-libertarian"). The following conversation
takes place:
N: Libertarians have a lot of good things to say. For
example, I strongly believe in the right to keep and bear
arms.
L: Uh-huh.
N: And I think libertarians are right about the War on
Drugs. It's really a war on people. We need to end it.
L: Uh-huh.
N: And I'm really tired of government surveillance and
spying on innocent people. Don't you think that's wrong?
L: Uh-huh. Sure. (Pause.) But ... let me ask you this,
Norman: Do you advocate private ownership of roads?
N: Well, I haven't really thought about that. Hmmm ...
I've got to tell you, frankly, it sounds a little nutty to me.
L: (Quickly.) Well, if you had thought through these
issues like we libertarians have, you would understand
why we must privatize roads. You have to change your
mind about this. It's important! Let me tell you why ...
Uh-oh! Libertarian Linda is committing several
communication "don'ts." And she might just drive
Norman away from her-and libertarianism-for good.
One of Linda's biggest errors is her failure to take
"yes "for an answer.
There was Norman, agreeing with libertarians on
issue after issue. But Linda wanted him to agree on every
issue, right away-and worse, she wanted to debate. So
she steered the conversation as quickly as she could to

something they could argue about.
Wrong move, Linda!
One wonderful thing about libertarianism is that
everyone agrees with us on some-even many-issues.
And they are often eager to tell us that.
So ... enjoy that. Welcome this substantial agreement.
Listen to the other person. Linger on areas of agree-
ment. Enjoy the conversation, bask in the pleasure that
a meeting of minds brings-and let the other person
know how smart you think they are!
Be sure to tell them that you-and other libertar-
ians-strongly agree with them on those issues. Cement
that. Let them realize they already have libertarian lean-
ings. Enjoy it when they say it themselves. Give them
positive feedback on their insightful conclusions.
Resist the urge to rush the conversation toward a hot-
button topic on which your listener will disagree.
Of course, that urge is understandable. We've thought
these issues out. We're passionate about liberty. We're
eager to share our philosophy. We want to persuade
others to come around to our point of view-on every
issue. Right now! (Even though most likely that's not the
way we ourselves became libertarians.)
But when we rush the conversation this way, we
skip one very important step in persuasion: building
rapport. Without rapport, persuasion is very difficult,
if not impossible.
So learn to first concentrate on the yeses. In early
conversations, take it easy. Let the relationship build.
Take yes for an answer.
Concentrating too quickly on areas of disagreement
sets the person up as an adversary who must defend his
positions against yours.
Establishing rapport on the areas of agreement makes

friends, and builds a comfort zone where further discus-
sion can profitably take place.
Of course, you shouldn't hide your beliefs. Of course,
you should be ready to advocate your position on any
issue-in a persuasive, friendly manner.
But ... resist that impulse to immediately steer a new
conversation towards finding out where you disagree.
Instead, sit back for a moment and enjoy "taking yes
for an answer."
You might just find a new friend, a new ally ... who
later on, will enjoy exploring these other issues with you
in a friendly and productive manner.
When to Take NO for an Answer
Do you know someone with whom you've argued

endlessly about politics-and never gotten an agreement?
Or is there someone in your life who gets mad-or
gets quiet, or changes the subject-every time you bring
up a particular political issue?
Suggestion: Stop talking about politics, stop raising
that sensitive issue, with those individuals. Talk about
something else instead.
Save your libertarian talk for those who want to hear it.
It is unfortunate, but true: not everyone is in the
market for our ideas. Some people really believe in Big
Government.
Others are just not in a place in their lives where they
are interested in learning about these ideas. Maybe later
they will be ready and eager. But not now.
By persisting, you are (1) wasting your limited and
valuable activism time and energy; (2) annoying this
person and possibly losing a valuable relationship;
and (3) possibly turning this person off to libertarian
ideas permanently.
On the other hand, right now, today, this very minute,
there are plenty of folks who are not only open to our
ideas, but are eager to hear about them and take action.
They're hungry for the message of liberty! They want to
know more.
There's a limited amount of time available for you to
find and meet these people, share the ideas of liberty
with them, and get them active in bringing libertarian
ideas to still more people.
These are the people you should be talking to about

libertarianism. These are the people who will make your
conversations about liberty fun and productive.
Ask any good salesman and he or she will tell you that
the secret to making a sale is to talk to enough good
prospects. Note: good prospects.
To do that, we must learn to take "NO" for an answer,
and move on to other people-from whom we can get an
enthusiastic "YES!"
Being Agreeable-Even (Especially!)

When You Disagree
Benjamin Disraeli once said, "My idea of an agreeable

person is a person who agrees with me."
Many of us feel the same way!
However, according the Oxford Dictionary, the word
"agreeable" means "quite enjoyable and pleasurable;
pleasant; a cheerful and agreeable companion; willing to
agree to something."
Dictionary.com lists synonyms for "agreeable" as:
pleasant, likable, accommodating, gracious, amiable,
compatible, harmonious.
Needless to say, this is not usually how a typical polit-
ical discussion goes. Two people who have different polit-
ical views often wind up frowning, becoming defensive,
throwing facts and figures back and forth at each other
like rocks, and even attacking one another's character.
Such political arguments seldom, if ever, end with one
of the individuals persuading the other to a new point
of view.
As Dale Carnegie wisely noted: "If you argue and
rankle and contradict, you may achieve a victory some-
times; but it will be an empty victory because you will
never get your opponent's good will."
As we note elsewhere in this book, if your goal is to
open the other person's mind or heart to considering
a new or different point of view, arguing is usually
counter-productive.
Being agreeable, in contrast, may be just the ticket.
Imagine a discussion that is actually, as the dictionary
describes, "enjoyable and pleasurable." One where the
person you are talking to feels comfortable enough to

explore the new ideas you are presenting. A discussion
where neither of you feels any need to be defensive or
argumentative. Where it is both safe and fine to disagree.
The key is to be-again quoting the dictionary-
"pleasant, likable, accommodating, gracious, amiable,
compatible, harmonious." Or, simply, agreeable.
This isn't the same as giving in, or hiding your views, or
saying things you don't believe in. It's simply listening-
really listening-and being pleasant, kind, and gentle in
your responses.
This gentle agreeableness is startlingly powerful. You
will often find that the other person will behave in the
same manner-taking the conversation to a whole new
level of value.
Being agreeable also gives you the opportunity to use
other communication techniques discussed in this book
that build rapport, like Active Listening and Echoing.
You can find areas of agreement and focus on them,
creating an ally on important issues. You can persuade
the other person you are a good person with good inten-
tions, and lay the groundwork for future productive
discussions.
All of these conclusions are far better than the typical
ending of the typical political argument.
Not only will your discussion be pleasurable, but the
other person will be more likely to become the kind of
"agreeable" person that Disraeli described-someone
you will genuinely enjoy spending time with.
The Most Popular

Radio Station in Town
No matter who you're talking to about libertarianism,

chances are good they are listening to a radio station in
their head-WII-FM.
Those call letters stand for "What's In It-For Me?"
And WII-FM is the most popular station in town!
When we learn about something new-a product or a
political idea-it's natural to wonder if it will be good or
bad for us and others.
"How will this affect me, my family, my friends, the
causes I most care about?" is a very sensible question to
ask about any new idea. It's only natural that people will
wonder this about libertarianism, too.
It's not about selfishness. It's about validity. "How
will this affect poor people?" "How will this affect the
education of disadvantaged children?" Such questions
are extensions of the "What's In It-For Me?" question.
Next time you're discussing an issue with someone,
try answering that question for your listener-before
it's even asked.
Examples:
"If we end the income tax, you will have several thou-
sand dollars more in your pocket each year, to spend,
save, or contribute to your favorite cause."
"If we end the Drug War, your children will be safer
because we will end gang violence and the illegal drug
trade in our streets."
"If we replace the failing government education
monopoly with competitive, varied educational choices, the
poorest children will have access to a world-class education."
Libertarians have all the facts on our side. We know

that liberty works-that liberty has the best answers to
the world's problems.
That includes the particular problems and concerns
and passions of the person you're talking to.
Learn the facts-and then personalize them for
your audience.
Your listeners are tuned in to WII-FM. Remember
this when you present your message-and chances
are very good that libertarianism will rise to the top of
WII-FM's charts!
'Nuff Said
Little Johnny had been playing outside. He came

running into the house and asked, "Mommy, where did
I come from?"
The mother knew this question would come some day,
and she had diligently prepared for the occasion. She sat
him down, took a deep breath, cleared her throat, and
proceeded to explain in great detail about birds and
bees, love and romance, lifetime commitment, and the
wonders of how babies are conceived and born.
The boy sat quietly through it all, with a rather blank
expression on his face.
Fifteen minutes later, she concluded her lecture and
asked, "Do you understand now?"
Johnny shrugged and replied, "I was just wondering,
because Johnny said he came from Cleveland."
The moral of this story? Sometimes we give people a
lot more information than they want to know!
They may just be seeking a simple short answer to a
simple question.
This can be true about libertarianism and political
issues, too.
Never assume that someone else is as interested as
you are in all the fine details.
As devoted and passionate libertarians, many of us can
give learned lectures on just about every political topic
under the sun. But if a person is not interested, telling
them everything we know can be overwhelming-and
annoying and boring.
One danger is that they won't ask you another ques-
tion, for fear of getting a lecture. They may just lose
interest in the ideas entirely.
Another danger is that you may miss the particular

topic they were really interested in (i.e., Cleveland).
Too much information can be far worse than not
enough. A familiar analogy is that you can't fill a teacup
with a fire hose-the constant blast of water will over-
whelm the little cup. Very little water-or, in our case,
very little information about liberty-will be retained.
On the other hand, when someone sincerely asks a
question, it means they definitely are interested in some
aspect of your political philosophy.
So take a moment to make sure you know what it is
they're really asking about (is it the birds and the bees, or
Cleveland); take the opportunity to address the specific
area of interest; give them the chance to ask follow-up
questions; and plant the seeds for future discussions.
Begin by giving them a short answer. Start with a
soundbite (discussed elsewhere in this book). When
people are new to libertarianism, as with any other new
subject they will appreciate getting information in small,
digestible pieces.
So give your soundbite. And then step back. Listen
to their response. (See elsewhere in this book to learn
the extraordinary power of Active Listening-one of the
most powerful and under-utilized communication tech-
niques.) Assess.
A conversation goes much smoother when there's give
and take, so before going further and expanding on your
answer, get permission from the other person. Ask him
or her a permission question like one of these:
"Did that answer your question?"
"This is one of my favorite topics. Do you mind if I tell
you a little more about it?"
"Do you have time to discuss this further?"
"Would you like to know a little more about this?"
Continue to be sensitive to their level of interest.
Be alert to signs of disinterest, like fidgeting, looking
around the room. Be ready to ask a permission question

again, if appropriate. And be ready to close this conver-
sation, if it's time, and move on.
If you see their attention is drifting, or time is an
issue, you can also offer to supply further information
in another form. "I know a great short article (website,
video, podcast) on this topic. Would you like me to email
it to you?"
Of course, sometimes you can sense that the person
you're talking with is very interested and desires to talk
and learn more. But you'd be surprised-sometimes that
is hard to tell, especially when you're caught up in talking
about a great passion of yours. So play safe and ask.
It may be difficult to bite your tongue, but it's better
than forcing others to bite off more than they can chew.
It's generally better to give too little than to drown
them in information.
Remember the classic show business wisdom: "Always
leave 'em wanting more!"
Listen Up! The Incredible, Free and

Far Too Often Neglected Benefits
of Active Listening
One of the most powerful-and frequently over-

looked, and surprisingly difficult-techniques of truly
successful communication is Active Listening.
Active-not passive-listening.
In our eagerness to tell people about the ideas of
liberty, we may miss out on the enormous benefits of
simply stopping for a moment to listen-to carefully,
sincerely listen-to what the people we are talking with
are saying in response.
Here are some of those benefits:
• You learn what the other person's primary concerns
and interests are. This gives you a chance to
address those directly, instead of talking about
something the other person doesn't care about.
• You find out about any misconceptions they may
have about libertarianism. This gives you a chance
to clear those up.
• You can discover areas of agreement, thus creating
invaluable rapport, one of the greatest enhancers
of communication.
• You put the other person at ease. He or she will
feel more comfortable and accepted, and more
likely to engage in friendly, positive, productive
conversation.
• Perhaps most important, you show the other
person you are interested in them and respect
them. People tend to be reciprocal, and therefore
they in turn will be more interested in you and

what you have to say, and they will be more
respectful of your ideas.
These are remarkable benefits. And yet, most people
don't take the time and effort to do this. As Stephen
Covey writes: "Most people do not listen with the intent
to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.
They're either speaking or preparing to speak."
When you make the effort to listen actively, you imme-
diately become a far more effective communicator.
To be a good listener, you must really listen-not just

pretend. Here's how:
• Stop talking. For just a moment, stop speaking and
listen-really listen-to what the other person is
saying.
• Don't do what so many other people do when
"listening." That is, don't just close your mouth and
hold your breath, waiting for the other person to
pause so you can jump in. The other person can tell
if you're really listening.
• Take a deep breath. Relax. Breathe and pay attention.
• Make sure you understand what the person is
saying. If you're not sure, ask them to elaborate.
• Breathe. and focus on what the other person is

saying. When needed or appropriate, use the
Echoing technique (described in the next chapter)
to be sure you've really understood their concerns.
Here are a few ways to let the other person know you
are truly listening:
• Turn off (or at least put away) your cell phone
• Make eye contact
• Lean forward slightly
• Don't interrupt
• Don't cross your arms
• Nod your head and/or smile when you agree with
something they say
• Ask appropriate questions for clarification
While Active Listening is simple, it's certainly not easy.
You'll find this out the first time you try it.
Active Listening doesn't come naturally. It is a skill
that must be developed. But you'll reap benefits the very
first time you try it. And the more you do it, the better
you will get, and the more benefits that will flow.
Developing this skill is worth the effort. It is one of
the very best skills to have if you truly want to be an
effective communicator of libertarianism-or anything
else. It works amazingly well.
You'll be amazed at the difference it makes-not just
in your outreach but in every relationship in your life.
The Power of Echoing
In one Dilbert cartoon, the obnoxious Dogbert char-

acter tells a communication seminar: "There's really no
point in listening to other people. They're either going
to be agreeing with you or saying stupid stuff."
Thank goodness Dogbert isn't a libertarian!
The fact is, every successful persuasion conversation
starts with listening.
Attentive, active listening assures the other person
that you care about what they think, and allows you to
effectively address their concerns.
But how do you know you're really hearing what
they're saying? Understanding what they really mean?
Try a communication technique called "Echoing."
Echoing is simple. Just repeat what the other person
said. Then ask them: "Is that right?" Or: "Is that correct?"
to verify that you have accurately stated what they said.
Echoing lets the person you're talking with know that
you listened to them, heard them correctly, and under-
stood what they said. It also helps you to fully under-
stand their question or concern.
Here's an example of how Echoing works.
They say, "In a libertarian society, wouldn't poor
people starve without government welfare?"
You "echo" their question by saying, "You're concerned
that poor people wouldn't get the help they need in a liber-
tarian society, and would suffer or starve. Is that correct?"
Wait for their response (and listen to it!). Then you
can talk about how liberty helps the poor.
Your Echo doesn't have to be a world-for-word repeat.
It can restate or amplify what they've said in order to
clarify. But it must be accurate. It's not a trick to put
words in their mouths. It's a technique to make sure you

fully understand their concern, so you can respond to
that concern as effectively and helpfully as possible.
Echoing is a simple but powerful technique that builds
the respect and rapport necessary for constructive and
persuasive conversation.
So ignore Dogbert's dubious advice. Try Echoing
instead.
Avoiding the "Curse of

Knowledge" Trap
What do these conversations have in common?

Medical Doctor: "We will need to use amyl nitrate
for iatrogenic methemoglobinemia."
Relative of hospitalized patient: "???"
Attorney: "I can't help you with this because it would
be ruled Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio."
Prospective client:"???"
Aunt Sally: "It's easy to make my famous apple pie.
You just need to make sure the dough feels right."
Niece Michele: "???"
Piano player who plays by "ear": "Oh, it's easy.
Just listen to the bass line; it's usually playing the root.
Then you just have to figure out if the chord is major
. "
or m1nor.
Person who hasn't studied music theory: "???"
The confusion of the listeners in all these situations
comes from the "Curse of Knowledge."
The phrase "Curse of Knowledge" was coined by Robin
Hogarth, and popularized by Chip and Dan Heath in
their insightful book Made to Stick.
The "Curse of Knowledge" arises as a potential
threat to effective communication when we become
very knowledgeable about a particular subject. At that
point, we find it very difficult to remember what it
was like when we didn't have this level of knowledge,
this expertise.
And this, unfortunately, makes it hard for us to share

the important information we have on this subject
with others.
All the speakers in the scenarios above are assuming
their listeners share the same language and have the
same knowledge they possess.
But they don't, of course.
The result? The famous quote from the 1967 movie
"Cool Hand Luke" sums it up: "What we've got here is (a)
failure to communicate."
You can see that happening with libertarian commu-
nicators, too.
It can happen when we casually use phrases like
"zero aggression principle," or "Austrian economics" to
audiences completely unfamiliar with these terms or
concepts. Some audiences may not even know the word
"libertarian." They may not know what the Fed that you
say should be ended even is.
How do we avoid the Curse of Knowledge trap?
First, some good news. You've already taken the first
and most important step: becoming aware of it.
Now, think about situations when you've been on the
receiving end of someone dumping a truckload of jargon
and presumptions on you concerning a subject about
which you knew little or nothing. Remember how frus-
trating and unproductive that was for you. Determine
not to do the same to your listeners.
It's always important to try to find out what level of
knowledge your audience already has. If you do find out,
start your conversation, speech, or other communica-
tion at that level.
If you don't know the knowledge level of your audi-
ence, assume limited or no knowledge. Without being
condescending, start with the basics. Use language that
doesn't include jargon and doesn't presume knowl-
edge of your subject, or related subjects like economics,
history, foreign policy. Don't talk about too much at one

time. Leave time and opportunities for questions.
And above all, be patient. Remember, it took a lot of
time and effort for you to learn about these ideas you're
trying to share.
Not everyone instantly grasps how to make a pie. Or
end the Fed. But with the right recipe, you can bring your
listeners along, step by step-if you avoid the Curse of
Knowledge trap.
lmmoxelating the DCP or: How and

Why to Avoid Abbreviations
and Jargon
Abbreviations and jargon serve important purposes.

For one thing, they make communication quicker. Why
say "Libertarian Party" or "National Security Agency"
every time you refer to these organizations, when you
can abbreviate with LP or NSA?
However, it is important to remember that, for some
people, these will be new terms. And such acronyms
and abbreviations can keep your listeners from under-
standing what you're trying to say.
You may think that everyone knows that the Fed is
the Federal Reserve System, that the NSA is the National
Security Agency, and that the POTUS is the President of
the United States. And so on.
But for every person, there is a first time for encoun-
tering these terms. And it could well be in your article,
speech or conversation.
For that matter, even the most knowledgeable reader
or listener might be put off by something like: "NPR
reported that the POTUS and VPOTUS discussed CIA
concerns about a CFR paper describing the Fed ... "
Yikes! You've lost your readers or listeners before you
even get to what the FLOTUS and SCOTUS had to say
about it.
So do your audience-and yourself-a favor. The
first time you use a name in print that you intend to
abbreviate, spell it out. Like this: "The National Security
Agency (N SA) reported today ... "
(Yes, believe it or not, even an acronym as common as

"NSA'' is new to every reader at some time.)
After that, you can use NSA in your article with the
certainty that it is clear to everyone who reads it.
Similarly, in speaking, be aware of your audience's
level of familiarity. It is far better to be too careful and
state the full name than to use a breezy acronym and be
completely misunderstood.
As for jargon-words and phrases that are unique to a
particular activity or group-the liberty movement, like
many others, has loads of it.
Consider: TANSTAAFL, ZAP, NatCom, Rothbardian,
Randian, minarchist, OPH, non-aggression axiom. "Big
L'' and "little 1" libertarians, voluntaryists, autarchism,
anarcho-Austrian ... to name a few.
Of course these are very useful, and sometimes fun,
terms, in their place. But when speaking to the public at
large, and to newcomers to the liberty movement, they
will often be confusing, intimidating and perhaps even
annoying, unless explained.
Further, the use of them with general audiences can
create an exclusive, insider, members-only atmosphere
that can make newcomers and others feel excluded and
unwanted. And that's the last thing we want to do.
So give these listeners a break. Speak in language
they'll understand. When you do use jargon among such
listeners, first take a moment to explain what you mean
in regular, ordinary human-being-type language.
Remember, YRSTWL! Or, as the XRG once put it,
"Dogs whistle when the rain turns pink."
Revving Up Your Visual Impact
Communication expert Bert Decker has coached

literally tens of thousands of professionals, including
national political figures, on effective speaking.
In his book You've Got to Be Believed to Be Heard Decker
argues that the visual element of communication is
extremely important-and too frequently ignored.
The visual component is what people see-your
appearance and the motion and expression of your body
and face as you speak.
Like it or not, fair or unfair, how you present yourself
visually makes a major difference in how you are trusted
and how your message is received.
Decker argues that if you want to persuade someone,
you first have to have credibility with that person. For
people to believe us, we must be believable and credible.
And looking credible is an important part of that.
Bottom line: maximizing your visual impact is a
great way to dramatically increase your communica-
tion success, whether you're speaking formally or just
speaking one-on-one.
Happily, it's not hard to do.
Here, drawing on Decker's work, are four specific ways
to accomplish this vital, and too often unappreciated,
goal of visual credibility.
The BYBS Have It!
The first way is to effectively use our eyes. This is
something we seldom bring into conscious awareness,
but it is extremely important in determining the impres-
sion we make on people.
Whether speaking to a large group, a small group,

or one-on-one, correct eye contact is one of the most
powerful tools we have.
According to Bert Decker, eye contact "literally connects
mind-to-mind ... When your eyes meet the eyes of another
person, you make a connection. When you fail to make
that connection, it matters very little what you say."
What we're looking for, says Decker, is the right level
of eye connection that will convey "involvement." This
requires about five seconds of steady eye contact. That is
the amount of time that is natural and comfortable for
the other person.
With too much eye contact, we intimidate or invade
another's terri tory.
With too little eye contact, we appear to be nervous,
bored, or disinterested.
Avoid darting your eyes around while talking or
listening. Also avoid closing your eyes for several seconds
while talking. These habits cause discomfort in your
listener and undermine your credibility.
It may be awkward at first, and you may need to prac-
tice a bit, but getting this right has many benefits. As
Decker points out, you will appear more confident, you
can better focus your thoughts, and you "read" your
audience better.
All of this adds up to increasing your credibility, thus
making your communication far more effective.
Say "Cheese!" The Power of Smiling
Here's a surefire tool that will get you off to a great
start in any conversation about the ideas of liberty.
Start off with a
Simple
Movement
Into
Libertarian
Engagement
... better known as a SMILE! (Check out the first letters

of that phrase.)
Yes, SMILE! You're on Candid Camera.
No kidding, you really are. When you present yourself
as a libertarian, you represent all libertarians to many of
your listeners. And they're watching to see what kind of
people those libertarians really are. (Hey, no pressure ... )
Scientists have been studying the power and bene-
fits of smiling since the 1800s. Today there's a great
deal of science arguing for the social and personal
benefits of smiling.
The act of smiling affects your body chemistry in
ways science is still trying to understand. But scien-
tists agree that smiling makes you feel good and feel
more confident.
"Simply using the same muscles as smiling will put
you in a happier mood," says Dr. Michael Lewis, psychol-
ogist at Cardiff University. "That's because use of those
muscles is part of how the brain evaluates mood."
Smiling can actually reduce stress and help you
feel better in stressful conditions-like, for example,
public speaking.
Your listeners, too, will pick up on this. MRI studies
indicate that seeing a smile activates the part of the
brain that processes rewards. A smiling person may thus
be perceived as more attractive. A sincere smile is conta-
gious. Your audience will often smile back, setting off the
same good feelings within them, making the encounter
much more pleasant.
It's hard to be hostile to a person who is smiling
sincerely at you. A smile is thus one of the best shields
against hostility and one of the best ways to assure that
the other person is open to hearing what you have to say.
It's important that your smile be genuine, not fake.
Happily, when you talk about liberty, you've got a lot to
smile about. You're sharing good news-ideas that can
change lives and change the world in the most wonderful

ways. It may help you to take a moment before speaking
to reflect on the positive and beneficial nature of what
you're about to speak on. This can help you make your
smile genuine.
According to Bert Decker, we all think we smile much
of the time, but other people may see us very differently.
Decker says that only about one third of us have natu-
rally open and smiling faces. Another third have neutral
faces, and the rest have faces that are "naturally serious
and intense (if not downright grim!)-even when they
think they are smiling."
So, if you're like most
people, to be effective
at smiling you need to
practice it. Decker and
other experts suggest ~
several ways to do this. ~~
Use a mirror. Film your
;5'
smile. In the mirror and
film, exaggerate your ~
smile and try different
expressions to see how 1 \
they look and feel.
Get feedback on your
smiling from people you trust. Ask your friends and
family to remind you when you're looking grim. Think
of something amusing to help you lighten up your
expression. Watch TV pundits and people being inter-
viewed on TV. See how they smile even during the most
difficult interviews and debates.
Most importantly, simply teach yourself to remember
to smile.
The more you practice, the easier and more natural
smiling becomes.
There's something magic about the way a smile affects

you and others. It will make you feel better and more
enthusiastic.
A smile is a free and easy way to amp up the visual
component of your communication for liberty.
As the saying goes, "smile, and the world smiles
with you."
How nice it will be to have more people smiling about
the ideas of liberty!
Stand Tall for Liberty
Posture is another powerful and proven way to
increase your visual effectiveness.
Decker points out that slouching or slumping over
indicates to your listener that you have low self-esteem,
a characteristic that tends to quickly erode credibility.
If you stand tall (not starchy or stiff), with shoulders
back and stomach in, you'll find that you feel more self-
assured, and your audience will have more respect for
you and what you say.
It's common for people to lean back on one hip. This
literally distances you from your audience and says, "I
don't really want to be here."
It's far better to stand in a "ready" position-weight
forward, leaning slightly forward, knees somewhat
flexed.
Move naturally, remaining fluid rather than stiff.
Decker suggests that your posture should make you "feel
like an athlete ready to move easily and quickly."
This may take a little practice. And feedback from
friends can be helpful. Filming yourself, or getting a
friend to film you, will let you see your posture. Practice
until these elements of good posture feel natural and
comfortable.
Paying attention to posture will help you in casual
conversation as well as when you're giving a presenta-
tion to a larger audience.
Dress for Liberty's Success

People form an impression of us within the first few
seconds of seeing us. Even before we smile or speak.
That may not seem fair, or wise, but it is nevertheless
true. And this first impression is often a lasting one.
So it's important to make it a good one.
Happily, that's quite easy to do.
The main factor that contributes to this first impres-
sion is our appearance: what we wear, how our hair looks,
what (if any) make-up we use, and so forth.
Again, that may not be fair or wise, but it is true. So
use this to your advantage.
The first "rule" of dress is to be appropriate for the
situation. You certainly wouldn't wear a tuxedo to a
picnic, but you also wouldn't wear your pajamas, right?
Be observant.
Dressing appropriately doesn't always mean wearing

a suit. Notice what others are wearing at specific func-
tions. At some events, dressing appropriately might be
going barefoot or dying your hair blue. At a nudist colony,
you'll be awkwardly out of place wearing anything at all.
On the other hand, at a church wedding, your T-shirt,
cut-off shorts and flip-flops may lose you the opportu-
nity for positive contacts.
When in doubt, remember that, as a general rule, it's

better to over-dress than to under-dress. But you don't
want to offend your hosts or audience. The key is to
dress in a way that will make others comfortable in your
presence. You particularly don't want to call attention to
yourself in a negative way.
If you wonder whether you're dressing appropriately or
not, ask for feedback. Let your friends and acquaintances
know that you want an honest, constructive critique.
For most people, in most occasions, this isn't difficult.
It just takes a bit of thought.
Be willing to invest in clothing that will strengthen
your visual impact. A small expenditure can significantly
increase your communication success.
This advice to dress appropriately might sound
obvious-but you'd be surprised at how often this is
overlooked. Many people fail to consider the importance
of this, and it costs them dearly in lost credibility.
Consciously or subconsciously, people do notice how
you dress-and they use that information to form an
opinion about you, good or bad. Again, maybe that's not
fair. But it is true.
It's so easy to see to it that their initial opinion is a
good one. Why miss out on that boost to your commu-
nication effort?
You can improve your skill at this by paying particular
attention to those people who are successful commu-
nicators. Chances are their success has been aided by
their appearance. Use them as models or mentors for
your dressing.
Dressing appropriately brings many benefits. A
positive impression adds to effectiveness. It puts your
listeners at ease, making them more open to what you
have to say. You eliminate the difficult task of having
to overcome a negative first impression inappropriate
dress may create.
It also gives you confidence, which almost magically

increases others' confidence in you and your message.
And again-it's one of the easiest things you can do!
One more point: We can't write about dressing appro-
priately without remembering an experience with Harry
Browne. We were at an evening event in which the
suggested attire had been changed at the last minute
from formal to semi-formal.
Someone saw Harry approaching the room in a tuxedo.
"You didn't have to wear a tux," someone called out to
Harry. "They announced it just before the event."
"I know," Harry replied. "But I thought that at least
one guy might not have heard about the change, and
would come dressed in a tuxedo. And I didn't want him
to feel self-conscious."
That was Harry Browne: gracious, thoughtful, consid-
erate-and very much aware of the importance of
making a strong visual impact.
Final Touches
These ideas will enormously increase the visual power
of your communication efforts.
To top it off, add energy and enthusiasm. These are
catching! If you're enthusiastic about what you're saying,
other people will be drawn to you and curious about
what's got you so excited. Speak with confidence, but
never with arrogance.
Put these elements together, and you'll find your-
self-and your ideas-taken seriously and treated
with respect.
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. Welcome to the human race!
This means that, at some point in your conversations
about liberty with friends, or in speeches 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 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 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 organiza-
tions, and thousands of articles, papers and books have
been written by libertarians covering 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 con tact

information for the questioner. If it's a group, collect
mail or email addresses, or agree to send the answer to
the appropriate person to share with the entire group.
Follow up promptly with the answer. When you do,
suggest a couple of libertarian blogs or newsletters you
think they will enjoy, where they can learn more about
libertarianism and read libertarian commentary on
current events.
Now you've shown your listeners you are human,
honest, and reliable. You've turned a difficult situation
into an opportunity for further learning. And you've
given your listeners resources to learn lots more about
liberty and libertarian views.
Congratulations!
Put a Compliment Sandwich on Your

Communication Menu
The Compliment Sandwich is a gentle, polite and very

effective method for offering criticism to others-in a
way that doesn't overwhelm, discourage, turn off, anger,
or offend them.
A Compliment Sandwich also leaves a good taste in
the mouth of the person you serve it to-something
ordinary criticism frequently fails to do.
You make a Compliment Sandwich by wrapping your
critical comment in two layers of positive feedback. First,
give a sincere compliment, then give your criticism, then
follow that with another sincere compliment.
The "sandwich" is thus made up of the "meat" of your
negative comment, surrounded and cushioned by two
slices of "bread" in the form of positive feedback.
This isn't trickery. People generally don't receive
nearly enough positive feedback or proper acknowledg-
ment for the good things they're doing. We all tend to
give far more negative criticism than positive criticism.
We're more likely to criticize someone for the one thing
they did wrong than to praise them for the many things
they did right.
The Compliment Sandwich helps us correct that. The
results are beneficial to both parties.
Here's an example of a Compliment Sandwich, in this
case used to give feedback to a speaker:
"I loved your call for shrinking government spending.
I'm looking forward to hearing more of your proposals for
doing this. I have to disagree with one point you made,
when you say we can't cut military spending-surely
there's some waste and unnecessary spending there, too.

You are so right-government spending has to be cut, or
our country will be in serious trouble."
That is more likely to build a productive relationship
than something like: "You're wrong when you say we can't
cut military spending. If you not willing to even consider
cutting military spending, then you're not serious about
cutting spending at all."
Here's another:
"You made a great point about re-legalizing marijuana
in your speech-excellent arguments, I'm with you all the
way. I can't agree with you about cracking down on drug
sellers, and I'd like to talk with you more about that some
time and explain why. I especially loved your comments
about the devastating effect the War on Drugs has had
on our civil liberties-you made that point beautifully."
If your goal is persuasion or forming alliances, that's
a lot more effective than: "How can you favor legalizing
marijuana, but support the rest of the Drug War? That's
illogical and immoral!"
Use the Compliment Sandwich with your fellow liber-
tarians, too:
"Tonight's meeting was a big success, and your hard
work was a big part of that. Thank you! I thought your
posters were terrific. I wish we'd had some handouts
available for our first-time visitors-they were clearly
enthusiastic and ready to learn more. Let's make sure we
do that next time. I'm glad you did such a great job of
getting everyone's contact info, so we can invite them to
next month's meeting."
That's a lot better than: "Why didn't you bring any
handouts to the meeting? What a wasted opportunity!"
The Compliment Sandwich lets you gently deliver
important constructive criticism while leaving the recip-
ient feeling good. Delivered in this way, your criticism is
much more likely to be, accepted and even appreciated.
You also establish rapport and find common ground. By

opening and closing with positive feedback, you set, and
maintain, a positive mood. The door is left open for further
discussions-while avoiding unproductive arguments.
One important warning: be honest, sincere and
genuine in your compliments. A dishonest, contrived
or manipulative Compliment Sandwich won't help you
or your recipient, and may backfire. Also, make sure the
compliments are strongly related to the same subject as
your criticism.
Using the "Compliment Sandwich"

to Get Useful Personal Feedback
In the previous chapter we discussed the "Compliment

Sandwich."
Here's a second, lesser-known way of using the
Compliment Sandwich technique, taught by Advocates
Founder Marshall Fritz.
Marshall had just delivered a great speech. Several
people-some libertarians, some not-joined him after-
ward for pizza and an informal discussion.
Marshall asked everyone at the table to take turns and
give him feedback on his speech.
"But do it in the form of a Compliment Sandwich,"
he said.
Several of his listeners had never heard of the concept,
so Marshall explained it, in much the same way as we've
done in the previous chapter.
"First, tell me something you liked about my presen-
tation. Then, tell me something that you· didn't like,
that I got wrong, or that can be improved. Finally, tell
me something else you liked, something positive, about
my speech."
Why was he asking for personal feedback in the form
of a Compliment Sandwich?
Marshall said he had learned that, too often, people
rush to give negative feedback, while neglecting to tell
what they like-even when their likes far outweigh
the negatives.
Typical feedback would often start along these lines:
"I disagreed with your speech on this one vital point ... "
Now Marshall was very willing, even eager, to hear

negative criticism-but he wanted honest positive feed-
back, too.
In part, he wanted positive feedback because such
feedback is extremely valuable in assessing perfor-
mance-a speaker needs to learn what was successful,
what worked.
And Marshall said he also wanted honest positive
feedback along with the negative feedback because ...
frankly, it's just not much fun to hear only a series of
negative responses to your work. It can be demoralizing
for both the speaker and those listening to the critique.
In practice, this worked very, very well at Marshall's
event. Much of the feedback-both positive and nega-
tive-was useful. And there was the added benefit of
seeing those at the table nod in agreement with the
positive feedback. It fostered unity and sparked creative
thinking. It was a great post-speech discussion.
Marshall was right. We all tend to give far more nega-
tive criticism than positive criticism. The Compliment
Sandwich helps us correct that, and the results are bene-
ficial to both parties.
Bonus tip: if you're ever in a roundtable critique of
someone's speech, campaign, volunteer effort, etc.,
consider taking the initiative and asking that the group
present their remarks in the form of a Compliment
Sandwich.
Everyone will benefit-and the target of the critique
will especially appreciate it!
Bert Decker's Three-by-Three Rule:

Another Way to Get Useful Feedback
No matter what we are trying to accomplish, one of

the most valuable things we can get is honest feedback.
In fact, without it we may fail to reach our goals-and
never really know why.
The best way to get feedback is to ask for it. But if
we just ask "Would you give me some feedback on my
speaking?" or "How did I do on my presentation last
night?" we will tend to get just general comments or
vague compliments, neither of which are of real benefit.
In the previous chapter we discussed one great way to
get useful positive and critical feedback: ask for it in the
form of a Compliment Sandwich.
Here's one more suggestion: Bert Decker's "Three-by-
Three Rule."
Communication expert Decker suggests that, when
you are soliciting feedback, ask: "What are three
strengths I have as a communicator, and what are
three distractions?"
This prompts the person to be specific and it also
gives you balanced feedback: feedback that includes both
the positive and critical.
Learning about your three notable "distractions" gives
you areas to focus on for improvement.
Learning about your three notable "strengths" helps
build confidence.
Specific, balanced feedback can quickly help you
become much better at whatever you're working on. And
it's free!
Put the "Five Most Important

Phrases" to Work for Liberty
A famous saying, attributed only to "a communica-

tions expert," claims that the most important phrases in
the English language are these:
1. The 5 most important words: "I am proud of you."
2. The 4 most important words: "What is your
opinion?"
3. The 3 most important words: "If you please."
4. The 2 most important words: "Thank you."
5. The 1 most important word: "You."
Is the advice of this anonymous "communications
expert" useful for libertarian communication? You bet!
First, notice that the word "you" is in all these phrases.
It cannot be over-emphasized that we must think of the
other person first in communication. Communication
breaks down quickly when the other person thinks you
don't care about them or their views. We must listen
carefully and determine the other person's concerns and
needs.
We can put these five "most important" sentences
above to work for us by:
1. Complimenting the other person-sincerely and
honestly, always emphasizing areas of agreement.
Example: "It's smart of you to realize that gun control
cannot work. I agree with you 100% on that."
2. Asking for their opinion-and listening to their
answer.
Example: "What do you think the solution is to
this particular problem?"
3. Asking permission to continue. Give your

opinion, and then pause long enough to see if
they really want to hear more. Be sensitive to
their attention span.
Example: "I recently read a great short article on
free-market solutions to these environmental prob-
lems. I'll be glad to email you a copy if you wish."
4. Thanking them for their interest.
Example: "Thanks for bringing this up. I really
enjoyed talking with you about it."
5. Always remembering to show them how liber-
tarian ideas and organizations can help them
personally.
Example: "Think about how you and your family
would benefit from being able to keep all your
hard-earned money. What would you do with the
extra money? Take a vacation? Pay for a private
school? Help your favorite charity in a big way?"
Note how "you" is featured in each one of those
responses.
Dear reader, we're very impressed that you care
enough about liberty to read and consider these five
ideas. What do you think of them? May we ask a favor
of you? If you find them useful, please share them
with your fellow libertarians. We sincerely believe they
will help you personally in your efforts to spread the
ideas of liberty-and in other areas of your life as well.
Thank you for reading this, and thank you for all you
do for liberty!
(See? It's easy!)
Instead of an Argument
Renowned humorist-and libertarian-Dave Barry

says this about himself:
"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."
Yikes! (Hopefully he's joking.)
At any rate, this is a great quote. It shows exactly
why being able to win arguments isn't enough-not
nearly enough.
Alas, some libertarians consider arguing their
favorite sport. Admittedly, it can be fun, but often it is
self-defeating.
&to,
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?
As Dale Carnegie wrote in his classic How To Win
Friends and Influence People:
"Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to

make him like you? Why not let him save face? He didn't
ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with
him? You can't win an argument, because if you lose, you
lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? You will feel
fine. But what about him? You have made him feel infe-
rior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence, his judg-
ment, and his self-respect, and he'll resent your triumph.
That will make him strike back, but it will never make
him want to change his mind. A man convinced against
his will is of the same opinion still."
Productive alternatives to arguing include:
• Active Listening (see the chapter on this): actually
listening to the other person;
• asking questions to discover his or her concerns
• finding common ground, focusing on issues
where you agree and topics on which you have a
shared interest;
• sharing stories of how libertarian ideas have solved
or are solving the problems he's concerned with.
Ways to do these things, and other successful alter-
natives to arguing, are described in detail in this book.
Still more can be found in our free email newsletter the
Liberator Online and in articles, books, DVDs, CDs and
other resources available at our website.
If none of this works, you can change the subject
to a non-political one, or politely end the conversation
and leave.
Our goal shouldn't be to argue. We're aiming at some-
thing much bigger: persuasion. Winning people to liberty.
We must make friends who are excited about liberty,
not create an army of people who are sore because we
out-argued them. We must show our family, friends,
neighbors, and community leaders that we libertar-
ians are good people with good intentions. We must
show them that liberty will be wonderful for them and

everyone else.
Yes, libertarians have brilliant answers for every polit-
ical issue under the sun. And that is vital. But we must
do far more than trounce statist ideas in arguments. We
must persuade people to come over to our side. We must be
sensitive to the concerns and the feelings of others. We
must turn people into active, enthusiastic supporters of
liberty-into evangelists for freedom.
Some of the best libertarians today are people who
were persuaded, in a friendly and gentle manner, to
examine the ideas of freedom.
And some of the strongest enemies of liberty today
are people who were thoroughly and unquestionably
crushed by a libertarian in an argument.
Arguing is the Little League of communication.
Persuasion is the World Series.
Persuasion takes longer to master, but it's a far better
game-and the pay-off is well worth it.
Play ball!
Give Them Something
Maybe you've just met someone at a party. You've had

a great discussion about libertarianism. Now it's time to
leave. You may never see this person again.
Or you find yourself talking to a stranger-on an
airplane, at the grocery store, in line at the post office
onAprillSth-and she agrees with libertarians on some
key issue, or on many issues. Now your conversation is
ending. In a moment you'll be parting.
Or you mention to your cab driver as you return to the
airport that you've been to a libertarian conference, and
he says, "Libertarians-yeah, I've been hearing more
and more about them." And now, after a great friendly
political conversation, you're stepping out of the cab.
Now what?
'8:1/1()
Don't overlook the crucial last step in your encounter.
Don't let their current interest and enthusiasm and curi-
osity dwindle away. Act now-while they are eager to
learn more.
If appropriate, say something like, "I've really enjoyed
our talk. A lot of people agree with you and me about
these issues. Would you like to learn more?"
Then give them something. Some way for them to easily

continue their investigations into libertarian ideas and
the libertarian movement.
Here are some suggestions.
World's Smallest Political Quiz cards: This is an
obvious choice. The Quiz card is designed for this. It's an
outreach kit on a card. The Quiz itself is fun, irresistible,
and eye-opening. On the back are links to solid, persua-
sive online information about libertarianism.
Quiz cards are attractive and easy to carry in a wallet,
purse, pocket, glove compartment, etc. Many libertar-
ians never go anywhere without them.
Give your new friend more than one. "Here's one for
you-and a few to share." If you wish, you can hand-
write your contact information, or the name of a liber-
tarian organization or website you're familiar with, on
the card you give them.
Other contact information: If you don't have Quiz
cards, take out a business card, or any other piece of
paper handy, and write down a good libertarian website
they can check out. (We're partial, of course, to our own:
www.TheAdvocates.org.) Don't just write down the
website address. Write something like: "Great source of
info on libertarianism" so when they see the paper again,
they'll know what it is. If appropriate, you can give your
own con tact info as well.
Info about upcoming meetings: If you are active in
a local libertarian organization, you might invite them
to attend an upcoming meeting. Write down the date
and place. Or offer to send them this information.
The important thing is not to let these serendipi-
tous chance encounters be wasted. Help make them the
beginning of a journey to libertarianism.
This may seem obvious, but we frequently don't think

of it until it's too late. So remember the Boy Scouts
motto: Be prepared.
Because you never know. That person just might
become the next libertarian volunteer, donor, candi-
date, or radio talk show host. The liberty movement will
be that much stronger-because you took the time to ...
give them something.
Vision
Legendary NFL coach Don Shula took his teams to a

record six Super Bowls.
He lost the first four.
After losing 1971's Super Bowl VI by a devastating
24-3, Shula-a strong believer in the power of setting
goals-had an epiphany. He told his Miami Dolphins he
had reevaluated and changed his mission statement.
"Our goal the next year, and the following year, was
not to get to the Super Bowl but to win the Super Bowl,"
he told sportswriter Bob McGinn.
The next year the Dolphins did exactly that-and
more. Their Super Bowl VII victory was accompanied by
the only perfect season in NFL history. And Shula went
on to become the winningest coach in NFL history.
Goals matter. Planning experts often point out that it
is possible to fall short of our vision, but it's not likely we
will go beyond our vision.
What is our ultimate goal, our vision as libertarians?
Of course, we should have intermediary goals, transi-
tion plans, etc. Those are important. Vital.
But we mustn't let ourselves get sidetracked by these.
And we must carefully analyze all of them to make sure
they aren't taking us down a wrong path. A vision that's
incomplete, that's poorly thought out, will not serve our
movement well.
We must keep our eye on the final vision-our Super
Bowl victory, our North Star.
We believe the libertarian vision has to be nothing
less than a world where all people are free-free to do as
they please with their lives and property as long as they
don't harm others.
Nothing short of that fulfills our libertarian ideal.

The pre-Civil War abolitionists had a great vision. In
a society that almost universally accepted or tolerated
slavery, they demanded nothing less than a total and
immediate end to slavery.
They didn't set out to make sure slaves had better
working conditions or a shorter work week. That would
have been a terribly short-sighted and unfulfilling goal.
Just as they demanded a total end to slavery, we liber-
tarians must have a vision powerful enough to inspire us
to accomplish the task we have set for ourselves.
After all, aren't we the anti-slavery movement of today?
If we are to get what we want, we must first know what
we want and be able to visualize it.
Many great home run hitters say they can actually "see"
in their mind's eye the ball sailing over the fence-before
the pitcher even throws it.
Do we as libertarians have a strong enough vision-
one we can see in our mind's eye?
The Israeli government has long believed that it is
important for young Jews all over the world to personally
visit Israel in order to understand their Jewish heritage.
To that end they support organizations working to make
such trips possible. One of those is Taglit-Birthright
Israel. Their stated goal is to "make an educational trip
to Israel an integral part of the life of every young Jew,
in an effort to generate a profound transformation in
contemporary Jewish culture and a connection between
Israelis and their peers ... "
Notice the wording. Not 10% of Jewish children in
the world. Not half of Jewish children. Not "as many
Jewish children as we can." No, it's "every young Jew."
Now that's VISION.
It is precise, well-defined, and breathtakingly bold.
What is our vision as libertarians?
When Robert Woodruff was chairman of Coca-Cola

from 1923-1955, his stated vision was that everyone in
the world would taste a Coca-Cola.
Everyone in the world. That's VISION.
What is our vision as libertarians?
In 1908 a small American Christian organization
just a few years old adopted a bold mission: to place
a Bible in every bedroom of every hotel in the United
States. Impossible? Crazily ambitious? One hundred
years and two billion Bibles later, Gideons International
continues fulfilling that mission in 190 countries and
90 languages-and there is a Bible in nearly every hotel
room in the world.
The abolitionists didn't envision "making sure slaves
have more comfortable beds" or "weekends and holidays
off for slaves."
Would we be quite as excited if the revolution to tear
down the Berlin Wall had stopped at opening it briefly
for visiting hours each Sunday?
What is your vision for libertarianism? Is it clear
enough that you can see it in your mind's eye?
Is it bold enough to be a little scary, even to sound a
little crazy?
Is it powerful enough to inspire you-and others-to
take action that will change the world?
69
SECTION TWO
Word Choice
Mark Twain said it best: "The difference between

the almost right word and the right word is really
a large matter-'tis the difference between the
lightning-bug and the lightning."
This section is loaded with communication
"lightning" for you. Sprinkle these words and
phrases throughout your libertarian outreach
activities-- and watch the magic happen!
Instead of "Abolish"
Libertarians know the market can do a better, fairer,

more efficient and more innovative job of providing
most, if not all, of the useful services that government
now monopolizes.
So we want to end government provision of such
services, and substitute voluntary, market-based
alternatives.
We know the market will quickly respond with far
superior alternatives.
Therefore, talk of "abolishing" such government
agencies as the U.S. postal monopoly, FDA, EPA,
Department of Education, and so on is sweet music to
our libertarian ears.
But what about the ears of our non-libertarian audi-
ences? They may hear an entirely different tune-one
not nearly so sweet.
To many listeners, these are not just government
agencies; they represent positive concepts. To many,
"FDA'' means "safe drugs and food," EPA means "clean
air and water," and the Department of Education means
"a good education for all children."
Of course, libertarians are not advocating abolishing
safe drugs and clean air and quality education. Exactly
the opposite. We strongly believe a free society will do a
far better job of providing these benefits.
Yet this is exactly what some listeners hear when we
speak of abolishing such agencies and programs.
That can be scary: "You want businesses to get rich
while they pollute our air and water?"
It can sound like we lack compassion: "Don't you care
what will happen to the poor if you abolish welfare?"
It can sound like we haven't thought through the

consequences of our ideas: "Do you want a nation filled
with uneducated kids who can't spell or read? How will
they get jobs?"
That's not what we want, and it's not what we want
listeners to believe.
For some audiences, using the word "replace" instead
of "abolish" can convey the same message-and help us
be more clearly understood.
For example:
• We want to replace the FDA with much more effec-
tive, efficient, innovative and consumer-oriented
market solutions.
• We want to replace failed government schools by
empowering all parents to choose among a great
variety of superior education choices.
• We want to replace the EPA with strict enforcement
of tort law and property rights; with improved
technology to control pollution and monitor
and detect pollution trespasses; and by holding
polluters strictly responsible for their acts through
restitution.
• We want to replace government welfare with
private charities and private enterprise job-training
programs that work. We want to replace welfare
checks with paychecks.
• We want to replace Social Security with far better-
paying private pensions and private retirement plans
which give you a much higher retirement income.
• Libertarians want to replace Medicare with dozens
of different and affordable private health care
programs competing to best meet your needs.
Replace makes it clear we want to get rid of these
agencies and programs-that's what "replace" means,
after all-but it also lets us show we are good, sensible,
responsible people who share our listeners' concerns,

and are offering an alternative we believe is significantly
better than the existing one.
Of course, the word "abolish" or similar words (end,
shut down, repeal, etc.) are often appropriate. We want
to abolish agencies and programs whose functions would
not exist in a free society. We want to abolish the IRS,
DEA, and BATE We want to end the War on Drugs. We
want to stop asset forfeiture.
Further, if we know that our listeners agree with us
that a particular agency or program should be ended,
then "abolish" may resonate with them much better
t h an "rep1ace."
The key, of course, is to know your audience. You don't
have to abolish the word "abolish" from your vocabu-
lary-but often it is best to replace it with "replace."
Using "Once Again" and

"Return To"
Change makes many people uncomfortable. Some

people are unable to easily see how a bold proposed
political change could ever win. Some lack an historical
perspective on a particular issue. Some can't visualize
how a proposed new policy could work and make our
world better.
For whatever reason, they are reluctant to let go of a
current failed policy-out of fear that the proposed new
policy may be even worse.
This can make advocating some libertarian ideas
difficult.
It is therefore very useful to let people know that
some seemingly "radical" libertarian ideas were actually
the status quo-and not so long ago.
One excellent way to do that is to use the phrase
. "
"once again.
Saying "I believe the use and sale of drugs should be
legal in America" may sound scary to some people. It
sounds like you are calling for a radical, untested, unprec-
edented change in the status quo.
But simply adding "once again" to that statement can
transform it. Saying "I believe the use and sale of drugs
should once again be legal in America" adds power to your
argument. It makes it plain that this was once the norm
in America. And that you are simply calling for a restora-
tion of the status quo.
This then offers you the chance to point out that all
drugs were legal in America until well into the twen-
tieth century, and there were no federal laws against
marijuana untill937. And America was much freer and

safer because of this policy.
Of course, you will need to have your facts and
arguments ready to follow up on this. But this simple
phrase can open the door for some people to consider
the argument.
Here are some other examples of how the "once again"
phrase can be used:
"I believe Americans should once again be free of the
federal income tax."
"I believe America should once again follow our tradi-
tional foreign policy of not interfering in the internal
affairs of other nations."
"I believe the residents of our state should once again
be free from a state income tax."
"Return to" is a similar phrase that can sometimes be
used in such situations. Examples:
"I believe Americans should return to our traditional
foreign policy of not interfering in the internal affairs of
other nations."
"I believe America should return to our tradition
of allowing adults to decide for themselves which
substances they can consume."
You can come up with more examples. When appro-
priate, these simple phrases can help your listeners
understand that many of your libertarian proposals are
simply a return to past wisdom, proven policies, and
common sense.
WHEN, Not IF
Drug Peace activist Scott Morgan, in a blog post at

StopTheDrugWar.org, shared a terrific communica-
tion idea:
"A wise colleague ... recently suggested to me that we
should stop introducing our arguments with phrases like
'if marijuana were legal. .. ' and instead say, 'when mari-
juana is legal. .. ' and he's exactly right."
This is an excellent practice-and not just for arguing
for marijuana re-legalization.
Saying "when" instead of "if" gives your arguments a
sense of reality, even inevitability. It verbally moves your
argument from a mere theoretical discussion to a talk
about a living, breathing, real-world political issue-and
possibly even an impending victory.
It sounds confident, strong, positive.
It creates a picture in your listener's mind of some-
thing real, something actually happening, rather than
merely an abstract what-if. This gives solidity and
concreteness to arguments that might otherwise sound
too theoretical or abstract or pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by
to many listeners.
And it adds a dash of excitement.
That's a big gain from such a simple word change!
Compare:
"If we didn't have an income tax ... " versus "When the
income tax is ended ... "
"If we could get the government out of education ... "
versus "When we end government involvement in educa-
tion ... "
"If we didn't have a Federal Reserve System ... " versus

"When America is finally freed of the Federal Reserve
System ... "
See how this simple change frames your argument in
a far more positive and exciting manner?
Like any communication technique, don't overuse this.
Apply it subtly and occasionally, as a kind of seasoning
for your speaking or writing. A little sprinkle will defi-
nitely enhance the flavor of your argument.
"Legal Marijuana: It's Coming, Whether You Like it or Not" by Scott Morgan,
StopTheDrugWar.com, November 25, 2009.
The Power of NOW
Libertarian communication pioneer Michael Cloud

recommends a very useful and easy communication
technique we call "the power of NOW."
The idea is simple but powerful, and it can be easily
used in conversations, speeches, interviews, and the like.
Here it is: Whenever you make a political proposal
that would bring immediate benefits if implemented
right now, you add the word "now" to the end.
For example: "We should re-legalize marijuana ... now."
Notice how much more powerful this is than simply
saying, "We should re-legalize marijuana."
With the addition of "now," you've added a timetable.
You've also implied there is no reason to delay the bene-
fits that would come from re-legalization.
Further, you've subtly shifted the discussion. You're
no longer talking about a mere theory, an ideal, or some
vague day in the future.
If your listeners pick up on this, you may see the debate
quickly shift from whether or not marijuana should be
legalized to how soon it should be legalized-whether it
should be done immediately or later.
You can feel the power of this with other issues:
"We should end the failed War on Drugs and abolish
other victimless crime laws ... now."
"We should abolish the income tax ... now."
"We should allow young people to opt out of Social
Secunty. ... now."
"We should bring troops home from around the
world ... now."
"We should stop asset forfeiture ... now."
Of course, you must then be prepared to discuss the

proposal on its merits, and show why enacting it imme-
diately would be beneficial.
If you can also make a compelling argument that
letting the existing situation continue will only cause
further and unnecessary harm, all the better.
Another point: You may not feel "now" applies to all
proposals. If that's the case, inserting a timetable can
have similar benefits.
Examples:
"I propose we cut the budget by one trillion dollars
over the next 12 months."
"We should bring all our troops home from Europe
and Japan by the end of the year."
Using "now" is a great and simple way to add impact
and immediacy to your discussions.
Why not start using this technique ... now!
"You" Instead of "I"
When talking about the benefits of liberty, we often

use the word "I." For example:
"Why should I have to give half of my income to the
government.? "
"Why should I have to pay for the education of other
people's children?"
"I would be far better off if I could invest the money
that's taken from me in Social Security taxes."
Try replacing "I" with "you." This simple change
brings your listeners into the discussion. They are able
to more clearly see that they-not just you-are victims
of bad government policies. They can picture themselves
personally benefiting from libertarian policies.
"Why should you have to give half of your income to
the government?"
"Libertarians believe you shouldn't be forced to pay
for the education of other people's children."
"You would be far better off if you could invest the
money that's taken from you in Social Security taxes."
Word choices that bring in specific groups bring
similar benefits.
"Why should hard-working middle-class families,
struggling with bills and mortgages, have to give half of
their income to the government?"
"Why should elderly people on fixed incomes have to
pay for the education of other people's children?"
"All workers would be far better off if they could invest
the money that's taken from them in Social Security taxes."
These simple changes create a powerful and effective
shift in perspective.
Liberty benefits everyone, not just you. Be sure your
word choices make that clear.
Instead of "Capitalism"
For some audiences, the word "capitalism" is a posi-

tive word, and is fine to use.
But be aware: for many people, the word "capitalism"
has huge negative connotations.
When they hear it, they instantly think of such things
as: heartless run-amok corporations looting customers,
employees and investors; monopolies limiting choice
and extorting the public; rich corporations exploiting
impoverished third-world countries; 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? Are the concepts in the paragraph above an accu-
rate description of what you are calling for?
Remember this iron rule of good communication:
What matters in communication is what the listener hears
and understands. If a word has bad connotations to your
listener, it really doesn't matter what the actual defini-
tion is or what you mean by it. Especially if you have only
a short time to speak with, and connect with, a person
or group.
If there are liberals or left-leaning people or young
people in your audience, the word "capitalism" likely will
not convey your message to them accurately, and will
likely turn them off.
Instead, try "the marketplace," or "free markets,"
or especially-for reasons discussed elsewhere in this
section-"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 consen-
sual socialism or communalism.
While the great majority of us prefer a capitalist
system, and feel it is by far the best economic system, 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 of what
is called "capitalism" is actually "state capitalism" or
"crony capitalism," where Big Business partners with Big
Government in ways that give corporations and other
favored businesses unfair advantages in the market-
place. This false capitalism is what produces a lot of the
negative imagery mentioned above. And this is some-
thing libertarians strongly oppose. (See elsewhere in
this section for a discussion of "crony capitalism.")
Defining and defending the word "capitalism" may be
a very useful discussion with the right audience. But if
you're just introducing the ideas of economic liberty, or
only have a few minutes to talk, or don't know your audi-
ence's feelings about "capitalism," it may be better to use
one of these other words that means the same thing as
capitalism, but lacks the negative connotations.
Careful word choice is crucial to effective communi-
cation. Always remember: you're trying to communicate
with your listeners-in language they understand. Don't
handicap yourself unnecessarily with words that imme-
diately create barriers and misunderstanding.
"Free Enterprise" Instead of

"Capitalism"
A Gallup poll finding makes a very good case for using

"free enterprise" instead of"capitalism" in many situations.
In January 2010 Gallup asked a representative sampling
ofAmericans whether their top-of-mind reactions to several
political terms were positive or negative. Respondents
were not given explanations or descriptions of the terms.
Two of those terms were "capitalism" and "free
enterprise."
Both words, of course, mean essentially the same
thing as commonly used.
However, they drew dramatically different approval
ratings.
First, the word "capitalism."
Reported Gallup: "Americans are more positive than
negative on 'capitalism,' the word typically used to
describe the United States' prevailing economic system.
"'Capitalism' generates positive ratings from a
majority of Americans, with a third saying their reaction
is negative [61% versus 33%].
"Republicans are significantly more positive than
Democrats in their reactions to 'capitalism,' although
majorities of both groups have favorable opinions.
"Conservatives have the highest positive image [for
the word "capitalism"], followed by liberals. Moderates
have somewhat lower positive ratings than either of
these groups."
Now consider the reaction to the term "free enterprise."
According to Gallup:
"Americans are almost uniformly positive in their
reactions to ... 'free enterprise."'
"Eighty-six percent of respondents rated the term

'free enterprise' positively, giving it substantially more
positive ratings than 'capitalism.' Although in theory
these two concepts are not precisely the same, they are
in many ways functional equivalents.
"Yet, underscoring the conventional wisdom that words
matter, the public clearly reacts differently to the two
terms. Free enterprise as a concept rings more positively
to the average American than does the term capitalism.
"Strongly positive ratings of free enterprise are gener-
ally uniform across both partisan groups [Democrats and
Republicans], and across the three ideological groups
[liberals, conservatives, moderates]."
Gallup sums up with a lesson effective libertarian
communicators cannot ignore:
"Bottom line: As most politicians and many in business
have learned, the choice of words to describe a concept or a
policy can often make a substantial difference in the public's
reaction. The current research confirms that assumption.
"It is apparent that 'free enterprise' evokes more posi-
tive responses than 'capitalism,' despite the apparent
similarity between the two terms."
This is important news for libertarian communica-
tors. As discussed elsewhere in this section, the term
"capitalism" has negative connotations for some people.
Using "free enterprise" avoids the negatives-and has
a much higher approval rating as well.
Note: The same Gallup report also offers a very useful
analysis by Gallup that breaks the popularity of these
phrases down further, by political ideology (conserva-
tive, liberal, and "moderate"), by party, and so on. We
recommend this short analysis to anyone seriously inter-
ested in using these terms effectively.
This is the latest survey on this topic as we go to press.
Check Gallup.com to see if there have been updates or
newer polls.
Entrepreneurs: A Home Run Word
"Entrepreneur" is a great word for libertarians to use.

As we mentioned earlier, in 2010 Gallup asked a repre-
sentative sampling of Americans for their immediate
reactions to several political terms. Respondents were
not given explanations or descriptions of the terms.
"Entrepreneur" drew a remarkably positive response
from across the political spectrum.
Well over 80% of Republicans, Democrats, conserva-
tives, liberals, and self-described moderates all said they
viewed "entrepreneurs" positively.
This offers libertarians a great opportunity to find
favor and common ground with diverse audiences.
Libertarians, after all, are the entrepreneur's best
friends! We celebrate entrepreneurs and honor the
entrepreneur's crucial role in our free enterprise system.
Libertarians want to remove government-created
barriers that harm and limit entrepreneurs-including
taxes, bureaucratic red tape, stifling regulations, subsi-
dies to established businesses, and more.
The Gallup results strongly indicate libertarians would
do well to emphasize this, and to use the world "entre-
preneur" much more than we do.
You can read Gallup's summary of this poll's findings
at Gallup.com.
"Crapitalism" Versus Capitalism
The term "crony capitalism" is very useful to distin-

guish true free market capitalism from the phony
pseudo-capitalism that widely infests our economic
system today.
"Crony capitalism" is a partnership between Big
Business and Big Government that exploits the public by
rigging the economy to benefit certain favored busi-
nesses. Most of the reasons so many people hate or
distrust capitalism is because of this crony capitalism,
because of the many bad things that happen when Big
Business goes to bed with Big Government.
Crony capitalism discredits genuine free market capi-

talism because people understandably confuse it with
the real thing. And, unfortunately, crony capitalism is all
around us.
This confusion is extremely frustrating for advocates
of free enterprise and limited government. Making
people understand the difference between genuine
capitalism and crony capitalism is thus a key goal for

libertarians.
That's why we love two words we first heard used by
Gene Epstein, Economics Editor of Barron's magazine.
"Crapitalism" is the word Epstein uses to describe
crony capitalism.
Similarly, "crapitalist" is his word for those in business
who use political connections, rather than competition
and consumer service, to make profits.
These are great terms!
"Crony capitalism," while useful, is a little awkward
and murky. "Crapitalism" is bold, funny and intriguing,
and listeners will want to know more.
Here is an example of how you might use these terms
in conversation:
"I agree with you about [name the problem caused by
crony capitalism]. But that's not due to capitalism, which
is simply private property and free markets.
"What you're mad about is due to what I call 'crapi-
talism'-when businesses avoid competition by using
the government to give them special advantages. And
you're right to be mad about it! Believe me, I hate that
as much as you do. It's the exact opposite of the genuine
free enterprise I believe in."
These mind-opening words-"crapitalism" and "crapi-
talist"-are great additions to your liberty vocabulary.
Of course, these are pejorative terms. Don't use them
to describe a person you are talking to. Name-calling is
not an effective tactic for persuasion. We want to win
people to our side, not paste them with negative labels
and drive them away.
Remember, too, the word "capitalism" itself is fre-
quently a poor word to use to describe the economic
system libertarians advocate. See elsewhere in this
section to learn why, and to see some poll-tested and
proven alternatives.
To learn more about crony capitalism and crapitalism,

check out these resources:
• "The Failure of Crony Capitalism (Henceforth
Known as 'CRAPitalism')" is a fascinating short
video in which Epstein talks with Reason maga-
zine's Nick Gillespie about "crapitalism." Epstein
notes that crapitalist businesses don't really
operate in a true profit-and-loss system. Rather,
Reason notes, "they make money primarily through
political connections and gaming a system they
help to rig in the first place." You can find the video
at Reason.com.
• "Crony Capitalism Is NOT Capitalism" by econo-
mist Dominick T. Armentano is a great short
article that explains the difference between crony
capitalism and the real thing. It appeared in the
Hartford Business Journal Online, May 31, 2010.
Helping Listeners Understand

Property Rights
Libertarians understand how vitally important prop-

erty is. Without protection of the right to own, use and
exchange property, there can be no liberty.
For many people, however, particularly potential
libertarians and allies on the left, the word "property"
doesn't have the same positive connotations it has for
libertarians.
Some people hear "property" to mean exclusively
land. For some, the mental picture the word "property"
evokes is a narrow and negative one. They may visualize
starving masses peering through high fences as the lazy,
well-fed rich loll about on vast estates.
They may associate the word "property" with greedi-
ness, possessiveness, and other negative notions. Because
so many property transfers in the past have indeed been
illegitimate, some people assume a libertarian defense of
"property" is a defense of land or other property acquired
through conquest or other criminal means.
This misunderstanding about libertarianism and
property is not only wrong, it is tragic. First, property
in land is important for everyone, especially the poor
and particularly those trapped in poverty in Third World
countries. (An excellent book on this is The Mystery of
Capital by Hernando De Soto, which argues persuasively
that a lack of well-defined property rights is the major
cause of poverty in under-developed countries.)
Second, "property" means far more than just land.
Property is anything that is rightfully yours-your car,
your guitar, your toothbrush. So renters, for example,
have just as much at stake as landowners in having prop-

erty rights protected.
How do we correct this problem of perception and
tone? It is sometimes helpful to use some additional
ways to describe "property."
Try using the word "belongings" in addition to (or in
some cases instead of) "property." We first heard this
used by the award-winning historical romance novelist
Lauren Royal, who explained her political beliefs to the
Advocates in these words:
"I am very much a libertarian. I believe we have the
right to do whatever we wish with ourselves and our
belongings, so long as the decisions we make don't affect
other people and their property against their will. I want
to see government confined to its proper role, to protect
and serve us and stay out of our personal lives."
This is a clear and uncompromising explanation of
libertarianism. The word "belongings," used alongside
"property," amplifies and clarifies what she means.
Variations on this might include "rightful belong-
ings," "possessions," "legitimate property," "the things
that rightfully belong to you" and so forth. More lightly
and casually, "your stuff" or "their stuff" (as in the classic
short definition of libertarianism: "Don't hurt people
and don't take their stuff.")
As always, our goal is not to hide or obscure our
meaning. It is to make what we truly mean by "property"
clearer to the person who has a limited understanding of
property and property rights.
The right word choices help our listeners understand
more fully what we mean. And the better they under-
stand our ideas, the more likely they will embrace them.
Pro-Market, Not Pro-Business
Libertarians enormously appreciate the positive contri-

butions so many businesses have made to our world.
Because of this, libertarians are sometimes labeled
"pro-b us1ness.
. "
But this is incorrect-and misleading.
Libertarians are not "pro-business." We are "pro-
market"-a very different thing.
The distinction is a vital one.
Libertarians support a free market where businesses
are free to enter a field and offer their goods and services,
in competition with any and all others who wish to do
the same.
The resulting competition brings ever-better goods
and services. Lower prices. Innovation. More conve-
nience and more choice.
The companies that succeed in this free market compe-
tition do so by doing the best job of pleasing customers.
Those that fail to sufficiently please consumers go out of
business. The consumer is king.
This is the market process that libertarians strongly
support.
But being "pro-business" is an entirely different thing.
Politicians, lobbyists, economists, bureaucrats, pundits,
and others who are pro-business-or who favor a partic-
ular business entity-may lobby for special favors for a
particular business or area of commerce.
This may be pro-business. But it is anti-market.
Many who are pro-business want government to help
particular businesses or industries that are unable to
compete effectively. Sometimes they want government
to use political power and tax dollars to entice a business

to locate in a particular area.
Pro-business forces may want to prop up a favored
business or industry with bailouts or other tax grants.
They often call for punitive taxes on competition that
challenges the favored business (especially if that
competition is foreign). They may offer special zoning
privileges to favored businesses. They may call on the
government to seize private property through the prac-
tice of eminent domain and give it to a favored business
for low or no cost.
Pro-business forces may endorse licensing, educa-
tion requirements, regulations and other obstacles that
protect favored businesses from competition. It often
surprises people to learn that many large businesses love
government regulation because it limits their competi-
tion. But as Nobel Prize-winning economist George
Stigler wrote:
"... as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and
is designed and operated primarily for its benefit."
Governments may declare a business is "too big to
fail" and thus deserves a huge taxpayer bailout. Or that a
particular industry is too important to fail, or too crucial
to the "public interest," and thus deserving of subsidies
and special treatment; agriculture is a prime example.
You get the picture. All of this is supported by pro-
business people. And all of it is deeply, profoundly,
anti-market.
As Matt Ridley writes in his book The Rational Optimist:
"I hold no brief for large corporations, whose ineffi-
ciencies, complacencies, and anti-competitive tenden-
cies often drive me as crazy as the next man. Like Milton
Friedman, I notice that 'business corporations in general
are not defenders of free enterprise. On the contrary,
they are one of the chief sources of danger.' They are
addicted to corporate welfare, they love regulations that
erect barriers to entry to their small competitors, they

yearn for monopoly and they grow flab by and inefficient
with age."
The fruits of the pro-business mindset-taxes,
unfairness, lack of competition and choice, over-priced
goods and services, crony capitalism, unemployment-
are often the very things people hate most about our
economic system. People naturally blame this on free
enterprise, on the market system. Yet it is pro-busi-
ness forces-not the market-that are responsible for
these ills.
Writing in Forbes, economist Art Carden sums all this
up nicely:
"In a free market, you are welcome, and indeed encour-
aged, to enter the mousetrap industry if you think you
can build a better mousetrap or find a way to make
similar mousetraps more efficiently. The other side
of that coin is that you will be encouraged to leave the
mousetrap industry if it turns out that your mousetraps
are not better, but inferior.
"A 'free market' agenda is not the same thing as a 'pro
business' agenda. Businesses should not be protected
from competition, losses, and bankruptcy when they
fail to deliver for the customer. All three are essential to
truly free markets and free enterprise."
Don't use the label "pro-business." And politely but
firmly reject it if someone attempts to label you that
way. Respond that you are pro-market, not pro-business.
And explain the difference.
"'Free Market' Doesn't Mean 'Pro-Buiness"' by Art Carden, September 20, 2010,
Forbes.com.
"Small Business" Versus

"Big Business"
Here's more word-choice wisdom from the January

2010 Gallup poll we've referred to earlier.
Gallup asked respondents to give their reactions to
the phrases "small business" and "big business."
"Small business" was a huge hit. An incredible 95o/o
responded positively-the most positive response of all
the terms Gallup tested. This positive response held true
across party and ideological lines.
Clearly, Americans of virtually all political ideologies
love small business!
Savvy politicians are aware of this and are making use
of it. As Gallup noted: "President Barack Obama made
frequent positive references to small business in his recent
State of the Union address, perhaps aware of the very
positive associations Americans have with that term."
Libertarians are the best friends of small business. We
are the ones who want to eliminate the crushing tax and
regulatory burdens the government has placed on small
businesses. Libertarians want to level the playing field
for small businesses, by eliminating subsidies and regula-
tions that hurt small businesses by giving big businesses
unfair advantages. We utterly reject the crony capitalism
so harmful to small businesses.
A 2010 survey conducted by the National Federation
of Independent Businesses asked small business owners
to identify the biggest problems they face. Twenty-two
percent of respondents said the single most important
problem facing small businesses was "Taxes." Another
thirteen percent said "Government Regulations and Red
Tape." As the Cato Institute pointed out in response to

this survey, both of these problems are direct manifes-
tations of Big Government. Combined, they add up to
35%-making Big Government the biggest problem
small businesses say they face today.
Only libertarians are serious about addressing these prob-
lems. What a great rhetorical opportunity for us!
Americans love small business, and libertarians would
do well to emphasize our strong support for small busi-
ness-and our staunch opposition to the Big Government
policies that small businesses say hurt them the most.
Gallup also asked about the term "big business." As
one might guess, that term is not nearly so popular.
Forty-nine percent of respondents rated the term posi-
tively, 49% negatively. Big business is rated positively
by 57o/o of conservatives. Less than half of both moder-
ates (46%) and liberals (38%) have positive images of
big business.
Gallup notes: "Americans have a strong tendency to
react positively to 'small' and negatively to 'big' when it
describes business entities."
What does this mean for libertarians? Obviously,
as champions of free enterprise and free markets, we
should never waver in our defense of the rights of big
business. "Big" isn't synonymous with "bad." Big busi-
ness has brought some of the world's greatest benefits,
services and innovations.
However, we must be very careful that our defense
of free enterprise isn't misunderstood as a belief that
big business should be allowed to do whatever it wants.
As libertarians know, too often politically-connected
big businesses collude with Big Government to rig the
economy to their benefit, in violation of the rules of
genuine free enterprise and at the expense of the rest
of us.
This kind of "crony capitalism" or "state capitalism"

or-to use a term we discuss elsewhere in this book-
"crapitalism" is all too common today. And far too often,
crony capitalism is mistaken for genuine free enterprise.
This confusion gravely harms the cause of liberty.
Libertarians should strongly defend big business
when it is unfairly attacked. And we should loudly crit-
icize big business when it engages in crony capitalism,
and make it clear that we are doing so not from an anti-
business, anti-market perspective, but rather from a
belief in genuine free enterprise.
(And remember, as noted elsewhere in this section,
the term "free enterprise" was ranked favorably by fully
86% of Gallup's respondents in this same poll.)
You can read Gallup's summary of this poll at
Gallup. com.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses
survey can be found at NFIB.com.
Privatize Business!
Libertarian communication expert Michael Cloud

uses a somewhat startling, mind-opening phrase.
We need to, he says, "privatize business."
What?
At first encounter, the phrase seems redundant, even
nonsensical.
After all, to "privatize" is to turn a government func-
tion over to (or back to) the private sector.
But business is already in the private sector ... isn't it?
Aha! Perhaps you are now beginning to see the genius
of Michael's phrase.
Today, too many businesses aren't really "private."
They are in very close partnerships with local, state
and/ or national governments that provide them with
special favors and unfair advantages in the marketplace.
Businesses, especially large corporations, often engage
in this "crony capitalism" or "crapitalism" (see more on
those useful phrases elsewhere in this book).
Such crony-phony capitalism is bad for consumers
and citizens. It is the main reason some people distrust
markets (whether they know it or not), and one of the
major sources of government corruption.
The flip side of this: governments often dominate busi-
nesses through oppressive regulations, taxes, mandates
and other shackles that make it hard for them to serve
consumers and make profits.
When so many businesses are either in cozy alliances
with government, or heavily controlled by government,
they don't really function as businesses should.
Thus the need to "privatize business." To separate busi-
ness from government, and government from business.
To return responsibility back to business, consumers

and the market.
"There are two inseparable root causes of today's
economic mess," Michael writes. "Business meddling in
government-and government meddling in business."
The cure: privatize business! Take business itself-not
just some select economic services-out of the hands of
government.
Michael explains this further, and spells out the
implications more fully, in a chapter in his excellent
book Unlocking More Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion,
published by the Advocates and available at our website.
Check it out. And consider adding this provocative
and useful phrase to your liberty outreach vocabulary.
Re-Privatization
Economist Jim Cox, author of The Concise Guide to

Economics, recommends a very useful word: "re-priva-
tization," which he encountered in the book America's
Thirty Year War by Baling Vazsonyi.
What a great word!
Libertarians, of course, have long advocated priva-
tization 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 opportu-
nity to create a mind-opening "Aha!" moment for them.
Here's why. Many services the government currently
monopolizes or dominates were provided very effectively
in the past by the free market. To name just a few: utili-
ties, education, care for the poor and needy, currency,
retirement planning, health care, some licensing and
inspection services, roads, passenger trains ... the list
goes on and on.
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.
Your proposal, then, rather than being some untested

theory, is something tried and proven. Something with a
real-world history that can be examined and compared.
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 to show
that re-privatizing is not only theoretically possible, it is
highly desirable-that your listeners and everyone else
will be better off.
But the word "re-privatization" is a great way to get
that conversation started.
"Abundance" Instead of
"Prosperity"
Libertarians are very aware that one of the benefits

of a free society is that virtually everyone would be far
better off economically.
So we talk enthusiastically about "prosperity," a "pros-
perous society," "prosperity for all."
But "prosperity" is an abstract term that many people
have trouble imagining. It's hard to create a visual image
of prosperity.
To illustrate: close your eyes and try to visualize wide-
spread "prosperity" in, say, an impoverished Third World
village. It's difficult, if not impossible, to do.
Now try to picture abundance in that same village. It's
much easier to conceive of abundant supplies of food,
clothing, etc., being sold in a town market, or arriving as
aid. It's easy to imagine even the poorest families having
an abundance of food at the table. It's easy to visualize a
rising community blessed with abundance.
Further, for some listeners, the word "prosperity"
may also have negative connotations. Some think of it
as "excess wealth" unfairly earned, that goes to the other
guy, not to them. Or that goes to a greedy, selfish and
wasteful elite, instead of all people.
Abundance, however, lacks those negatives. Abundance
can easily be visualized and understood as universal and
desirable.
Bottom line: Both "prosperity" and "abundance" mean
wealth and plenty.
But "abundance" is a less abstract word that has more
positive connotations.
Try it and see.
Instead of Isolationism:
Non-Intervention and How to
Argue for It
Most libertarians favor a foreign policy of peaceful

non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations,
while maintaining a capable defense for the United States.
Unfortunately, this foreign policy is too often
described by non-libertarians as "isolationism." That
term is not only wrong as a description of what libertar-
ians are calling for, it has many negative connotations.
Sometimes people mean no harm when they describe
libertarians as "isolationists." Frequently, though, the
word is deliberately used by opponents of this view in
order to discredit it.
Sometimes, too, the words "isolationism" or "isola-
tionist" are used by libertarians who may be unaware of
its negative connotations or unconcerned about them.
It is important to understand that, for decades,
"isolationism" has been used as a smear word. Historian
Justus D. Doenecke notes that "the label 'isolationist' ...
was a pejorative one, one that connoted blindness,
imperviousness, and indeed moral callousness... " In
many circles the word was, and still is, associated with
hostility towards foreign nations and cultures, nativism,
narrow-mindedness, racism and ignorance.
And in fact, some Americans who were labeled "isola-
tionists" in the past century weren't just for political
non-intervention. They wanted to restrict trade and
travel. Some even felt America should be totally econom-
ically self-sufficient, trading with no one outside of
American borders.
None of that, of course, has anything whatsoever to

do with libertarian foreign policy views. Libertarians
favor free trade, the freedom to travel, diplomacy, and
lively and ongoing cultural interaction and exchange
with people worldwide.
So libertarians are definitely not "isolationists."
Far better words for what libertarians call for in foreign
policy are "non-intervention" or "non-interventionism."
Libertarians (and others who favor such a policy) are
"non-interventionists."
That's still a clumsy word, unfortunately, and your
listeners will better understand it if it is coupled with
a short description of what it means. Something along
these lines:
"Libertarians want a capable defense for America.
But we want to end the expensive and failed policy of
U.S. government intervention in the internal affairs of
other nations. We favor free trade, the freedom to travel,
diplomacy, and lively and ongoing cultural interaction
with people worldwide."
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."
It's also sometimes helpful to describe non-inter-
vention as "America's original foreign policy" or "the
Founder's foreign policy," and to quote the classic
Jefferson statement, saying that, like Jefferson, we
favor "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations; entangling alliances with none."
Some wit once said that the difference between "isola-
tionists" and "non-interventionists" is that the former
are hermits, while the latter are gentlemen.
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 increas-
ingly isolating America from the rest of the world. So, in
a very real sense, the true "isolationists" actually are the
interventionists.
Another useful term is "armed neutrality," as in "We
favor a foreign policy of armed neutrality. We won't
intervene in the internal affairs of other nations, but we
will strongly defend ourselves if attacked."
That's a good phrase, but it is a bit colder than non-
intervention. You can add color and real-world authen-
ticity to it by describing it as "like Switzerland" or "like
the successful and widely admired Swiss model."
A useful short reference on the Swiss system is
"Neither Nationalist nor Socialist: How the Swiss kept
their freedom in World War II," by Walter Olson, a
fascinating article on Swiss armed neutrality from the
October 1998 issue of Reason magazine. (It's available
online at Reason.com.)
Some excerpts:
"Switzerland virtually invented the policy of 'armed
neutrality': It started no wars and sought no empire, but
defended itself with ferocity when attacked ....
"... the American Founders often cited Switzerland as
an example of the kind of nation they hoped to build on
these shores .... Said Patrick Henry: 'Let us follow their
example, and be happy."'
(We should note that admiration for Switzerland's
armed neutrality does not mean, of course, that liber-
tarians agree with Switzerland's compulsory military
service, or some of the Swiss economic policies discussed
in that article.)
Useful phrases for discussing non-intervention

include "stop trying to be the policeman of the world,"
"stop meddling in the squabblings and affairs of other
countries," "stop funding dictators and tyrants with our
tax dollars." Non-intervention can be described to some
audiences as a "mind our own business" foreign policy.
"Bring our troops home" is a very useful phrase. Note
that "our troops" instead of "the troops" adds warmth
and concern.
Far better is this: "Bring our troops back home to their
families." The addition of "to their families" creates a
vivid and heartwarming picture of returning husbands
and fathers embraced by loving wives and children, and
sons and daughters back with their moms and dads.
Stress the positive side, too. We're not turning our

back on the world's problems. Rather, we're in favor of
pursuing change in the most effective way we can: "The
U.S. can best make the world a better place by being a
shining example to the people of the world of the great
benefits that come from being a free, prosperous and
peaceful nation. When they see our success, they will
want to adopt our model."
Emphasize how free trade, freedom of travel, cultural
exchange, charity and respect are the best ways to bring
about massive change for the better.
Conservative pundit Pat Buchanan once used this

brilliant phrasing: "Across Europe, our NATO allies are
slashing defense to maintain social safety nets. But Uncle
Sam, he soldiers on. We borrow from Europe to defend
Europe. We borrow from Japan and China to defend
Japan from China. We borrow from the Gulf Arabs to
defend the Gulf Arabs."
When someone labels libertarians as isolationists,
they are knowingly or unknowingly smearing us and
misrepresenting our views. This should be corrected, so
our true ideas can be understood and embraced.
Increasing numbers of Americans are coming to see
the tragedy and failure of America's decades-long experi-
ment with an aggressively interventionist foreign policy.
They will be excited to learn about the tremendous
benefits of the non-interventionist alternative, if it is
explained to them in a persuasive way.
"American Isolationism, 1939-1941" by Justus D. Doenecke, Journal of Libertarian

Studies, Vol. VI Nos. 3-4, Summer/Fall1982.
"Trade Isolationism"
In the previous chapter we discussed the term "isola-

tionism." It's typically used as a smear word by oppo-
nents of the non-interventionist foreign policy that
libertarians favor.
"Isolationism" conjures up images of dose-minded,
ignorant and fearful people erecting walls around
America. Restricting travel. Harboring suspicion of
foreigners. And so forth.
That's an extremely inaccurate description of what
libertarians believe, of course. Libertarian non-inter-
ventionists favor all kinds of dynamic interaction with
people in other nations, including trade, travel, and
cultural exchange. We simply oppose U.S. military and
government intervention in the internal affairs of
other nations.
Perry Willis of the small-government Downsize
DC Foundation has turned the "isolationist" smear
on its head.
He refers to opponents of free trade as "trade
isolationists."
That's an excellent and useful phrase. Those who
want to limit trade and other peaceful exchanges with
individuals abroad are the true "isolationists."
The phrase "trade isolationist" makes that clear, turns
the tables, and puts the burden of proof on them.
As Willis notes: "To support free trade is to favor rela-
tionship and reject isolation. Conversely, to reject free
trade is to favor isolation."
Willis makes a further very important point: "The
rejection of military violence allows us to focus on supe-
rior forms of relationship, such as peaceful trade. And
the latter may foster the former. In other words, the

more we trade peacefully the less need we may have for
military violence, even as a necessary evil of last resort.
"Seen this way, non-intervention and free trade tend
to go together, as do military intervention and trade
isolationism."
A saying attributed to the great 19th century French
economist and writer Frederic Bastiat sums it up this
way: "When goods cross borders armies tend to stay
at home."
The phrases "trade isolationist" and "trade isola-
tionism" are well worth adding to your communication
toolbox. Please note, however: They should not be used
to describe the positions of someone you are talking
with, because our goal is to win people to our side, not
argue with them or label them in negative ways.
But these terms may open eyes if used to describe
particular politicians and policy proposals that call for
restricting free trade.
'
"Our Lexicon: Intervention, Non-Intervention, and Trade Isolation" by Perry Willis,
Downsize DC Foundation, October 11, 2011, DownsizeDCFoundation.org.
No More "Dollars for Dictators"
It's tragic but true: For decades the United States has
doled out billions of dollars to many of the worst dicta-
tors and authoritarian regimes in the world-including
tyrannical states that deny basic civil liberties and
torture and kill their citizens.
No doubt most Americans wouldn't choose to give
a dime to these tyrants. Yet the federal government
doesn't ask our opinion as it hands over our tax dollars
to them.
Here are three phrases that are useful in this debate.
Instead of saying something colorless, like "we should
stop subsidies to authoritarian regimes," try calling for
an end to "dollars for dictators" or "Aid to Dependent
Dictators," or "welfare for warlords."
These are not just humorous; they are strong, catchy,
persuasive and liable to stick in your listeners' minds.
Back these phrases up by using some current and
concrete examples of the worst regimes that receive (or
recently have received) U.S. support, their human rights
records, and the dollar amounts they receive.
Ask your listeners or audience if they would will-
ingly give money to repressive regimes that torture
citizens and suppress civil liberties. Most will say
emphatically no.
Point out that America was founded in revolt against a
British king, but now our government is funding tyrants
that make King George look like Saint Francis of Assisi.
Such phrases and arguments can help win support
for ending subsidies to despots and embracing a foreign
policy of peaceful non-interference in the internal affairs
of other nations.
"Consensual Crimes" Instead of

"Victimless Crimes"
Libertarians believe people should be free to live

in any peaceful way they choose, as long as they don't
initiate force or fraud against others.
Libertarians thus oppose laws that forcibly prevent
adults from engaging in activities that don't harm anyone
(except possibly those who choose to engage in them).
Examples are laws against gambling, prostitution,
pornography and drug use.
Such laws are most often called "victimless crime"
laws, because, although the acts are illegal, there is no
victim. This term distinguishes them from crimes that
do have victims, such as robbery, fraud, murder and rape.
Libertarians favor ending "victimless crime" laws.
The only real crimes, in the libertarian view, are those
with victims.
Often, however, using the term "victimless crime"
can get you into a silly, tedious and seemingly endless
semantic argument. Someone will invariably tell you
that there really is no such thing as a "victimless crime"
and that gambling, drug use, and other vices are actu-
ally not victimless crimes. There are victims, you will be
told. These victims include unhappy, emotionally hurt
or embarrassed friends and family members; people who
are offended by the very existence of gamblers, drug
users and prostitutes; damage to the moral structure of
society; and so on.
A way to avoid that useless argument-or to get out
of it if you find yourself caught in it-is to use the phrase
"consensual crime" instead of "victimless crime."
We first heard this phrase from the late bestselling

libertarian author and activist Peter McWilliams.
McWilliams discussed the issue of consensual crimes
in great detail in his excellent and entertaining 1998
book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of
Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society.
McWilliams defined a consensual crime in this way:
"Any activity-currently illegal-in which we, as adults,
choose to participate that does not physically harm the
person or property of a non-consenting other."
That's a phrase well worth memorizing.
The phrase "consensual crime," coupled with a plain
straightforward definition like that, clarifies what you
are talking about. And it doesn't automatically raise the
knee-jerk response "there are no truly victimless crimes."
"Capitalistic Acts between

Consenting Adults"
Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick was one of

the most respected and influential philosophers of the
past century.
In his 1974 masterpiece Anarchy, State and Utopia
he wrote:
"The trouble with government regulation of the
market is that it prohibits capitalistic acts between
consenting adults."
Notice that wonderful phrase: "capitalistic acts
between consenting adults."
It can be very useful in discussing free market ideas
with friends on the left.
Many on the left say they believe any peaceful and
voluntary acts "between consenting adults" should be
legal. They are referring to such activities as sex, drug
use, prostitution, pornography, and so on. Here they
agree (at least to a large degree) 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.
"Capitalistic acts between consenting adults" is a
thought-provoking, paradigm-shifting phrase. At the
very least it can help those on the left better understand
what libertarians believe, and why. And it may win them
over to our side on some other issues.
You can point out that many prohibited economic
activities are consensual. If someone accepts an offer
to work for less than the minimum wage, because they
think it will benefit them, doesn't that fall under our
description of a "capitalistic act between consenting
adults"? After all, as our friends on the left often say,

"Whose body is it, anyway?" A variation is this popular
slogan on the left: "Keep your laws off my body."
What if someone wants to hire a non-union worker,
and the worker is eager for the job? Why is it any
more legitimate for government to interfere with this
peaceful, consensual, private, mutually satisfying,
voluntary association than it is for government to
prevent a person from smoking marijuana or engaging
in prostitution?
You could also point out that such activities as pros-
titution, pornography, and drug use all have strong
economic components. They must have producers,
sellers, buyers, and similar economic exchanges. One
could hardly purchase drugs if they were not manufac-
tured and sold, for example. Someone must do this.
There's no reason the government, instead of the private
sector, should grow and produce marijuana, any more
than it should produce beer and other alcoholic bever-
ages, or operate brothels or pornography websites.
We should note that sometimes the word "capi-
talism" gets in the way of communicating with the left.
(See elsewhere in this section for useful alternatives to
that word.)
So a useful variation on Nozick's phrase might go
something like this: "I believe that all voluntary, consen-
sual, non-violent, mutually-agreed-upon economic
exchanges between adults should be legal."
That puts the burden on your listeners 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.
One more point: It is frequently helpful, and often
important, to point out-as we discuss in more detail
elsewhere in this book-that just because libertar-
ians believe an activity should be legal does not mean
libertarians necessarily think it is moral or wise. This is

important to remember whether talking to those on the
left or the right.
Separation of Marriage and State
Libertarians have the best solution to the numerous

political conflicts that arise over the issue of gay marriage.
It's summed up in this simple and very useful phrase:
"separation of marriage and state."
The libertarian position, as expressed in this phrase,
cuts to the heart of this issue and ends all the political
argument and battling over such things as how the
government should define marriage, what kinds of
marriages government should and should not allow, and
whether the government should force other individuals
to recognize forms of marriage they don't personally
believe in.
In a conversation you could use the phrase "separa-
tion of marriage and state" like this:
"Just like almost all Americans favor separation
of church and state, libertarians favor separation of
marriage and state-and for much the same reason.
"All adults should be free to engage in any voluntary
relationships and contractual associations they wish.
They should be free to have their union blessed by a reli-
gious leader of their choice who is willing to do so, and
they should also be free to have a marriage ceremony
without a religious leader.
"If they want to make contractual obligations, the
private sector is quite capable of drawing those up. How
others choose to regard any particular union is similarly
their own business, just as we are free to practice our
religious beliefs without forcing others to do so, and
without forcing others to endorse them.
"Just like separation of church and state, separation
of marriage and state will create social harmony. There
is no need to have government involved at all in this

extremely private and personal matter."
During his historic presidential campaigns Ron
Paul made similar statements, and his phrasing is very
useful as well. In a 2007 ABC "20/20" interview, he told
John Stossel: "I'd like to see all governments out of the
marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I
think it's a religious function .... I am supportive of all
voluntary associations and people can call it whatever
they want."
The libertarian position ends all the contention, all
the anger, all the coercion that inevitably comes with
government involvement in marriage-just like sepa-
ration of church and state eased and largely ended reli-
gious conflicts in our society.
The phrase "separation of marriage and state" can
help make that clear-and quickly introduce and explain
a common-sense position that many people have not
yet encountered.
Opposing Government Surveillance:

The Right-and the Wrong-Terms
There's a subtle language war going on in the

national debate over government surveillance of inno-
cent civilians.
Those who defend such programs are using specific
words and phrases in an attempt to disguise what is at
stake in this debate and what the issue is really about.
"I think it's important to recognize that you can't have
100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent
privacy and zero inconvenience," President Obama said
in June 2013. "We're going to have to make some choices
as a society."
Similarly, when TV pundits discuss this issue they
frequently use the word "privacy" and talk about "the
debate over balancing security with privacy."
What's happening here? Defenders of radical new
government surveillance programs are attempting to
define-or perhaps more accurately, redefine-the debate.
They want us to see this issue, and to discuss this
issue, as a question of "privacy" and "convenience"
versus "security."
Or even better for them, as President Obama put it in
the quote above: "100 percent privacy and zero inconve-
nience" versus security.
They want these words and phrases to define the
debate because, if we debate using these terms ... they
win.
The argument that we must compromise on "privacy"
and "convenience" sounds so reasonable. After all, don't
we all routinely relinquish some privacy for other values?
For example, we voluntarily give social media websites

some of our personal information, in exchange for the
value of being able to use their services. We give credit
card companies detailed information about our financial
and personal lives for the benefits of using their cards.
We give libraries and real estate companies and many
others sensitive personal information.
As for "convenience," it sounds unreasonable-in fact,
downright selfish-not to be willing to give up some-
thing so trivial as a little convenience in order to protect
our fellow Americans from the threat of terrorism.
That's the argument the government and its defenders
want to make. It's how they want to frame the debate.
It's how they want you to debate the issue.
But "privacy" and "convenience" are not what this
debate is about. Not at all.
It's about liberty. Fundamental inalienable Bill of
Rights freedoms that are our birthright. The Fourth
Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreason-
able searches and seizures." The First Amendment rights
to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, free from
the intimidation of government spying. Basic rights.
Core freedoms.
"Privacy" and "convenience" are squishy, malleable,
non-political terms. It's easy to imagine "striking a
balance" between them and something so vital as
security.
But it's far harder to imagine "balancing" your funda-
mentalliberty. Anyone familiar with politics and history
knows that such balancing acts quickly tip over to the
government side.
They want to change the debate, to pretend this has
nothing to do with rights and liberty. Don't let them.
Avoid using terms like "privacy" and "convenience"
when discussing this issue. You lose every time these
words are used to describe what's at stake in this debate.

Politely but firmly object to them if politicians and
others use them.
Point out that this debate is about liberty. Fundamental
Bill of Rights freedoms. The Constitution. Constitutional
guarantees. Basic rights. Core freedoms we and our
ancestors have always had in America.
And memorize and quote frequently the wise words of
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
Try "Re-Legalization" Instead

of Legalization
When talking about ending drug prohibition, try using

the word "re-legalization" instead of the more common
"legalization" or "decriminalization."
This word almost invariably provokes curiosity. You're
likely to be asked, "What do you mean: 're-legalization'?"
And this in turn gives you the opportunity to tell the
little-known, fascinating fact that drugs were legal in
America well into the twentieth century.
Indeed, the first federal laws against narcotics were
not enacted until the passage of the Harrison Narcotics
Act in 1914. Marijuana was not outlawed by the federal
government until1937 (though by then the states, under
federal pressure, had enacted laws). Both campaigns to
outlaw drugs relied on false, unscientific and blatantly
racist arguments.
And during this time of freedom of choice in drug
consumption, America didn't face the many evils caused
by today's War on Drugs, including drug-gang related
violence, police corruption, deaths due to impurities in
street drugs, prisons crowded with harmless drug users,
and the severe erosion of fundamental civil liberties.
Another way to use the word "re-legalization" is when
you are asked a question like, "Do you favor legalization
of drugs?"
You can answer: "Actually, I prefer the word 're-legal-
ization,' because ... " and then you can make the argu-
ment above.
The word "re-legalization" can stimulate discussion
and open minds. Of course, you must then be prepared
with history, facts and figures about both the War on

Drugs and America's largely forgotten heritage of adult
freedom of choice in drug consumption.
Politically Incorrect Drugs
Most people hate the idea of being told to conform to

some arbitrary social or political standard of "political
correctness."
That's why the term "politically incorrect" has become
so popular, and why it generates such a positive reaction
among both conservatives and liberals.
Examples of conservatives using the term in a posi-
tive way are the "Politically Incorrect Guide To ... " series
of books published by conservative Regnery Publishing.
An example of a liberal-left positive use of the term is
Bill Maher's long-running "Politically Incorrect" TV show.
The popularity of this phrase-and the idea behind
it-offers us a great term that can be useful in discussing
the drug issue: "politically incorrect drugs."
You might say something like: "Millions of people are
arrested every year for doing nothing more than using
politically incorrect drugs."
Or: "A better term for the War on Drugs might be ...
the War Against Politically Incorrect Drugs."
The point, of course, is that there are some legal drugs
that are approved of, and used by, many pro-Drug War
political leaders and supporters-even though some
of these drugs are actually more dangerous than some
illegal drugs. Obvious examples are alcohol, tobacco and
some prescription drugs.
At the same time other drugs, some less harmful
than the Establishment's favored alcohol and tobacco,
and some with important medical uses, are irrationally
and arbitrarily made illegal. Thus they are "politically
incorrect drugs."
This catchy term can provide a mind-opening, "Aha!"-

inducing insight for many listeners. They will see that
the reasons some intoxicants are legal, and some are not,
are based more on cultural or political prejudice than any
kind of rational analysis.
Many people, including older adults who remember
the political and cultural struggles of the 1960s, may
suddenly see the Drug War as a war waged by people who
smoke tobacco and drink alcohol against people whose
only "crime" is a preference for other intoxicants.
This phrase can open eyes to such unfairness and
hypocrisy.
Like most word choices, this one isn't for every
audience. But it can really hit home with the right
listeners-including many conservatives and liberals.
Politically Incorrect Food
The previous chapter points out the popularity of the

phrase "politic ally incorrect" among so many conser-
vatives and liberals, and how that gives us a valuable
phase useful in discussing the War on Drugs: "politically
incorrect drugs."
Here's an equally useful variation on that idea. In
recent years we've seen an explosion of efforts by govern-
ment to control, regulate and even outlaw foods deemed
unhealthy for us. The right of consumers to choose what
they want to eat and drink is now under attack by politi-
cians and bureaucrats who disapprove of their choices.
Many people resent this and sense it is wrong.
When we apply the "politic ally incorrect" idea to such
nanny-state food bans, we get something like this:
"Now the government is trying to ban 'politically
incorrect foods.' What's next?"
You can follow that up with arguments along these lines:
"Haven't they got something more important to do?"
"Why is it any of their business what you choose to eat?"
... and so on.
It's an effective and populist phrase that ridicules the
government and can win listeners to your side, in the
right situations.
And from there, you can often lead them further.
Perhaps to a discussion of "politically incorrect drugs,"
the right of people to make peaceful personal lifestyle
choices for themselves, and much more. Maybe even all
the way to liberty!
Are You Against the "Federal

Narcotics Price Support Program?"
The constitutionalist writer William Norman Grigg

once wrote that he was opposed to "the narcotics price
support program (sometimes dishonestly called the 'War
on Drugs ')".
"Narcotics price support program." What a great
phrase!
With the right audience, at the right moment, you can
have fun-and open some minds-by declaring that you
"oppose the Federal Narcotics Price Support Program."
"The what?" you'll be asked.
"The Federal Narcotics Price Support Program. I'm
sure you're familiar with it."
Pause a moment, then add helpfully:
"It's sometimes misleadingly called the War on Drugs."
From there, you can quickly explain how the War on
Drugs, by creating a black market in illegal drugs, keeps
the prices of illegal drugs artificially high and allows
violent criminals to become wealthy by selling them.
Here are some variations on this idea:
• You can state your opposition to the Federal Drug
Lord Subsidy Program, or the Federal Drug Gang
Subsidy Program, the International Drug Cartel
Subsidy Program, Aid to Dependent Drug Dealers,
and so forth.
• You can call for ending all federal subsidies to drug
gangs, drug cartels, and drug lords.
• You can refer to the War on Drugs as a "federal
subsidy to organized crime."
It's a great way to open eyes to the little-understood

connection between violence, organized crime, and the
War on Drugs.
That connection is summed up in a remarkable quote
from former federal narcotics officer Michael Levine-
called "America's top undercover agent for 25 years"
by "60 Minutes"-about what he learned during his
undercover work with Colombian cocaine cartels. Levine
writes in his 1990 book Deep Cover: The Inside Story of
How DBA Infighting, Incompetence and Subterfuge Lost Us
the Biggest Battle of the Drug War:
"I learned that not only did they not fear our war on
drugs, they counted on it to increase the market price and to
weed out the smaller, inefficient drug dealers. They found
U.S. interdiction efforts laughable. The only U.S. action
they feared was an effective demand reduction program.
"On one undercover tape-recorded conversation, a top
cartel chief, Jorge Roman, expressed his gratitude for
the drug war, calling it 'a sham put on for the American
taxpayer' that was actually 'good for business."'
This quote makes it clear that the War on Drugs is
making thugs rich-and they're actually laughing at
American citizens who have been duped and coerced
into funding it.
It's time to halt the Federal Narcotics Price Support
Program. Calling it what it really is can help us move in
that direction.
'"You Can No Longer Think of Yourselves as Peace Officers': Militarizing 'Lockdown

High"' by William Norman Grigg, June 16, 2011, LewRockwell.com.
"The War on Peaceful Americans

Who ... "
Here are some fun, effective and insight-inducing

alternatives to the government's propaganda phrase
"War on D rugs. "
In 2012 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary
Johnson ran an ad in which he promised to end the
"War on Peaceful Americans Who Choose to Voluntarily
Use Intoxicants Not Currently Approved of by the
Government."
Here are some similar phrasings used by economist
Mark J. Perry, creator and editor of Carpe Diem, an
outstanding economics blog:
"The War on Drugs-or, more accurately, the War on
Peaceful Americans Who Use Intoxicants Not Currently
Approved by the Government."
"The War on Otherwise Innocent and Peaceful
Americans Using Arbitrarily Proscribed Intoxicants
and Weeds."
"The War on Users of Politically Disfavored Intoxicants
and Weeds."
"The War on Peaceful Americans Who Voluntarily
Choose to Use Intoxicants Not Currently Approved of by
the Government, Who Will Put Users in Cages if Caught."
These are great phrases that use humor to expose the
true coercive nature of the War on Drugs. In the right
circumstances they can open minds and win supporters.
Guns: Reframing the Debate
Best-selling author and gun law expert Alan Kerwin

has spent years exploring how language can win-or
lose-for you on the gun issue.
In his article "Politically Corrected Glossary of
Terms," Kerwin notes that certain words and phrases
frame the political debate. By using them, you reaf-
firm the anti-gun worldview. You've lost half the battle
before you start.
"Certain words hurt you when you talk about your
rights and liberties," he notes. "Without even realizing
it, you're probably using terms that actually help the
people who want to disarm you."
For example, if you say you are "pro-gun," some people
immediately put you into a category of "gun nuts" or
"gun 1over."
Instead, Kerwin suggests, try "pro-rights."
Says Kerwin: "Pro-rights [is] a more accurate, and
far more compelling term than the common 'pro-gun.'
The reverse term, which describes them, is 'anti-rights.'
Misguided utopian disarmament advocates love the
phrases 'pro-gun' and 'anti-gun,' because they automati-
cally win when they're used. They believe the righteous
path is to be anti-gun, because only devils would be
pro-gun. You flat lose if you allow a debate to be framed
that way.
"The debate is really between people who are 'pro-
rights' and 'anti-rights'-and then you automatically
win, because the righteous choice between pro-rights
and anti-rights is obvious.
"You're pro-safety; pro-self defense; pro-freedom;
pro-liberty; pro-Bill of Rights. [This by default correctly
casts your opponents] as anti-safety; anti-self defense;

anti-freedom; anti-liberty; anti-Bill of Rights. This is an
accurate depiction of people who would restrict, repress
and flat-out deny civil rights you and your ancestors
have always had in America."
That's a powerful phrase: "civil rights you and your
ancestors have always had in America." "Pro-Bill of
Rights" is also very strong.
Kerwin also suggests saying "Bill of Rights" instead of
"Second Amendment" when possible.
For example: "I support the Bill of Rights. Isn't that
what America is all about?" Kerwin notes that the Bill of
Rights is a consistent whole; it "was a single amendment
(with separate articles) to the Constitution."
Kerwin writes that this is "more broadly appealing
and less polarizing than 'Second Amendment."'
"Sure, I talk about the Second Amendment all the
time," he says. "But saying 'Bill of Rights' protects you
from malicious stigma and stereotyping as a 'gun nut.'
It's much more difficult to oppose; it slows the gun
bigots down. All the rights count, don't they, and they're
all under attack."
A strong defense of the Bill of Rights may win you
respect even from those who disagree, and you may find
allies on other important issues.
• Instead of referring to the "anti-gun movement" or
"gun banners," Kerwin says, try "anti-self-defense
movement" or "people who want to disarm ordi-
nary law-abiding citizens." This joins well with a
phrase quoted earlier: "They are trying to restrict,
repress and flat-out deny civil rights we and our
ancestors have always had in America."
• The anti-rights movement often refers to the
"powerful gun lobby." Call organizations like the
NRA and Gun Owners of America what they really
are: "civil rights organizations" working to "defend

the Bill of Rights."
• When referring to guns, avoid terms like "semi-
automatic handgun" or "lethal weapon" and of
course the made-up propaganda scare term "assault
rifle." Instead, refer to "pistols" or "basic self-
defense gun" or "common household firearms." As
Kerwin notes, the guns currently being demonized
by the anti-rights activists are, in fact, "the type
any household is likely to have. All the firearms
you own, despite constant name-calling from the
media, are just common household firearms."
• Instead of "concealed carry"-which implies
secrecy, furtiveness, deception, something to
hide-use the upfront and clearer "carry" or "right
to carry." Say "carry license," not "concealed-carry
license."
• Anti-rights activists will say they just want
"common-sense legislation." This is more accurately
described as "dangerous utopian ideas." They will
say "reasonable gun controls," which is more accu-
rately described as "victim disarmament."
• We also like this phrase from Kerwin: "If you like
the War on Drugs, you're gonna love the War
on Guns." More and more Americans know that
the War on Drugs is a failure, and almost every
educated American (except for some die-hard drug
warriors) realizes that alcohol Prohibition was a
colossal disaster. You can raise this second compar-
ison by using the phrase "gun prohibition" when
appropriate.
As always, when using these and other techniques,
remember the basic rules of communication, persuasion
and empathy. Know your audience. Decide beforehand
why you are speaking. What do you want to accomplish?

Are you debating, or are you trying to persuade?
Outside of a debate, it is usually more important to
win a good impression and make (or keep) a friend or ally,
rather than win an argument on points but drive away
your listener and alienate a potential convert or ally.
Remember that not all arguments are effective for all
situations. Know your facts. Use the techniques in this
book to let your listeners know you're a good person who
cares about them and understands and respects their
concerns.
We highly recommend Alan Kerwin's full article
"Politically Corrected Glossary of Terms," which you
can find-along with other useful material on this vital
issue-at http://www.gunlaws.com.
Them, Not Us
When speaking of the government, whenever possible

re f er toth e government as "h t em," not "us."
Say "they," not "we." Say, "theirs," not "ours."
For example, don't refer to "our" War on Drugs. Say
"the federal government's War on Drugs."
After all, did you start the Drug War? Neither did we.
"They" did-the government. And they-not you-are
the ones fighting it.
"We" didn't invade Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
other nations. "We" aren't killing people in pursuit of
murky and questionable foreign policy goals. "We" don't
have troops stationed around the globe.
"We" don't arrest medical marijuana users or make
young adults register for the draft. "We" don't pass
and enforce zoning laws, victimless crime laws, sales
taxes, and other statist measures. "They" do. They-the
government.
Similarly, "we" don't pay taxes to "ourselves," as some
claim. Try not paying taxes-and see whether it's "you"
or "they" who begin to harass and threaten you.
Nor do "we" have much, if any, say in how that tax
money is spent. "They"-the same "they" that collects
it-make those decisions.
The use of "they" instead of "we" also counters a
common rhetorical weapon used by advocates of Big
Government. Frequently proponents of a coercive
government action will, consciously or unconsciously,
use the inclusive "us" and "our" in order to imply a sort of
communal ownership of responsibility for that govern-
ment action, or to imply that "everyone" has consented
to the idea.
For example, someone may say: "Our school needs a

better playground for our children. Therefore, we need
to raise our taxes."
Such a statement gives you the opportunity, if appro-
priate, to politely point out that it isn't "our" school. And
it isn't "us" who will be raising everyone's taxes. And the
children are part of a specific family, rather than being
communa11y "ours."
Once you start listening for it, you'll be surprised
how often this rhetorical device is used to advance Big
Government.
Them, not us. They, not we. It's a subtle but powerful
tool to counter a common bad argument, and to open
your listener's mind to the real conflicts in our society.
And it can lead to some enlightening conversations.
(Our thanks to Dr. Michael Edelstein-author, with
David Ramsay Steele, of the acclaimed self-help book
Three Minute Therapy: Change Your Thinking, Change Your
Life-for his suggestions on this topic.)
Expose the Hidden

Government Presence
Elsewhere in this section we discuss how identi-

fying "public schools" as "government schools" can be a
powerful, eye-opening word choice.
Libertarian communication expert Michael Cloud
points out that this is true of many other issues as well.
Many people distrust government motives and effec-
tiveness. They resent the compulsory nature of many
government programs.
We can strengthen our arguments, Michael says, by
making the government involvement in a program clear.
"We must describe and define the government's role
and function in each and every proposal, policy, or
program," he says in his book Unlocking More Secrets of
Libertarian Persuasion.
Instead of using terms like social policy, economic
policy, public policy, public funding, public assistance,
economic programs, regulation, economic planning,
Social Security, and so on ... we should point out the
hidden government presence in such things.
Tell when there is government regulation, govern-
ment control, government management, government
oversight, etc.
You can do this by simply including words like "govern-
ment,,"government-run," an d"government-man d ate d"
in your descriptions.
Begin using terms like government economic policy,
government regulation, government funding, govern-
ment-mandated insurance, government planning.
Examples: Government-runmailservice. Government-
controlled retirement policies. Government-mandated
drug testing. Government-funded "public" radio and tele-

vision. Government-controlled schools. Government-
approved textbooks.
Point out, Michael says, the fact that "government is
the indispensable, distinguishing feature of each."
"What happens if we define them as government
proposals, government policies, and government
programs?
"Their appeal fades. Their attraction shrivels. Their
popularity plummets.
"Why? Because of government's record and reputa-
tion. Because people have seen government's incompe-
tence, irresponsibility, unaccountability, malfeasance,
misfeasance, cover-ups, dishonesty, massive over-
spending and overtaxing, waste, damage, and harm.
"Because people know that government regularly
repeats its follies and fails to learn from its failures. We
do not trust government."
And that's the key, writes Michael:
"This is why the word 'government' is artfully removed
from the proposals, policies, and programs.
"This is why the words 'public' or 'social' are
substituted.
"This is why the word 'government' is amputated from
the words 'social' or 'economic" or 'regulation.'
"You can make huge headway by simply putting the
word 'government' where it belongs. By describing and
defining the idea as a government proposal, government
policy, or government program. By insisting that it be
shown and seen as government.
"Once you do that, most people will look at the issue
with new eyes. Many will become receptive and respon-
sive to your free market, small government, libertarian
alternative."
Government Monopolies, "Services,"

and Public "Servants"
Whenever possible and appropriate, use the phrase

"United States postal monopoly" instead of "United
States Postal Service."
Take every opportunity to point out the monopolistic
and coercive nature of the United States Postal Service-
and so many other government "services" as well.
The government education monopoly. The federal
currency monopoly. The federal retirement savings
monopoly.
No doubt you can think of others.
Reject the Orwellian use of the word "service"-or
even better, point out the absurdity of that term-when-
ever possible when discussing such coercive no-choice
government monopolies.
The word "service" in such cases is just government
propaganda, and there's no reason to give that a free pass.
).IRs]
The Internal Revenue "Service"? Selective "Service"?

Public "servants" who can order you around and punish
you if you don't follow their commands? "Service" that
you must pay for whetheryou want it or not?
As the great libertarian journalist John Stossel
famously says: Give me a break!
Thanks to Advocates supporter Dmitriy Shnayder for this suggestion.

Government Schools, Not

"Public Schools"
We still remember the first time we heard someone

use the term "government schools" instead of "public
schools."
It stunned us. What an immediate and powerful
insight!
And how true. So-called "public schools" actually
are government schools. They are owned and operated
by the government. Every employee is a government
employee. The textbooks and lesson plans are approved
and administered 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 with good reason.
With government ownership comes, inevitably, a
host of evils: political manipulation, indoctrination,
lack of innovation, coercion, lack of accountability, poor
performance, the creation of conflict between parents
and other stakeholders, hostility to many deeply-held
personal or religious convictions ... and much more.
Nowadays most people know this, at least to some
degree. Growing public awareness of the failure of
government schools has led to more criticism of govern-
ment education in recent years.
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 routinely
praised (usually even while being 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 how non-government education was successful
in the past and is the superior choice today. You must
be able to make the case for the great benefits that
freedom of choice in education will bring to students,
parents, teachers, and, in particular, the poor and the
dis advantaged.
Separation of SCHOOL and State
There are lots of ways to describe the libertarian

position on education. Parental choice in education.
Privatization of education. Re-privatization of schools.
Getting government out of education.
A very powerful way to describe the libertarian view is
to use this phrase: "separation of school and state."
Everyone is familiar with the phrase "separation of
church and state." Virtually everyone agrees this idea is
a bedrock principle of a free society. It has very positive
connotations for almost everyone.
"Separation of school and state" has the same ringing
sound. It is clear, bold-and intriguing.
This phrase will grab your listeners' attention. You
can then tell them you favor separation of school and
state 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. Indeed,
government education is as dangerous-and as inappro-
priate-as government religion.
You can then, of course, add to your argument the
many other reasons why private education is far supe-
rior to government education.
An additional benefit is that the phrase has grown
enormously in popularity. In 1994, when Advocates for
Self-Government Founder Marshall Fritz created an
organization called the Alliance for the Separation of
School and State, the phrase was obscure.
Now, however, it is being more widely used, as more
and more people are challenging the government
education monopoly. A Google search finds thousands of

entries for the phrase. But it's still new and fresh enough
to win attention when you use it.
"Separation of school and state" is one of those magic
phrases that opens minds, provides listeners an instant
"Aha!" insight, and stimulates great further discussions.
It isn't appropriate for all times and audiences, of
course. No phrase is. But in the right circumstances, it
packs a powerful punch.
Sunday School and Monday School
It can be difficult to introduce the concept of getting

government out of education. Advocates Founder
and education reformer Marshall Fritz suggested one
approach along these lines:
"Most Americans are in agreement about 'separation
of church and state.'
"We don't want government involved in Sunday
School. We don't want the government deciding
what Sunday School curriculum we'll use, picking the
teachers, or commanding that we send our children
there every Sunday.
"Well ... maybe it's also a good idea for government
not to be involved in Monday School, Tuesday School,
Wednesday School. .. and for exactly the same reasons."
This can be a real eye-opener. It has just enough humor
to make people smile, and just enough of a surprise twist
to get them thinking.
It's just the beginning, of course. But it's a great foot-
in-the-door. Have your facts and arguments concerning
the problems inherent in government schooling ready
for further discussion.
The Grandchild Tax
One of the most successful rhetorical victories in poli-

tics in recent years was the conservative renaming of the
estate tax to the "Death Tax."
Libertarian activist George Phillies uses a brilliant phrase
that is just as powerful-on a more important issue.
Phillies called for an end to "the Grandchild Tax."
What is the Grandchild Tax?
Phillies describes it as "the most heinous of all
taxes, the Grandchild Tax, which hides under the name
'national debt."'
Why call the national debt the Grandchild Tax?
Phillies explains: "The national debt is the ultimate in
taxation without representation. We spend the money.
Our grandkids get the bill, labeled 'interest on the
national debt.' The Grandchild Tax is a terrible gift for
our grandchildren and others yet unborn. We should end
the Grandchild Tax and pay our own bills."
The phrase "Grandchild Tax" has many strengths. It
graphically and dramatically tells who pays the national
debt. It pulls at our emotions. It demands responsibility
of us-and our political leaders.
It paints a vivid picture. When we think of "national
debt," the only picture that pops in our minds may be
a vague graph or chart. But when we hear Grandchild
Tax, we see something far more real, emotional, moving:
innocent children being robbed of their future. Taxation
without representation. And we may feel the need to
stop that robbery.
Too many people learned in school that the national
debt is okay because "we owe it to ourselves." Using the
term Grandchild Tax helps wipe out that fallacy and
awakens us to the intergenerational unfairness of the

national debt.
If you use this excellent term, be prepared to explain
how the U.S. can deal with the multi-trillion-dollar
national debt.
Libertarians may disagree about exactly how to solve
this big mess of a problem. But there is an achievable first
step we-and millions of other people from across the
political spectrum-can certainly agree on: cut govern-
ment spending to keep the debt from increasing further.
Renaming the national debt the Grandchild Tax can
help open minds to that possibility.
How Do You Spell Relief? Try

"Tax Relief" Instead of "Tax Cuts"
The next time you're proposing a reduction in taxes,

consider saying "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts."
Both phrases mean the same, but there is a profound
difference in effectiveness.
The phrase "tax cuts" may unconsciously suggest, in
some people's minds, the idea that some unjust pain or
loss is to be inflicted. After all, something is being "cut"
or "removed." That phrase may thus create a mental
image of suffering, or suggest some worthy cause will go
unfunded, or some needy person won't be helped.
The phrase "tax relief," however, makes it clear that
taxes are a pain, a burden, an affliction, from which we
need relief. After all, no one would ever want "relief"
from a blessing or a positive condition.
You are proposing to end that pain, remove that
burden, cure that affliction, by relieving it via tax relief.
As the liberal rhetorician George Lakoff-who hates
the term "tax relief" precisely because it is so effective-
has observed: "The term 'tax relief' evokes all of this
and more. Taxes, in this phrase, are the Affliction (the
Crime), proponents of taxes are the Causes-of-Affliction
(the Villains), the taxpayer is the Afflicted Victim, and
the proponents of 'tax relief' are the Heroes who deserve
the taxpayers' gratitude.
"Every time the phrase 'tax relief' is used and heard or
read by millions of people, the more this view of taxation
as an affliction and [those who would relieve us of taxes]
as heroes gets reinforced."
And it goes even deeper. Those who respond to your
call for tax relief by saying they oppose "tax relief" are
implicitly saying they want to maintain the pain, the

burden, the affliction the phrase suggests.
So every time your opponents either use the phrase
"tax relief" or respond to it, they are, unintentionally,
actually reinforcing your key argument.
"Tax relief" is a powerful phrase that clarifies exactly
what we believe and what we want to do.
Are there other things we need relief from? You bet!
How about:
"Regulation relief," or "relief from the crushing burden
of excessive and destructive government regulation."
"Relief from intrusive government bureaucracies."
"Relief from government meddling in our private lives."
You can no doubt think of many more.
"How do you spell 'relief'?" asked a famous old TV
commercial.
L-1-B-E-R-T-Y.
Instead of "Government Subsidies"
Libertarians often criticize "government subsidies" of

various types. And rightfully so.
Like many people of other political views, libertar-
ians object to government subsidies to corporations. To
millionaire farmers. To professional sports teams. And
so on.
We are right to criticize such outrageous spending.
But consider using different phrasing.
"Government subsidies" sounds like the government
is reaching into its pockets and handing out its own
money.
We libertarians know, however, that the government
has no money of its own. Instead, it is reaching into our
pockets and the pockets of our fellow citizens, forcibly
seizing money from us all, and handing our money over
to its favored special interests.
So let's use language that makes that clearer-that
tells who is really footing the bill.
Instead of "government subsides" to corporations, try
"taxpayer subsidies" to corporations.
Instead of "government funding" of a project, try
"taxpayer funding." Or "taxpayer dollars."
Or personalize it further.
"Subsidizing corporations with your hard-earned
money."
"Taking our money away from us and giving it to
sports teams."
"Taking money from struggling families and giving it
to millionaires."
Identifying the true victim of such schemes-telling

where the money is really coming from-makes a far
stronger case for stopping such spending.
Pointing out that it is taxpayer-not government-
funding drives this point home.
This may open the eyes of people lulled into compla-
cency by the notion of "government funding" and
"government subsidies." It may help some people to
realize, in a visceral and personal way, the outrageous
nature of so-called "government subsidies."
Blowback: Foreign and Domestic
"Blowback" is a term that originated in the CIA in

1954. It originally referred to the unintended conse-
quences of a covert foreign operation-consequences
that are often suffered by the civilians of the nation that
instigated the covert operation. This "blowback" may
take the form of riots, demonstrations, hostage-taking,
terrorist attacks, and similar hostile actions. The civil-
ians on the receiving end of the blowback don't realize it
was their own nation's secret activities that caused the
anger and violence being directed against them.
Blowback is a term heard more and more when
discussing foreign policy. And its definition is often
expanded to include overt as well as covert foreign
actions that have negative consequences.
Ron Paul helped popularize the concept of blowback,
as well as the word itself, during his groundbreaking
GOP presidential campaign runs. For example, in the
2008 Republican presidential primary debates in South
Carolina, he introduced it in this way:
"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when
they teach and talk about 'blowback.' When we went into
Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blow-
back. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages
and that persists. And if we ignore [blowback], we ignore
that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what
we want around the world and not incite hatred, then
we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us
because we're rich and we're free. They come and they
attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would
we think if we were-if other foreign countries were
doing that to us?"
Scholar Chalmers Johnson also popularized the term

in an influential trilogy of books: Blowback: The Costs
and Consequences ofAmerican Empire (2000); The Sorrows
of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
(2005); and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American
Republic (2006).
Writing for The Nation in October 2001, Johnson
defines the term and tells about the operation that led
the CIA to use it:
'"Blowback' is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in
a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to
overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in
Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of
the U.S. government's international activities that have
been kept secret from the American people. The CIA's
fears that there might ultimately be some blowback from
its egregious interference in the affairs of Iran were well
founded. Installing the shah in power brought twenty-
five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian
people and elicited the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution.
The staff of the American embassy in Teheran was held
hostage for more than a year. This misguided 'covert
operation' of the U.S. government helped convince many
capable people throughout the Islamic world that the
United States was an implacable enemy."
Blowback is a useful word in describing the unintended,
but often terrible, consequences of foreign intervention.
But it is a very useful term for discussing domestic
policy as well.
Just like foreign intervention, domestic government
intervention has many unintended negative conse-
quences. As the word "blowback" becomes a familiar,
popular, colorful pejorative in foreign policy discussions,
it is also beginning to be used to describe the unintended
destructive consequences of domestic activities.
Libertarians-who are very aware of the negative

unintended consequences of government domestic
policy-can use the word blowback to add power and
color to their discussions of domestic issues.
Some examples:
"An increase in the minimum wage would lead to blow-
back in the form of the loss of hundreds of thousands
of desperately-needed entry level jobs. This blowback
would hit the most vulnerable people in our economy:
the low-paid, the unemployed, the under-educated,
minorities, and the young."
"Blowback from the War on Drugs includes crowded
prisons and wasted law enforcement resources, over-
doses from impure street drugs, the spread of AIDs and
Hepatitis B and C from shared needles, drugs peddled to
children, loss of fundamental Bill of Rights civil liberties,
the enriching of violent criminal gangs, the funding of
terrorism, drive-by shootings by warring drug gangs ...
and more."
"The blowback from government welfare programs
includes the break-up of families, multi-generational
poverty, dependence on government, and a weakening
of the vital role that voluntarily-funded charities play in
our society."
There are innumerable further possibilities.
Blowback is a powerful, provocative word that quickly
and colorfully conveys a vi tal concept. Many people
realize its significance in the foreign policy realm. Their
ears will perk up, and they may reach new understand-
ings, when you apply it to domestic policy as well.
A Radical Proposal
To many Americans, "radical" has very negative

connotations. It not only sounds alien and dangerous, it
sounds utopian and unworkable.
Successfully labeling a political idea as "radical" is a
three-for-one blow: a "radical" proposal is scary, prob-
ably won't work, and will cause a big mess if we should
be crazy enough to try to implement it.
Thus "radical" can be a very effective negative adjective,
when it is used honestly and appropriately. Describing a
genuinely radical political proposal as "radical" can make
some listeners wary and cautious about accepting it.
Furthermore, in a debate (as opposed to a one-on-one
discussion) calling a proposal "radical" requires those
defending that proposal to argue that it really is not
radical. The very act of arguing that their proposal is not
radical raises concerns in the audience.
Here are some examples of how libertarians can use
the world "radical" in this way:
• a radical government takeover of our health care
system
• unprecedented radical restructuring of our
economy
• radical government intrusion into our personal
lives
• radical educational experiments with our children
as guinea pigs
• a radical attack on this fundamental Bill of Rights
freedom
Many political proposals from the left and the right,
despite being described in soothing and comforting
terms by their proponents and the media, are in fact

extremely radical. In some circumstances it is certainly
accurate and appropriate, as well as persuasive, to
describe them that way. This is most useful in letters to
publications and formal debates.
Caution: like spices and seasonings, the word "radical"
should not be overused or misused. Our goal in liber-
tarian communication is to be honest and persuasive.
An important part of this is being respectful of others,
particularly in casual personal conversations. Label
ideas; avoid labeling people. Further, avoid labeling
ideas that someone you're conversing with holds closely.
Remember, today's "radical right-winger" or "radical
leftist" (phrases we don't recommend using to describe
those you're talking with, or non-public figures) could be
tomorrow's libertarian or libertarian ally.
Don't use "radical" loosely, or as a smear or attack
word, but only as an honest appraisal of a genuinely
dangerous radical proposal. Using it too often, or inap-
propriately, makes you sound inauthentic, shrill, and
untrustworthy ... even, yes, radical.
Of course, sometimes libertarian ideas are attacked
as being "too radical." For ways to defend libertarianism
against this charge, see "Libertarians: Radicals-or the Real
Moderates?" and "Too Radical?" elsewhere in this book.
There are times, of course, when it is appropriate
and useful for libertarians to use the word "radical" to
describe their positions. As always, know your audience,
and err on the side of appropriateness.
153
SECTION THREE
Errors: An Illustrated Guide
A graphic gallery of a few of the most common

errors we libertarians sometimes make while
trying to convince others of the benefits of
liberty.
Ever seen anyone make these mistakes? Anyone
real close to you? Like, real close?
We confess, we've made every one of them
ourselves. But we're trying to do better!
* * ***
Art by Ted Slampyak, concepts and words by
James W Harris.
Libertarian Communication Error #7

Lapel Grabbing
JOE/ \.__ __
I'VG 00110
Tia.L YOU
ABOUIA
POLmCAL
P~ILOSOP~Y
I~AIWILL
CI-/ANGE
YOUR LIFE
FOREVER/
SfM11NG
FROM I~G
BASIC AXIOM
mAl YOUR
LIFE
Ba.ONGS 10
YOU, WGCAN
DEDUCE...

Not Listening
Il-IKE:U~
IARIAN IDeAS, SUI I

Insulting Your Listener

Throwing the Book(s) at Them

Not Knowing the Issues
159
SECTION FOUR
Liberty in Soundbites
Remember what that guy Patrick Henry said?

"Give me liberty-or give me death."
Guess what? Everybody else remembers, too.
That's the power of soundbites. Short, attention-
grabbing, mind-opening little word nuggets that
condense your libertarian message into some-
thing highly memorable and extremely quotable.
Soundbites are for everyone. We'll show you
how to make and use your own soundbites, we'll
share some great ones you can use right now, and
we'll give you resources for discovering more.
Get ready to be quoted!
Success with Soundbites
As a libertarian, you are automatically a spokesperson

for libertarianism. How well you answer questions about
liberty and the liberty movement may well determine
whether or not your listeners decide to learn more about
libertarianism or become libertarians.
So you should always be prepared to answer common
questions about libertarianism in a quick, clear, friendly,
persuasive and memorable way.
Here's a vital lesson from some of the world's best
communicators: don't leave it to chance!
Don't hope that inspiration will strike you at the
moment you're unexpectedly asked a question.
Don't risk the frustration of stumbling around,
answering badly, and then kicking yourself a day or two
later when the right answer, the perfect, wonderfully
persuasive answer, suddenly pops into your head-too
late to do any good.
Instead, be ready: work on your answers in advance.
Createsoundbites-short, pithy, memorable answers-
for the questions you are most likely to be asked about
libertarianism.
As bestselling author Rick Frishman (RickFrishman.com)
says, "The purpose of a soundbite is to turn listeners
on, it's a verbal business card to deliver when you're
introduced to new people. It's your 'elevator speech:' a
snappy, self-description that you can rattle off in the
time it takes an elevator to rise from the lobby to the
fifth floor ...
"Your soundbite must be a grabber, a memorable
message that makes listeners want to buy your prod-
ucts, champion your causes and fight your wars. If it's
short and gets their attention, it buys you more time to

sell them."
As Frishman says, the soundbite is a calling card,
an introduction, a way to pique interest and intrigue
listeners to want to learn more. Yet it must also be
complete within itself, a satisfying and memorable/
quotable answer.
You probably already know the common questions
about libertarianism you are most likely to be asked.
Start by making a list of several of the most common.
Like:
• What is libertarianism, anyway?
• What about the poor?
• Why do you want to legalize drugs?
• Are libertarians conservatives, or liberals?
• What about roads?
• How could we do [fill in the blank] without govern-
ment or taxes?
For each of the questions on your list, create one or
more soundbites. They should be about 30 seconds long.
Less is better.
A good model for building your soundbites is the
pyramid model. Begin with an opening short statement
about 10-15 seconds long, a statement that ideally can
stand on its own without follow-up. Follow that with
a few sentences that elaborate on that idea. Again, the
total is thirty seconds or less, with less being better, all
other things being equal.
Write your soundbites down. Refine them. Commit
them to memory. And practice saying them until they
come quickly and easily while still sounding natural
and fresh.
When you're comfortable with them, make a list of the
next-most-common questions-and repeat the process.
Successful speakers regularly prepare and use sound-

hi tes in this way.
Former Libertarian Party presidential candidates
Ed Clark, David Bergland, and Harry Browne each did.
Their seemingly off-the-cuff eloquence was actually, at
least in part, the result of their advance work preparing
and practicing soundbites.
Happily, you don't have to reinvent the soundbite
wheel. Check out these resources:
• The Advocates collected the best of Harry Browne's
campaign soundbites into his wonderful book
Liberty A to Z: 872 Libertarian Sound bites You Can
Use Right Now. Yes, Harry actually created, tested,
revised, and memorized over a thousand soundbite
answers. That was one of the secrets to his incred-
ible effectiveness as a libertarian communicator.
• Dr. Mary Ruwart is a pioneer in the creation of
libertarian soundbites. Her "Ask Dr. Ruwart"
column appears in every issue of the Liberator
Online, the free email newsletter of the Advocates.
Many answers from her columns are archived in
searchable form at the Advocates website. Mary
also has an outstanding book, Short Answers to the
Tough Questions, a treasure trove of soundbites,
published by the Advocates.
Take these sources as your starting point. Pick the
soundbites you like. Customize and personalize them.
Rewrite them and make them your own. Above all,
learn them.
You'll be a far more comfortable and polished spokes-
person for liberty. And you'll also enjoy your casual
conversations about libertarianism a lot more.
Over and Over and Over Again: The

Power of Repetition
"There's a simple rule. You say it again, and you say

it again, and you say it again, and you say it again,
and you say it again, and then again and again and
again and again, and about the time that you're
absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that
your target audience has heard it for the first time."
-Republican language consultant Frank Luntz.
While talking about 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 urging
support for a candidate, arguing against a tax increase or
stadium bond, or explaining libertarianism to friends at
a social gathering.
We tend to think we always need fresh material, new
things to say. After all, some in our audience might have
heard us before.
But the truth is, it's usually best to say... the same old
thing. That is, if your "same old thing" is a tried and true
great soundbite for liberty.
Once you're comfortable with your soundbite and able
to deliver it persuasively and with conviction, it's impor-
tant to say it over and over and over again.
There are three reasons to do this:
1. People may be listening who have never heard
it before. If you've honed your soundbite until
it's your best shot, you want as many people as

possible to hear it in its best form.
2. You've got to break through the daily noise and
the competing opinions that people are constantly
exposed to. Again quoting Frank Luntz:
"And it is so hard, but you've just got to keep
repeating, because we hear so many different
things-the noises from outside, the sounds, all
the things that are coming into our head, the 200
cable channels and the satellite versus cable, and
what we hear from our friends. We as Americans
and as humans have very selective hearing and
very selective memory. We only hear what we
want to hear and disregard the rest."
3. For those who've already heard your soundbite,
the repetition reinforces the message and makes
it more likely that they will remember it. People
may even start quoting you!
The great libertarian communicator Harry Browne
was an expert at this. During his two Libertarian presi-
dential campaigns a few libertarians actually complained,
"I've heard Harry say that exact same sentence before."
But those critics didn't realize the three points above.
Harry was able to greatly multiply the effectiveness of
his well-developed soundbites by repeating them-in
their best form, using the language he had worked on for
months-to as many people as possible.
Ron Paul often did the same thing during his historic
presidential campaigns-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!
"Hey, What's a Libertarian?"
One day, you're going to be asked: "Just what is a liber-

tarian, anyway?"
This is probably the most common question libertar-
ians are asked.
It may happen while you're talking to a friendly group
of people you've just been introduced to. "So tell us:
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 will
in turn go on to reach many others.
As we've already counseled, don't rely on inspiration.
Instead, be prepared.
Have a clear, short, persuasive and easy-to-understand
soundbite-sized definition on the tip of your tongue.
Memorize your favorite definition-and practice
delivering it-so you don't have to even think about it
when asked.
You can compose your own definition. But you can
also use someone else's, or modify someone else's to fit
your own style. Make sure you're comfortable with the
wording and that your delivery sounds natural.
Here are some definitions to try on for size. We'll start
with two we've crafted for ourselves:
"Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief
in liberty. Libertarians believe that you own your 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
allow others to do the same."
"Libertarians believe that no single person, no group of

people, and no government has the right to tell peaceful
people what they can and cannot do with their minds,
bodies and property." (The usefulness of this one: Many
times when people hear a standard definition of liber-
tarianism, it's not clear to them that libertarians apply
the prohibition against the initiation of force to govern-
ment as well as to individuals. This is often confusing to
people new to libertarianism. This definition makes that
clear from the start.)
David Boaz of the Cato Institute wrote this concise
yet complete definition in his excellent 1997 book
Libertarianism: A Primer:
"Libertarianism is the view that each person has the
right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he
respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend
each person's right to life, liberty, and property-
rights that people have naturally, before governments
are created.
"In the libertarian view, all human relationships
should be voluntary; the only actions that should be
forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation
of force against those who have not themselves used
force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping,
and fraud."
Boaz also says that, while talking about Libertarianism:
A Primer on talk shows, he found that the most effective
way to introduce libertarianism was this sentence:
"Libertarianism is the idea that adult individuals have
the right and the responsibility to make the important
decisions about their lives."
1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate David
Bergland, author of Libertarianism in One Lesson,
composed this one, with the idea of appealing to many
different personality types:
"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."
Please note, these aren't conflicting definitions.
Rather, they are restatements of the same fundamental
libertarian principle of personal and economic liberty.
For some audiences, one definition may work where
another would not work nearly so well.
All of the above definitions have their strengths. Some
are concise. Others serve as brief introductions that
open the way for a more detailed and precise definition.
Once you have your favorite soundbi tel definition
created, memorized and practiced, consider composing
a few others for specific audiences. It's great to have
several short explanations of libertarianism, memorized
and ready, for various audiences, ranging from children
and teenagers to politically unsophisticated adults,. to
journalists and scholars, to liberals and conservatives.
Because you never know who you'll be talking to next
about the ideas of liberty.
Always be on the lookout for great definitions that
ring true to you. Seek those that are short, clear, accu-
rate, intriguing, and persuasive. Modify and improve
yours as needed.
Start by choosing or crafting an all-purpose defini-
tion. Then you can work on others for specific audiences.
You can further strengthen the impact of your answer
by mentioning a website they can check out for further
information. It's very useful to be able to add, after your
definition, something like this: "If you want to learn
more about libertarianism, there's a website that can

answer your questions: www.Libertarianism.com."
Also, as we point out elsewhere in this book, World's
Smallest Political Quiz cards are great to hand out to
anyone who wants to learn more. The Quiz itself is
irresistible and eye-opening. A Quiz card is a great help
in explaining libertarianism-it's an outreach kit on a
pocket-sized card.
Explaining How Libertarians Are

Different from Liberals
and Conservatives
How are libertarians different from liberals and

conservatives?
Here's one soundbite-friendly way to answer that
common question. It can work with any appropriate
audience.
As a bonus, it's especially good for young people and
others not familiar with political distinctions. It also has
strong appeal to idealists of all ages.
How are libertarians different from liberals and
conservatives?
"Liberals and conservatives both believe government
should force peaceful people, at gunpoint if necessary, to
live the way they think they should.
"Libertarians are against this."
You can then follow with a more familiar libertarian
definition, such as: "Libertarians, in contrast, think
adults should be free to do as they wish with their
lives and property, as long as they aren't harming
anyone e1se. "
There are several useful things about this definition.
• It makes libertarians stand out distinctly from all
other political viewpoints.
• It puts non-libertarians in the position of
defending and justifying their advocacy of violence
against peaceful people. This is a valuable turn-
around. Usually it is libertarians who, right from
the start, find themselves on the defensive, asked
at once to defend eliminating numerous govern-

ment programs and other sometimes controversial
or non-intuitive positions.
• It is a definition that immediately invites a nod of
agreement and appreciation. Most people, after
all, don't consciously advocate the initiation of
violence, and don't realize this is inherent in both
liberalism and conservatism.
• It makes libertarianism sound moderate and
reasonable. The immoderate, unreasonable ones
are those who would use violence to force peaceful
people to live the way they think they should. They
are the bullies; libertarians are the ones who defend
peaceful people against the bullies.
Of course, this is not a perfect answer for all occa-
sions, by any means.
For example, it might not work well with a person or a
group with a strong political identity, who self-identifies
as liberal or conservative or some other ideology. It puts
them on the spot and may lead to unproductive argu-
ments rather than understanding and persuasion.
On the other hand, as mentioned, it may resonate
very strongly with the young and the idealistic and the
politically uncommitted.
Try it-with appropriate listeners-and see.
Libertarianism Short and Sweet
Earlier we stressed the importance of having a strong,

clear, and persuasive soundbite-sized definition of liber-
tarianism memorized and ready to deliver.
Once you've got that down, it's also very useful to
have a simple, humorous short-and-sweet definition of
libertarianism handy.
Such a definition makes people laugh and agree with
you. You can use it before your "official" soundbite defi-
nition, or after it.
Here's a good one we first heard from Tom Palmer of
the Cato Institute: "Libertarians believe folks should not
hurt other people and should not steal their stuff."
That's powerful. It's libertarianism in a nutshell. It is
attractive, common-sense, and easy to understand. And
hard to argue with.
An introductory libertarian book by Matt Kibbe uses a
shorter variation of that as its title: Don't Hurt People and
Don't Take Their Stuff. That's great, too, and super-short.
Former Advocates Chairman of the Board Ken Bisson
likes this one: "Libertarianism is what your mom taught
you: behave yourself and don't hit your sister."
Humorist P.J. O'Rourke said: "There are just two rules
of governance in a free society: Mind your own business.
Keep your hands to yourself."
A little tweaking to O'Rourke's quote produces
this short-and-sweet definition: "Libertarians believe
that a free society is based on two principles: people
should mind their own business and keep their hands
to themselves."
A popular meme on Facebook is fun: "Do whatever
floats your boat, as long as it doesn't sink mine."
And then there's Smokey the Bear's Rules for

Government-a fun, funny and fast way to communi-
cate the essence of how libertarians view government.
It's been circulating among libertarians for many
years. With the right audience, it will draw laughs and
knowing nods-and win them to your side. Here it is:
"Smokey the Bear's rules for fire safety also apply to
government-keep it small, keep it in a confined area,
and keep an eye on it."
All of the above are fun and useful ways to introduce
libertarianism. They get straight to the point. They serve
as great ice-breakers. Used with the right audiences,
you'll get nods of agreement, and maybe some apprecia-
tive laughter.
They also help listeners quickly grasp the core liber-
tarian concepts. It's so easy to lose listeners when we
define libertarianism with complicated descriptions,
long sentences, unfamiliar terms. Those are extremely
useful in some circumstances, of course. But they have
the danger of turning off or confusing newcomers and
general audiences.
By opening with a short-and-sweet type definition,
you catch your listeners' attention and loosen them up
for your longer soundbi te definition.
Alternately, by following your more serious soundbite
definition with a short-and-sweet one, you'll end on a
warm, humorous note. Like:
"Libertarianism is [give serious definition]. Or, in
other words, don't hurt other people and don't take
their stuff."
Play with these ideas, practice, and see what works for
you and those you talk with.
These short and sweet definitions are the icing on the
cake that is your more detailed soundbite explanation.
You might just find the icing seals the deal.
Why Are You A Libertarian?
Libertarians are sometimes asked: "Why are you a

libertarian?"
When the renowned magician and libertarian Penn
Jillette was asked that question, he conjured up a great
response:
"My whole take on libertarianism is simply that I don't
know what's best for other people."
That answer works wonderfully well, for several
reasons.
• It is concise, memorable, striking, quotable.
• It is humble, friendly and likable. It expresses
tolerance for other people's choices and a respect
for their right to live their lives any peaceful way
they wish.
• It is consistently and distinctively libertarian. It is
neither conservative nor liberal, and yet it is not
offensive to either of those positions. In fact it
can serve as a friendly starting paint for building
bridges with those of the left and right who favor
liberty on some issues.
• It's not a challenge or statement that begs for an
argument or rebuttal. (And remember, most argu-
ments are not productive.)
• Instead of being defensive or asking for an argu-
ment, it gently puts the onus on the asker to
disagree. If he disagrees, he will be saying that he
thinks he does know what's best for other people
better than they do, and that he wants his prefer-
ences forced onto everybody else by law-quite a
silly position to have to defend! Jillette's answer
gently forces the hidden coercion and arrogance of

the statist position out into the open.
• Finally, it accomplishes all the above without
requiring that you be a master of verbal persuasion.
From there, you can go on to elaborate, as your
listeners request.
Jillette's answer offers you a great starting point for
some conversations. It also makes a great "short and
sweet" definition. (For more on the "short and sweet"
idea, see the previous chapter.)
Indeed, it's a downright magical answer! Of course, what
else would you expect from a world-famous magician?
The "Daddy and Mommy" Metaphor
An old libertarian saying provides a quick, funny and

persuasive look at the differences between conserva-
tives, liberals, and libertarians:
"Liberals want the government to be your Mommy.
Conservatives want government to be your Daddy.
Libertarians want the government to treat you like
an adult."
To elaborate a bit:
• Conservatives want the government to be your Daddy:
a strict, authoritarian Daddy who forces you to be
"good" according to his personal and often idio-
syncratic definition of "good"-even though you're
an adult and may disagree with his definitions.
This Daddy punishes you severely for engaging in
peaceful activities he condemns as sinful or unwise.
• Liberals want the government to be your Mommy: a
smothering, obsessive, guilt-ridden, wildly over-
protective Mommy who, in order to shield you
from any conceivable harm or error, constantly
and severely restricts your freedom. This authori-
tarian Mommy demands you eat and drink only
what she thinks is good for you. She also wants
to force you to be "generous" to others. Should
you disobey, this Mommy will punish you just as
severely as her authoritarian conservative Daddy
husband.
In other words, both liberals and conservatives treat
you like ... a child.
Libertarians, in stark contrast, want to treat you like
an adult: free to make personal and economic choices for
yourself. Free to choose, and-the flip side of liberty-

responsible for the consequences of your choices.
Which do you prefer? To be treated like a child, or like
an adult?
For the right listener or audience, this little metaphor
can provide a nice "Aha!" experience of enlightenment.
-
Simple But Effective
Clarity and simplicity are powerful. One colorful

metaphor can beat a truckload of carefully-reasoned
position papers.
Take the following very familiar cliche. It might
seem obvious, too ordinary to even mention. But it is
simple, powerful and effective when used at the appro-
priate time.
Government is constantly assaulting our economy with
a bewildering array of threats. Higher taxes. New regula-
tions. New bureaucracies. New government controls.
One way to stimulate thinking about all this is to use
the old phrase "killing the goose that laid the golden
egg. "
This simple, time-worn saying, from the classic Aesop
fable, conveys a wealth of information and creates a
vivid, easily understood picture in your listener's mind.
You might say something like this:
"With all these new regulations, taxes, and controls,
I fear the government is killing the goose that laid the
golden egg.
"It was free enterprise and small government that
made America the freest and most prosperous nation in
the world. But now I believe politicians are acting in a
reckless manner that threatens the very foundations of
that freedom and prosperity."
Of course, you'll say it in a natural and conversa-
tional way, in your own words. And you'll then supply
whatever other information is needed to back up your
basic argument.
This old metaphor has survived because it works. It
alarms the listener-no one wants to see that golden
goose killed, after all. And it creates a vivid picture in

your listener's mind: free enterprise is the goose, and the
golden egg is America's great prosperity. And now politi-
cians, with their characteristic greed, short-sightedness
and crude tools (the axe), are threatening to ruin it for
all of us.
This phrase's very familiarity is a strength. Your
listener has heard it, recognizes the folk wisdom it
embodies, and can instantly apply the metaphor to the
current situation.
Sometimes simple is best. Try the "golden goose"
analogy in your next conversation about economics.
Watch heads nod in understanding and agreement.
And collect other familiar stories and fables and
sayings-even cliches-that can be used to open your
listeners' minds.
Breaking Your Legs and

Giving You a Crutch
"Government is good at one thing. It breaks your legs,

then gives you a crutch and says, 'See, without us you
wouldn't be able to walk."'-Harry Browne.
What a great-and laugh-out-loud-insight!
Bestselling author and two-time Libertarian Party
presidential candidate Harry Browne didn't make this
phrase up, but he recognized its value, tuned the wording
to match his style, and added it to his huge personal
collection of over a thousand soundbites he memorized
and constantly used.
It's a great, mind-opening phrase to use when
discussing many expensive, poorly-performing and
destructive government programs.
What are some examples of government "breaking
your legs and giving you a crutch?"
• Medical care: Government regulations limit the
number of doctors and hospitals, restrict who can
practice medicine, and in many other ways limit
choice and send the costs of drugs and medical
service skyrocketing. Plus, government seizes a
huge portion of our income in taxes that we then
can't use for medical care. Then, when citizens
complain they can't afford medical care, govern-
ment steps in to "help" with "crutches" like national
health care, Medicare and Medicaid, and yet more
disastrous laws and expenses.
• Retirement: Government seizes a huge amount
of our income in taxes and also forces us to pay
a large portion of our remaining income into
Social Security, which gives us only a fraction

of the return we could get if we could invest it
ourselves. Then government says: "See? Without
us, millions of people couldn't provide for their
own retirement."
• The Post Office: The government creates for itself
a monopoly on the delivery of first-class mail-
with the predictable results of higher prices and
ever-worsening services. Then defenders of Big
Government ask: "Without the State, who would
deliver mail?"
• Charity: Government destroys millions of jobs
through minimum wage laws, regulations, high
taxes, terrible schools, and in other ways. Those
who are able to find employment despite all this
are hit with high taxes and unnecessarily high costs
on life's essentials, making it harder for them to
contribute to charities that aid the poor and the
unemployed. Then, government shows up with the
"crutch" of welfare ... to try to alleviate the poverty
it is largely responsible for causing, and to fund
programs the voluntary sector could and would
fund if people were allowed to keep what they earn.
Adding to the mess, poorly-designed and poorly-
run government welfare programs bring a whole
host of new problems, further accelerating the cycle
of destruction. Then government says: "Without
us, who would take care of the poor?"
You can probably think of many more examples.
Sometimes you can add: "And then they expect us to
thank them for it!" at the end of the phrase, like this:
"... then gives you a crutch and says, 'See, without us you
wouldn't be able to walk.' And then they expect us to
thank them for it!"
Gather your facts and arguments, then use this

wonderful phrase and watch your listeners nod in under-
standing and agreement.
183
SECTION FIVE
The Power of Questions
Libertarians have lots of great answers. But some-

times, it's better to ask great questions instead.
The right questions make people think. It's
amazing how often people will come up with
the libertarian answer to a problem, if you give
them a chance. And when they do, they're more
likely to accept that answer. After all-they
came up with it themselves!
The Million Dollar Question
Suppose you're talking with someone who is deeply

concerned about the poor and believes it is necessary
for government to play a major role in providing for
the needy.
Instead of debating the issue (which could start an
argument and put the person on the defensive), try
asking the Million Dollar Question:
"Imagine you won the lottery and you have one million
dollars.
"After giving the government half"-pause for
laughter-"you still have $500,000. You want to use it
to help the poor.
"You have two choices. You could write a check to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for half
a million dollars. Or you could give that $500,000 to a
top-rated private charity with a proven record of giving
90% of their donations to programs that help the poor.
"Which would you choose?"
Wait for the answer.
Virtually no one chooses government! And in
answering the question, people convince themselves of
the advantages of charity over government.
Flipping the Question
TIME magazine once asked Ron Paul: "Why do you

support the decriminalization of marijuana?"
Now that's a perfectly normal, fair and innocent
question.
But think about the wording. The question creates a
"frame" in a listener's mind. Asked in this way, the ques-
tion implies, and assumes, and implicitly announces,
that the position being questioned is unusual, out-of-
mainstream, radical, weird, or possibly even dangerous.
The result: no matter how you answer it, that initial
impression remains. And it's hard to answer it without
sounding defensive, out-of-mainstream, on the fringe,
or worse.
Please note: We're not saying that someone who asks
a question worded like that is deliberately trying to paint
you in a negative manner. They may, in fact, agree 100%
with you. But the wording of the question puts you at a
major communication disadvantage, and undercuts your
answer no matter how brilliant and logical it might be.
But you can reverse that, and turn it to your advan-
tage-by using a technique we call "Flipping the
Question," or, for short, the Flip.
The Flip restates and reverses the question. When
that happens, your point becomes the reasonable,
moderate, normal, safe view. Just like that! And the Flip
is so subtle and effective that your questioner is likely to
agree with you.
Ron Paul's response to that TIME question is the
perfect Flip: "Why support the criminalization of mari-
juana is the better question."
He then went on to give a strong, brief argument for

re-legalization of marijuana.
See what he did? He simply restated the question.
Supporting marijuana prohibition was suddenly
presented as the odd position. His position became the
normal, moderate, responsible, commonsense one.
It happened instantly.
You can use the Flip to great advantage in many typical
libertarian conversations.
Examples:
QUESTION: "Why do you want to end government
involvement in education?"
FLIP: "A better question would be, 'After so many
decades of failure, why does anyone still think the
government is competent to educate our children?"'
QUESTION: "Why do you defend gun ownership so
strongly?"
FLIP: "A better question might be, 'Why would anyone
want to deprive people of the ability to defend them-
selves and their loved ones from vicious criminals?"'
When you Flip the Question, you in essence become
the questioner. The point of view lurking in the orig-
inal question is suddenly exposed, challenged, put on
the defensive.
Note, too, that the Flip isn't necessarily a rebuttal or
an argument. Many questions worded this way aren't
coming from people hostile to your views. You will find
that the Flip persuades many of these people to agree
with you.
And the Flip isn't hostile or confrontive. It can be
friendly, gentle, even humorous.
Flipping the Question is not something that comes
naturally. You have to memorize the response, practice it,
get comfortable and fluid with it. And of course you must
have good answers about the subject being discussed.

(See elsewhere in this book for information about crafting
soundbites-the perfect follow-up to a Flip.)
But it is worth the effort. Because the Flip can instantly
turn a negative presumption into a positive affirmation
of your beliefs.
Comparison Questions: Questions

that Make People Think
Government is often inconsistent and unfair.

By asking Comparison Questions, you can help people
see this unfairness and inconsistency, and inspire them
to question commonly-accepted coercive government
programs.
Here are some examples of Comparison Questions:
"Why should people who spend their own money on
country music be forced by the government to subsidize
the tastes of people who like classical music?"
"Why should people who pay their own money to
subscribe to newspapers, news websites, and cable news
be forced by the government to subsidize the news pref-
erences of NPR (National Public Radio) fans?"
"Why should families who are working and scrimping
and saving so they can send their kids to a private school
that best serves their needs be forced by the govern-
ment to also pay for the education of children of other
families, many of whom are better off economically
than they are?"
"Why should people who want to teach their kids to
play tennis be forced by the government to pay for base-
ball, football and soccer fields for other people's kids?"
"Why should people who don't like sports, or who
support other sports besides professional sports, be
forced by the government to pay for stadiums and other
giveaways to wealthy sports corporations?"
Note that saying "forced by the government" makes it
clear that force is being used, and clearly identifies the
entity doing it.
When asking Comparison Questions you can also

point out that many people genuinely suffer in various
ways from these programs. Some of the examples above
already do this. Here are two more:
"Why should people who like country music-and
who may be struggling to pay mortgages and household
bills-be forced by the government to subsidize the
tastes of people who like opera?"
"Why should people who strongly disagree with
NPR's political slant, or who strongly oppose the
concept of government-subsidized news reporting, be
forced by the government to pay to spread and publi-
cize ideas they consider wrong, offensive, and against
their own interest?"
(A famous Jefferson quote is sometimes helpful here:
"As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom:' ... to compel a man to furnish contri-
butions of money for the propagation of opinions which
he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. .. "')
And it's not just music and sports, of course.
"Why should people whose intoxicant of choice is
marijuana be arrested and imprisoned by the govern-
ment, while people who prefer intoxicants that are
arguably more dangerous, like liquor and tobacco, are
left alone?"
"Why are some people forbidden by the government
to gain work skills by offering to work for less than the
minimum wage, while university students are allowed to
work as interns,with low or even no pay in order to learn
the ropes of high -paying professions?"
What other Comparison Questions can you think of
that will change your listeners' minds, open their hearts,
and let them see the unfairness and injustice of seem-
ingly-benign government programs-through the eyes
of those who are harmed by them?
The Government Is Not Us
One of the biggest and most pernicious political

myths is the idea that the government is "us."
Many people believe this. It has been drilled into
us since childhood. It is constantly encountered in the
media and used by both liberal and conservative politi-
cians and their supporters.
Yet it is plainly absurd. It is a major obstacle to clear
thinking about politics. And it is very dangerous.
The absurdity becomes obvious if you think about it:
• Are the millions of people who are arrested each
year for victimless crimes like smoking marijuana
and prostitution actually arresting themselves?
If they are convicted and imprisoned, do they
imprison themselves?
• If you are drafted into the military to fight in a war
against your will, did you actually make a choice to
do so? Did you draft yourself?
• If your home is seized from you by the government
through eminent domain, did you actually give
your home away voluntarily?
• If you are unable to practice your desired trade
because the government demands you get a diffi-
cult and expensive license, are you voluntarily stop-
ping yourself from working?
Such questions answer themselves. They peel away
myth and falsehood to reveal the truth: the government
is not "us." The enforcement arm of the government
is people with guns. Often the laws they enforce were
not even voted on, violate fundamental rights, and are
unjust and unfair.
Even if we played some part in the election process,

like voting, that doesn't mean we consented to every law
or regulation or mandate, or agreed to abide by them.
In fact, most Americans haven't personally given their
consent to much, if anything, that the government does.
The government, then, is hardly "us."
To imply that we all have a personal identification
with the entity that is violating rights is not only absurd
and insulting, it is dangerous.
The widespread belief in this fallacy allows those who
support anti-liberty positions to say "we" favor it. "We"
support "our" war. "We" favor locking up people who
have not harmed others. "We" favor imposing personal
morality at gunpoint. "We" favor higher taxes for "our"
infrastructure and "our" schools.
It implies that we have consented to, and approved
of, actions that are tyrannical and offensive. It tricks
people, on a subconscious level, into believing that such
actions are somehow voluntary.
And it hides the essential political truth that politics
today is about some people using force against peaceful
people. It keeps us from identifying those who are initi-
ating force, and from objecting to their use of force-
because, after all, it is really just "us" doing it to ourselves.
Many people fall for this insidious deception. When
you hear it, gently but firmly correct it.
A good way to start is to simply ask questions like the
ones above.
When Libertarians Should Call for

Raising the Minimum Wage
When discussing the minimum wage, one question

gets to the root of the issue:
"If we can really increase wages by simply passing
a law, why are we being so stingy? Why not raise the
minimum wage to $20 per hour? Or $50 per hour? Then
we could eliminate poverty and move every worker into
the middle class."
Your listener will quickly point out that your sugges-
tion is ridiculous. Few employers could afford to pay
their workers such high wages, he will say. Most busi-
nesses would have to fire most of their employees or
shut down altogether. Millions of jobs would disappear
instantly. Prices would skyrocket.
Exactly. With this answer, he has just made your argu-
ment for you. He has stated one of the major objections
to even small raises in the minimum wage, and indeed to
the minimum wage itself: it invariably destroys jobs and
creates unemployment.
Gently point out that raising the minimum wage in
smaller amounts will do exactly what he just described,
except only to the lowest-paid and neediest workers. If
a worker can produce nine dollars' worth of value per
hour, and the minimum wage is raised to $10.00, that
worker will not be paid more-he will simply lose his job.
Thousands of jobs, including urgently-needed entry-
level jobs and learning opportunities, will vanish-as
has happened time and time again.
In some cases, whole categories of jobs may disap-
pear. Remember movie ushers? Gas station attendants
who pumped your gas, checked your oil, and cleaned

your window?
In other cases, the new higher cost of labor will make
automation more cost-effective and more desirable.
Machines will replace the suddenly-more-expensive
human workers.
There are many other negative effects of the minimum
wage, and they fall heaviest on the poor, the disadvan-
taged, lower-skilled workers, teenagers, minorities, the
disabled, immigrants, and the unemployed.
In 1995 the congressional Joint Economic Committee
published a major review of 50 years of academic
research on the minimum wage. As the Cato Institute
summarizes, "The study found a wide range of direct
and indirect effects of increased minimum wages that
may occur." These include, Cato says:
• Increasing the likelihood and duration of unem-
ployment for low-wage workers, particularly during
economic downturns;
• Encouraging employers to cut worker training;
• Increasing job turnover;
• Discouraging part-time work and reducing school
attendance;
• Driving workers into uncovered jobs, thus reducing
wages in those sectors;
• Encouraging employers to cut back on fringe
benefits;
• Encouraging employers to install labor-saving
devices;
• Increasing inflationary pressure;
• Increasing teenage crime rates as a result of higher
unemployment; and
• Some employers will replace their lowest-skilled
workers with somewhat higher-skilled workers.
As Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman sums

up: "The real tragedy of minimum wage laws is that
they are supported by well-meaning groups who want
to reduce poverty. But the people who are hurt most by
higher minimums are the most poverty stricken."
The question at the beginning of this article, prop-
erly asked and answered, creates an instant eye-opening
"Aha!" experience for some listeners. It provides a quick
dose of economic enlightenment.
It is only the start, of course. But it opens the door for
more positive discussion.
Suggested next steps:
• Let your listener know you share his concern about
the poor and needy-and this is exactly why you
oppose the minimum wage. (See the chapter on the
Ransberger Pivot in this book.)
• Point out that many high-paying white-collar
professions-doctors, lawyers, brokers, film
producers and many more-commonly require that
newcomers work for little or no money as interns,
students, etc. as they learn their job. So why should
unskilled, inexperienced young blue-collar workers
be denied the opportunity to enter the work force,
build a resume, and learn skills by voluntarily
taking a job that initially pays a low wage?
• Suggest alternative ways to help struggling low-
wage workers. (Some suggestions: ending taxes
on essentials like food, clothing, transportation,
and housing; giving tax breaks to businesses that
hire first-time workers; loosening restrictions on
starting new businesses.)
• Learn the basics of this important issue. An
excellent resource is Minimum Wage, Maximum
Damage by economist Jim Cox, a 40-page booklet
published in 2004 by the Advocates and available

at our website.
• Stay informed. Be able to back up your argument
with convincing and up-to-date facts and figures
and real-world examples.
"The Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws" by Mark Wilson, June 21, 2012,
Cato.org.
Ask These Three Crucial Questions-

and Dramatically Improve Your
Communication Success
Before you begin any kind of serious libertarian

communication effort-whether it's writing a letter to a
newspaper, calling in to a talk radio show, speaking to a
college classroom, or just having lunch with some friends
to kick around political ideas-there's something quick
and easy you can do that will enormously improve your
chances of succeeding.
Just take a moment to ask yourself three short and
easy-to-remember questions.
Dr. David Lewis lists these questions in his excellent
book How to Get Your Message Across.
They are:
1. What is my purpose in communicating this
message; what do I want it to accomplish?
Is your goal to persuade as many listeners as possible
to embrace libertarianism or the libertarian view on
a particular issue? Is your chief goal simply to make a
good impression, so they'll be open to hearing more later
from you or other libertarians? Is it to get them inter-
ested enough to sign up to learn more? Are you asking
for votes, donations, members, volunteers?
The answer to that question is extremely important.
It determines what your message will be and how you'll
deliver it. And that answer also depends to a large degree
on your answers to the next two questions.
2. What do my listeners need to know for that

purpose to be accomplished?
To properly answer this, there are things your audi-
ence needs to know about you, and that you need to
know about your audience.
First, depending on your purpose, your listeners may
need to know that you are a responsible, good person
with a background that inspires respect and trust. That
many millions of people, including some very famous
people, are libertarians. That you share certain impor-
tant values with your listeners. That libertarianism is a
sensible, practical, humane, workable political concept.
That the proposal(s) you are offering will benefit them,
their family, their neighbors, the nation, the world, in
very specific ways.
They may also need to know where they can get more
information: your sign-up sheet, your website or email
address, book titles, etc.
It's up to you to evaluate your speaking opportunity
and offer your listeners whatever specific information
and resources they need for you to achieve your goal.
Secondly, to finish answering this question, you need
to know your audience. Their understanding of liberty,
their age, their background and more will determine
what they are able to receive. If you're speaking to a
high school classroom, your message will be different
than if you're speaking to a graduate level college polit-
ical science class. If you're speaking to a group of mari-
juana re-legalization advocates, you may simply need
to tell them why you're on their side. A conservative
group will have different questions than a liberal one.
And so forth.
To summarize: know thyself-and know thy audience.
3. How much time will I have to get my message

across?
This is crucial. There is a limit to how much informa-
tion you can convey in a particular encounter. If it's a
surprise elevator meeting, or a question tossed out in
casual conversation, you may only have time for one
carefully phrased soundbite of thirty seconds or less.
(You should always be prepared with memorized and
practiced soundbites, as discussed elsewhere in this
book.) If you're writing a 150-word letter to the editor,
you probably can get just one point across effectively.
Lunching with friends, you may be able to get in a few
soundbites and pass out some World's Smallest Political
Quiz cards. If you are giving an hour speech at a service
club, you may be able to go into a lot of detail about your
chosen topic. And so on.
You can't pour a gallon into a pint-sized glass. Knowing
how much time you have helps you properly and realis-
tically evaluate your goals and methods, as defined by
your answers to the first two questions.
Answering Dr. Lewis's three crucial questions lets you
quickly assess a communication opportunity, and guides
you into making every encounter-whether casual,
formal, brief or lengthy-a success.
201
SECTION SIX
Cool Tools & Super Strategies
Sure, you could get bitten by a radioactive spider

and develop amazing spidery superpowers. Or
be born on another planet and be bullet-proof
and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
But ... how would any of that help you in your
libertarian outreach?
Take your outreach to the next level with
these time-tested tools, tips, and techniques
that will boost your communication from
great to SUPER.
Bi-Conceptualism and You
George Lakoff is a professor of linguistics and a leading

left-wing rhetorician.
In analyzing President Obama's remarkable success
as a speaker and motivator, Lakoff noted Obama's
understanding and successful use of the concept of
"bi-conceptualism."
"Bi-conceptualism" is the insight that large numbers
of people who describe themselves with a particular ideo-
logical label-such as conservative or liberal or progres-
sive-nevertheless share many values with those who
use other labels to identify themselves.
Explains Lakoff: "Most 'conservatives' are not thor-
oughgoing movement conservatives, but are what I
have called 'partial progressives' sharing Obama's ...
values on many issues. Where such folks agree with
him on values, Obama tries, and will continue to try,
to work with them on those issues, if not others. And,
he assumes, that the more they come to think in terms
of those [progressive] values, the less they will think in
terms of opposing ... values."
Lakoff gives an example:
"Bi-conceptualism lay behind [Obama's] invitation to
Pastor Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration. Warren
is a hi-conceptual, like many younger evangelicals. He
shares Obama's views of the environment, poverty,
health and social responsibility, although he is otherwise
a conservative."
Libertarians can learn much from this insight-and
we can actually benefit from it more than liberals or
conservatives.
That's because many on the left are already very much

in line with libertarians on key issues of civil liberties
and foreign policy. And many on the right are similarly
with us on economics.
Plus, a substantial number of conservatives and
liberals are with us on still other issues. The voices
of anti-war limited-government conservatives, and
pro-market civil-libertarian liberals, are increasingly
being heard.
Bi-conceptualism tells us to be aware of the vi tal
importance of working with these vast numbers of what
Lakoff might call "partial libertarians" in order to achieve
shared liberty goals.
Some thoughts:
1. Instead of seeking out areas of disagreement in
your political discussions, find out where you
agree with your listener. Emphasize your agree-
ment. You've just found an ally on key issues.
2. Don't hide your libertarian identity. Proudly
identify yourself as a libertarian, and be able to
persuasively describe your views. But also accept
that (a) not all people will agree with you, and (b)
they can nevertheless still be valuable allies.
3. As people of the left and right come to appreciate
your agreement with their shared values on issues
important to them, they will increasingly come to
respect, and perhaps adopt, more of your liber-
tarian values. Many may adopt enough libertarian
positions to make them more libertarian than
liberal or conservative, whatever label they use to
describe their politics.
The hi-conceptualism insight guides us to build allies
with "partial libertarians" on key issues to advance
freedom right now. Doing this will also build awareness
of libertarianism as a distinctive and growing movement.
And it will lead more and more "partial libertarians" to

embrace additional libertarian ideas-perhaps, eventu-
ally, becoming full-fledged libertarians.
"7 Reasons Why Obama's Speeches Are So Powerful" by George Lakoff, February 24,
2009, Alternet.org.
"Cross-Dressing" For Liberty
What if you want to convince a social conservative

friend that the War on Drugs should be ended? Suppose
you want to persuade a liberal colleague that anti-gun
laws are a bad idea?
You'll likely get nowhere talking with the conservative
about the right of adults to decide what goes into their
bodies. And you may lose the liberal's attention if you
start talking about the Second Amendment right of indi-
viduals to keep and bear arms.
There's a better way. "Political cross-dressing" was
named and developed by renowned libertarian persua-
sion coach and author Michael Cloud. Used effectively,
this technique dramatically increases your chances of
opening-and changing-your listener'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.
On social issues-speaking very generally-conser-
vatives are typically concerned about law and order;
liberals are concerned about civil liberties.
On economic issues, conservatives tend to favor
lower taxes and free enterprise, while liberals tend to
favor heavy regulation of the market and government
spending to care for the less fortunate.
Fortunately, libertarian solutions address all of these
concerns.
To a conservative, when you speak about the War on
Drugs, tell how it actually causes more crime, diverts
limited law enforcement resources away from fighting
violent crime, inevitably creates massive corruption that
threatens fundamental institutions, makes the worst

criminals rich, disrupts families, and actually makes
drugs more available to children.
When you speak about guns to a liberal, present the
idea that guns can-and often do-protect the weakest
among us. Talk about guns being "equalizers" for women
and the poor. Give examples of totalitarian governments
disarming citizens, then enslaving or murdering them.
Tell how guns were used to help win civil rights in the
South in the 1950s and 1960s (look up the Deacons for
Defense organization to learn more about this). Describe
gun ownership as a Constitutionally-protected civil
liberty and (when it is limited by government) a victim-
less crime.
Every issue can be handled this way. The key point
to remember: Learn to talk about each issue from the
perspective of the political position that is typically
opposed to it.
Talk about economic liberty from the perspective
of a liberal. The minimum wage destroys jobs for the
poorest and least-skilled. Government subsidies to
businesses are wasteful and unfair. Deregulation lowers
costs and increases innovation and quality of service.
Government schools fail miserably with kids from
disadvantaged families.
Talk about personal freedom using the language and
concerns of a conservative. The Bill of Rights protects
free speech, freedom of expression and the right to
a fair trial, just like it protects gun rights. Limited
law enforcement resources shouldn't be wasted on
arresting harmless marijuana smokers. Laws used
against suspected terrorists or drug dealers may easily
be turned against the rest of us, including small busi-
ness owners and gun owners.
You probably won't ever have to convince conserva-
tives of the value of the right to keep and bear arms. So
when you discuss that issue, especially with a mixed or

liberal audience, use lots of examples that liberals can
relate to. They're the ones you need to convince.
Please note, there's nothing remotely deceptive or
misleading about this. You're not changing, diluting,
or hiding your position on this issue. You're speaking
boldly about liberty. You're simply using language and
examples that resonate with your audience.
Similarly, you won't have much trouble convincing
those on the left to favor re-legalizing marijuana. So
when you discuss that issue with conservatives, or a
mixed crowd, quote prominent conservatives who favor
re-legalization. Use terms like "politically-incorrect
drugs" and "nanny state laws" and "limited government"
and "individual responsibility" that conservatives can
relate to. Conservatives are the ones you more often
need to convince on this issue.
When you "cross-dress for liberty" you'll start out on
the same page as your listeners, and they'll be much more
open to seeing the issue from the pro-freedom position.
When People Discover Their "Inner

Libertarian"
More and more people are beginning to discover their

"inner libertarian."
In 2009, in Parade magazine, television star Mary
Tyler Moore told Parade magazine she liked to watch
Fox news. When Parade asked if she was a right-winger,
Moore replied, "Maybe more of a libertarian centrist."
Around that same time Glenn Beck, the popular TV
and radio personality who once considered himself a
mainstream conservative, began to call himself a liber-
tarian or "a libertarian in conversion."
Now, we're not exactly sure what "a libertarian centrist"
or "a libertarian in conversion" are. But the point is that
more and more people-including some very prominent
and powerful figures-are becoming familiar with liber-
tarianism, and are using the word "libertarian" in a posi-
tive way. Indeed, many are proudly using that word to
describe their political leanings.
And that's a great thing for our movement.
Elsewhere in this book we discuss left-wing linguist
George Lakoff's notion of "hi-conceptualism." That's the
idea that many people are neither right, left, or liber-
tarian. Rather, on some issues, they are left, on some,
they are right, on others, they are libertarian. If they
embrace many, but not all, libertarian ideas, they are, by
Lakoff's analysis, "partial libertarians."
This is an exciting era of unprecedented understanding
and appreciation of libertarian ideas. As a result, there is
a fast-growing number of new libertarians and "partial
libertarians." This is a wonderful thing for liberty!
We can help build on this in the following ways:

1. Enthusiastically embrace people when they say
they agree with libertarian ideas. Show your
friendliness. Share their excitement! Welcome
these "partial libertarians." (Don't call them that,
though. It's not a useful outreach term.)
You may not be meeting personalities like
Glenn Beck or Mary Tyler Moore in the next week
or two. But when your neighbor or coworker says
he's "sort of a libertarian" or "libertarian on some
issues," greet this with enthusiasm-don't imme-
diately search out the errors in his understanding,
or criticize him for not having read all of Murray
Rothbard's works.
2. Listen to these newcomers. Let them tell you
what they think, what excites them. Agree enthu-
siastically on the concerns you share. Don't rush
to correct their errors or load them down with
books. Take a breath or two. Give them space.
Gently "agree to disagree" for now on any conten-
tious issues where they're not yet on board.
3. Use the word libertarian yourself! The more
publicity for this distinctive word, the faster our
movement will grow. Use it in letters to newspa-
pers, conversations, online, wherever and when-
ever you appropriately can. Consider bumper
stickers, T-shirts, mouse pads, coffee cups, etc.
that win more exposure. It all adds up.
For years libertarians have worked to generate multiple
exposures for the word libertarian. Now this "branding" is
paying off.
The word libertarian-and the movement for liberty
it represents-is rapidly moving into the mainstream.
That's a tremendous accomplishment for a word and a
concept that was almost unknown not so long ago. Keep
this going! Consciously use the word libertarian whenever

you can, and show your appreciation whenever someone
uses it positively.
Answering Hostile Questions with

the Amazing Ransberger Pivot
Ouch! As a libertarian you will sometimes get hit with

hostile questions from people who don't understand the
ideas of liberty.
Mention free markets, ending the War on Drugs, or
replacing government schools with private alternatives,
for example, and some people will go ballistic. They will
think you're crazy, or have evil intentions, or both-and
they'll let you know it.
"End government welfare? Do you hate the poor?"
"Make drugs legal? Do you want our streets filled with
addicts and drug-crazed criminals?"
"No government schools? Do you want a nation of
illiterates? Don't you care about our children?"
Sound familiar? It's easy for a conversation to quickly
degenerate from this point into a shouting match, or
a meaningless and self-defeating exchange of slogans
and rhetoric.
But there's a far better way to respond. Use the
Ransberger Pivot!
The Ransberger Pivot is one of the most effective
communication tools we know. Invented in 1982 by Ray
Ransberger and Advocates Founder Marshall Fritz, the
Pivot is a great way to defuse hostility and get your ques-
tioner on your side.
The Ransberger Pivot is quite simple-but it doesn't
come naturally. It takes some practice. But the payoff
makes it well worth the effort.
There are three steps to the Ransberger Pivot:
1. Stay calm and listen to what the questioner is
asking. Breathe.
2. Ask yourself what the person is really concerned

about. What does he really want? Make an intel-
ligent guess.
3. If you want the same thing (and 99% of the time
you will), strongly express your desire for that
same outcome. Show your questioner you share
the same core values on this issue
Let's look at the Ransberger Pivot in action.
Your questioner asks: "You libertarians want to get rid
of public schools, don't you? What about our children?"
You ask yourself: What is this person really concerned
about? What does he want?
Obviously, he wants all children to have the opportu-
nity to get an excellent education. That's a great goal!
You want this too, right?
So you respond something like this: "Like you, I want
to live in a world where every child has the opportunity
for a great education. I want every child, everywhere, to
have access to a truly world-class education."
Bingo! That's the Pivot. You've bypassed potential
hostility and fruitless argument, and instead estab-
lished a strong common ground with your questioner.
Instead of immediately launching into a pointless and
unproductive disagreement, you've found agreement
and expressed shared values.
Now you can go on to a constructive discussion of the
best ways to achieve the end you both agree is worthwhile.
Of course, you then must have a good answer to
that question. You need to know the facts-in this
case, a persuasive case for why choice and competition
offers the best opportunity to rapidly and dramatically
improve education.
But the Ransberger Pivot is a vital transition, or prelude,
to that answer. It plays a crucial role by defusing hostility,
and thus making your questioner, and other listeners,
more ready to hear your answer with an open mind.
Remember: when people ask hostile questions,

they often are questioning your motives. They assume
you disagree with their concerns, they think you have
different values, and they may even believe you have bad
intentions.
The Ransberger Pivot is a kind of verbal Judo or
Aikido. It takes the steam out of the hostility by demon-
strating that you share the questioner's concerns; by
showing that you are a good person and your intentions
are good. This in turn creates rapport. Your listeners are
now more likely to pay attention to your answer with an
open mind, and you increase your chance of persuading
them to your point of view.
Now let's try the Ransberger Pivot with a few other
common questions, to get a feel for it in action.
Your questioner asks you: "You want to end welfare?
What about the poor? Are you really that cold and
heartless?"
Remember the Ransberger Pivot steps. Stay calm,
remember to breathe and stay relaxed. Don't fall into a
knee-jerk retort.
Think: What's the underlying concern here? Obviously,
your questioner is passionately concerned about poverty
and wants to see those in need helped. That's admirable,
isn't it? It's a great ideal, and probably one you whole-
heartedly share.
So use the Ransberger Pivot to establish that common
ground. Try a response along these lines:
"Like you, I am saddened and outraged by poverty. I
want the poor and needy to have more aid, more effective
aid, and far more opportunities than they do now. I want
a world of abundance and opportunity for all people."
Now, you can go on to have a fruitful discussion of the
best way to achieve that goal.
Again, you'll need to have the facts handy for your
argument. The Ransberger Pivot doesn't give you that.
But it does give you the chance to create a more friendly,

harmonious atmosphere in which to convey those facts.
Some other Ransberger Pivot responses to typical
questions:
"Like you, I want to live in a society where the streets
are safe for our children ... "
"Like you, I want clean air and water ... "
"Like you, I want to know that the food and products
I buy are safe ... "
Here are a few more tips for using the Pivot.
1. It helps enormously to memorize a specific
opening phrase to use when you begin the Pivot.
Notice that all the answers above begin with:
"Like you, I want ... " That's a proven and tested
wording. Memorize that and it will always be
there for you to use. Don't rely on improvisation
or last-minute inspiration.
2. The Ransberger Pivot should be short. Just
a sentence or two. It's just a way to defuse
hostility and turn the discussion around. You
need time for the follow-up answer, the meat of
your discussion.
3. Use the first person (whenever it is appropriate).
Instead of "libertarians want ... " say "I want." This
more personal response helps establish rapport.
4. Use it honestly. The Ransberger Pivot should only
be used when you really agree with the listener's
concerns (and most of the time, you will). It's the
opposite of a trick or deception or spin. It's a way
of clarification.
5. It takes practice! It is NOT as easy as it sounds.
Using the Ransberger Pivot does not come natu-
rally-especially when you're in the midst of a
heated discussion.
So prepare now. Make a list of difficult ques-
tions. Ask them to yourself, or even better, get
someone to ask them to you. It's great to practice

with a fellow libertarian who also wants to master
the Pivot, and take turns asking and responding.
Practice giving Ransberger Pivot responses until
it becomes an automatic reflex.
6. Practice beginning some of your soundbites with
the Ransberger Pivot. Elsewhere in this book we
discuss the importance of preparing and memo-
rizing soundbite responses to the common ques-
tions every libertarian is inevitably asked. Use
the Ransberger Pivot just before your soundbites
when answering a hostile question. Soundbites
and the Pivot make a powerful combination!
Many libertarian communicators swear by the
Ransberger Pivot. Give it a try!
The Real Issue May Be Poverty
Many questions or concerns people have about some

libertarian proposals have, at their root, one source:
concern about the poor and disadvantaged.
Once you realize this, you can answer them quickly
and effectively by cutting straight to this concern, and
satisfying it.
Examples:
• Education: One of the major objections to ending
government involvement in education is that,
without government schools, the poor might not
have access to education. Many people already
agree with you that the private sector can provide
quality education that most people could afford.
And they're frustrated by the wretched education
the government education monopoly foists on so
many kids. But they are afraid that ending govern-
ment involvement in education will leave the poor
and needy totally abandoned.
• Healthcare and insurance: People support
government control of health care and insurance
largely out of concern for the poor and disadvan-
taged. Many agree with libertarians that private
provision of these services would work fine-
indeed, better than government provision-for
those who are well off. Many understand that
government involvement means enormous inef-
ficiencies, lower quality and higher cost. But they
are willing to endure this because they fear the
poor and needy cannot otherwise get insurance and
medical care.
• Welfare: Most people know government welfare

is terribly wasteful and destructive. But they fear
abolishing welfare because they worry that people
who genuinely need help won't be able to get it
from voluntarily-funded charities and other non-
government sources.
• Roads: People may see how roads and highways
could be provided effectively by the market, but
they worry that possible charges for their use
might become too expensive for the poor.
This is true of many more issues. And this is a good and
admirable thing. Those who feel this way are good, ideal-
istic and compassionate people-the kind of people we
want to become libertarians.
If you sense that this is your listeners' main concern,
you can allay that concern-and win them to your
side-with an answer along the lines below.
Let's take the example of education. First, make sure
you are right about your listener's concern. The technique
of Echoing-explained elsewhere in this book-can help
you confirm this. Say something like this:
"If I understand you correctly, you don't object to the
idea of private education per se. In fact, we agree that
the private sector could provide as good, or probably far
better, education than the government schools currently
provide. We also agree that those who are doing well in
our society could afford to pay for quality education,
especially if they weren't burdened by to day's high taxes.
But you're concerned that the poor, the jobless and the
disadvantaged might not be able to afford it, and so
would be without decent educational opportunities if
the government didn't offer education. Is that correct?"
If he answers yes, then first congratulate him for his
compassion. "I'm glad to hear that you're concerned
about the poor and needy. That's great.
"And I strongly share that concern. Like you, I want

to live in a world where every child, rich or poor, has
the opportunity to have a world-class education. That's
why I favor getting government out of education-
because I believe it is the only way the poor will have
that opportunity."
And now shift the issue from education to the true
issue: poverty.
"What you're really concerned about, then, is not
whether private education can work. You're talking
about the problem of poverty. Your concern is a subset of
the broader question of how do we help the poor. How
do we eliminate, or at least drastically reduce, poverty?"
You then go on to answer the real question. You tell how
the poor would be vastly better served by a libertarian
society. You may already have your own short answer to
this. If you don't, consider developing one, because this
is a serious concern for many people. Indeed, for many,
it's the major deal-killer for libertarianism.
Here are a couple of suggestions to get you started.
The great libertarian communicator Harry Browne,
in arguing for abolition of the income tax, pointed out
that ending that tax would unleash "the biggest boost
in prosperity that America has ever seen. There will be a
job for everyone who can work and charity for everyone
who can't." Unemployment would virtually disappear,
and charities and scholarships would be flooded with
donations. The poor would have great unprecedented
opportunities and access to immediate aid.
Dr. Mary Ruwart's book Short Answers to the Tough
Questions, published by the Advocates, provides
numerous examples of libertarian solutions to poverty-
related problems; many are soundbite-sized. Many of
her short answers are archived and searchable at the
Advocates website.
You can also use the example of how so many goods

and services in relatively unregulated areas of our
economy have dropped dramatically in price, thanks
to market competition. Computers, Internet service,
phones, and many other items once aimed only at the
wealthy are now cheap and commonly used by the poor.
In just a few decades chain restaurants have brought the
costs of prepared food and clean facilities down to an
almost universally affordable level. Ending government
monopolies in areas like education, medicine and insur-
ance would do the same.
Craft your own short answer to the question of
poverty and memorize it. You can make your argument
stronger, of course, by knowing facts about the partic-
ular area your questioner is interested in. The specific
issues mentioned at the beginning of this article are
things that every libertarian can expect to be quizzed
on. So go ahead and prepare in advance solid, reliable
answers, and memorize and practice them.
When you realize in a conversation that poverty is the
real issue, and then move to address that, it gives you
many advantages. Among them:
1. You have identified and clarified your listeners'
real concern.
2. Your answer may also answer at the same time
other poverty-related questions your listener has.
The person concerned about education for the
poor is also likely to have similar poverty-related
concerns about welfare, taxes, roads, utilities and
so forth.
3. You can establish yourself as a caring person who
shares your listeners' concern about the poor.
4. You may be able to inspire someone to embrace
libertarianism because it offers the best way to
combat poverty.
5. When you can answer this question effectively,

you have a strong and persuasive answer for ques-
tions on a variety of issues.
One final suggestion. Some libertarians are attracted
to libertarianism precisely because libertarianism takes
the question of poverty seriously and offers practical
ways to lessen or eliminate it.
If that is one of your major interests in libertarianism,
then by all means say so. It further cements the bond
between you and your listener.
"Freedom from the Income Tax" by Harry Browne, Apri/15, 2003, HarryBrowne.org.
Putting Our "Strength in Numbers"

to Work for You
On most major current issues, libertarians are not

alone.
Indeed, many millions of conservatives and centrists
agree with libertarians on numerous issues, including
cutting taxes, supporting gun rights, free market _
reforms, and much more.
Similarly, many millions of liberals and centrists agree
with libertarians on numerous issues, including re-legal-
izing marijuana, ending corporate welfare, defending
civil liberties, and much more.
This is important to remember when talking about
current events, whether one-on-one or to a larger audi-
ence. You can strengthen your position by letting your
listeners know that most of your libertarian views on
current events enjoy strong support from vast numbers
of people.
Sprinkle your conversation with phrases like these:
• "Like millions of Americans, I believe ... "
• "Like tens of millions of people from across the
political spectrum, I've come to see that ... "
• "Like millions of Americans-liberals, conservatives,
Democrats and Republicans-libertarians believe
that ... "
Practice such phrases until they become a natural part
of your speaking style.
There's strength and safety in numbers. Many people
are afraid to embrace an idea new to them if they feel it
is supported only by a small number of people, or by a

group they're new to or unfamiliar with.
Use phrases like these to reassure them-to show
them that the ideas of liberty have wide support, even
outside the fast-growing libertarian movement. This
may give them the inspiration and courage to explore
ideas they'd otherwise remain closed to.
And they may in turn discover they want to be
part of a movement that is consistently for liberty on
every issue.
Robert LeFevre's Three Zones of

Robert LeFevre (1911-1986) was one of the Founding

Fathers of the modern libertarian movement and a bril-
liant and persuasive libertarian communicator.
Among his many insights on communication is the
idea that there are three "temperature zones" at which
communication can occur: the Frigid Zone, the Torrid
Zone, and the Temperate Zone.
This concept offers you a great way of easily evalu-
ating how a libertarian conversation is going.
You have entered the Frigid Zone when you are
pushing a lot of words, theories and information at your
listener-more than they can understand or want to
understand. You may be too loud, too egocentric, too
demanding. In the Frigid Zone your listener grows "cold"
to you and your arguments. They don't connect with you,
they are bored, they are annoyed, they want to leave.
You don't want your conversation to be in the
Frigid Zone.
Then there's the Torrid Zone. Unfortunately, a lot of
libertarian conversations end up here. The Torrid Zone
is hot. It's a place of "heated debates" and "fiery argu-
ments" and "burning rhetoric." You're pushing your
listener's "hot buttons."
There is little or no communication or persuasion in
the Torrid Zone. Instead, both sides become antago-
nistic and aggressive. Facts, figures, and rhetoric are
shot back and forth like flaming arrows. It's a fight, not
a communication. In the Torrid Zone your listeners may
be turned off to libertarian ideas-for good.
You don't want your conversations to be in the

Torrid Zone.
Where you DO want to be is in what LeFevre calls the
Temperate Zone.
The Temperate Zone is the communication sweet spot.
It's a place of friendliness, give and take, and rapport.
You and your listener are calm, collected. It's an honest,
genuine exchange of ideas.
Now that you understand the concept of the Three
Zones, LeFevre offers this stunning further insight: You
are responsible for choosing which zone you are in during a
conversation. Not the person you're talking with. You.
To be in the Temperate Zone, the zone of productive
libertarian communication and persuasion, you must
always be respectful of your listener. You must under-
stand that they are sensitive and sovereign beings,
people who have valued opinions of their own, people
who almost certainly know a great deal more about some
things than you do. People who have no obligation to
accept your ideas and who are actually doing you a favor
by listening to, and considering, your ideas. People who
have a right to disagree.
They are, in short, people who are important and
worthy of your respect and your attention. (Why else
would you be speaking to them?)
To remain in the Temperate Zone, where communi-
cation and persuasion happen, you must use the classic
communication rules. Listen sincerely to what they
say. Be polite. Be gentle and considerate. Practice good
manners. Avoid arguments. Build rapport. Use the
communication techniques in this book.
In the Temperate Zone conversations are neither too
hot nor too cold. Communication is two-way. Talking is
fun, educational, meaningful, even joyful.
LeFevre's Three Zones of Communication gives you
a great tool to instantly assess any conversation or
discussion you find yourself in. Just ask yourself: Which

Zone am I in right now?
You'll instantly know the answer. If you're in the
Temperate Zone, great!
If you're in the Frigid Zone or the Torrid Zone, change
your approach immediately and get in the Temperate
Zone. If you can't, leave the discussion or change the
subject, and wait for a better opportunity to advance
libertarian ideas.
~-¢
I \ \,
LeFevre expands on this idea during a half-hour talk entitled "Communication about
Freedom." You can listen to it online, or download it for free, at the Ludwig von Mises
Institute website, Mises.org. It's part of a longer audio series on libertarianism by
LeFevre, all available free from the Mises Institute.
The Libertarian Denominator:

Finding the Libertarian in Everyone
When people are new to libertarian ideas, they may

say, "Sometimes you sound conservative, and sometimes
you sound liberal. Which one are you?"
Libertarians often answer this way: "Libertarians
are conservative on economic issues and liberal on
social issues."
While this answer makes sense, it has flaws.
First, it perpetuates the outdated and inaccurate
"left versus right" model of politics-a model that tries
to explain all political positions as either left or right,
liberal or conservative, and thus excludes libertarians.
(See the World's Smallest Political Quiz for a far more
accurate view of the political spectrum that includes
libertarianism along with other views.)
Second, since this answer implies that libertarians
are part conservative and part liberal, it suggests that
libertarians are inconsistent in their views, that liber-
tarianism is a sort of mish-mash of conservative and
libertarian ideas instead of the extremely consistent and
distinctive political philosophy it actually is.
So try this instead: "Conservatives who favor the free
market are libertarian on some economic issues. Liberals
who favor civil liberties are libertarian on some social
issues. Libertarians, on the other hand, consistently
favor liberty on both economic and social issues."
We call this phrasing the "Libertarian Denominator"
because it makes libertarianism the common denomi-
nator-the measuring stick, if you will.
The Libertarian Denominator shows libertarianism to

be the consistent philosophy, the one that favors liberty
across the board.
To help your listener get an instant understanding
and visual depiction of what you mean, use the Diamond
Chart from the World's Smallest Political Quiz to illus-
trate. Once people grasp the Quiz model, they'll reject
the old left-versus-right model and will never look at
politics the same way again.
There's an added bonus to using the Libertarian
Denominator. It shows that libertarianism is not so
unusual; that, in fact, virtually everyone is libertarian in
many areas. What a great way to find common ground
and establish instant rapport!
How to Oppose "Common-Sense

Rules of the Road"
Liberal/progressive activists frequently use a partic-

ularly effective phrase to justify radical increases in
government control of our lives.
They say they are merely calling for "common-sense
rules of the road."
President Obama used this phrase constantly, during
his presidential campaigns and after taking office. It also
appears in the speeches, public appearances, and writ-
ings of other progressives.
Some examples from President Obama's speeches:
• "It is time to put in place tough, new common-
sense rules of the road so that our financial market
rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-
cuts and abuse."
• "These [bureaucrats] will help put in place new,
common-sense rules of the road that will protect
investors, consumers, and our entire economy... "
• "All of our financial institutions ... need strong over-
sight and common-sense rules of the road ... "
• "I will modernize our outdated financial regulations
and put in place the common-sense rules of the road
I've been calling for since March ... "
This is a brilliant and powerful phrase. It makes even
the most radical position hard to argue against. Most
people, after all, agree we need "rules of the road."
The phrase creates a mental picture of driving on
a chaotic road without any rules, facing reckless and
dangerous drivers threatening the lives of all.
No one wants to encounter that. Thank heavens for

those "rules of the road!"
And who is against "common sense?"
The phrase "common-sense rules of the road" sounds
so un-radical, so reasonable. Even when it's used to
describe untested, radical, dangerous policies.
When you argue against it, you run into difficulties.
In the very act of arguing that radical Big Government
demands are not, in fact, "common-sense rules of the
road," you find yourself repeating your opponent's
phrase. In doing so you are stepping into their "frame,"
acknowledging their viewpoint, and using their key
persuasive language. You are literally arguing on their
terms. This keeps their argument alive in the minds of
your listeners.
Here are some suggestions for dealing with this phrase.
These can also serve as blueprints for constructing
responses to other popular phrases used to sell Big
Government proposals.
1. "What they are calling for are not 'common-sense
rules of the road.' These are road blocks that will
bring progress to a screeching halt."
The good side of this response is that it flips
the phrase over and tosses it back at your oppo-
nents. It also is humorous and creates a vivid
and dramatic mental picture-and humor and
vivid images are powerful communication tools.
The downside is that it still leaves you trapped
in the "frame," still repeating your opponent's
key phrase.
2. "We already have common-sense rules of the road.
Americans already know them and live by them.
They are simple, and they work: People shouldn't
harm others or their property through violence
or fraud. Let's enforce these basic, fundamental,
and proven American values, instead of creating

radical new and untested 'rules."'
Good: It substitutes libertarian values for the
"rules" proposed by your opponent, and argues
that the opposing views are radical and untested.
Downside: You're still stuck in the "frame."
3. "We already have common-sense rules of the
road. They're called the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights."
Good: You're linking yourself to the core
American political documents and concepts
of liberty. This is powerful. In doing so, you're
warning that your opponent is calling for radical,
untested experiments that run counter to, or
threaten, these documents and ideals. This state-
ment positions your opponent's proposals as
going against the key documents that define and
protect American liberty, the widely-held prin-
ciples our government is supposed to follow.
Downside: You're still stuck in the "frame."
4. "Look, let's call this proposal what it really is:
_ _ _ _ _ _ ." (Fill in the blank with a
short, strongly worded, and colorful summary
of whatever issue you're talking about, i.e., "a
radical government takeover of America's health
care system," "unprecedented and dangerous
government control of our economy," "massive
new taxes on hardworking already-overtaxed
Americans," "billions of dollars of our money
handed over to favored private businesses," etc.).
In many ways, this is the strongest response. By
using it, you quickly point out the bogus nature
of the phrase without repeating it, and then step
outside the "common-sense rules of the road"
frame entirely. You shift the debate; you change
the frame of the debate to your own terms.
These can also sometimes be used together. For

example, statement 3 flows logically into statement 4.
Other combinations can work as well, depending on the
issue and your audience.
Please note: These responses are somewhat aggres-
sive and direct, and more sui ted to public political
debates, letters to the editor, op-eds, campaigns and the
like. In personal casual conversations, where the goal
is political persuasion, use them gently if at all; other,
less confrontational methods in this book may be much
more effective.
Two Little Pigs: The Power of Stories
"Two little pigs escape slaughter, capture British hearts,"

read the headline on the London newspaper article.
The story was about two five-month-old piglets-
brother and sister-who ran away from a Malmesbury,
Wiltshire slaughterhouse just moments before they were
to be killed. The two escapees squeezed under a fence,
swam across a river, ran off into the distance and eluded
slaughterhouse workers in hot pursuit.
When the story got out, public sentiment was over-
whelmingly on the side of the pigs, who were quickly
nicknamed Butch and Sundance. Their story spread
around the world. Many individuals and organizations
offered sanctuary to the celebri-pigs. Virtually everyone
wanted their lives spared. After running free for more
than a week they were finally caught-and then given a
new lease on life at an animal sanctuary. The BBC even
made a movie about their great escape, entitled "The
Legend of the Tamworth Two." Their story was used to
promote farm animal welfare legislation in Britain and
the European Union.
All this support, mind you, came from a public that
routinely eats bacon and pork chops!
Animal welfare advocates can give eloquent, intellec-
tual fact-filled arguments for their beliefs. But nothing
matches the immediate impact of a story like this one.
Why? Easy. The story personalized the issue. The little
pigs stopped being abstract ideas and became real, living
beings to readers. The story appealed to the hearts of the
people. It stirred their emotions, their sympathy, their
compassion. It brought an abstract issue to life.
Millions of people heard, and thought about, farm

animal welfare issues, perhaps for the first time in
their lives. A door was cracked open, an opportunity for
discussion was created-by public sharing of this simple,
touching, true story.
Let's put this idea to work in our presentation of liber-
tarian issues.
Certainly, it's good-even essential-to use facts and
figures and logic. As libertarians know, the facts are on
our side. Liberty is logical, liberty works.
But stories-both true ones and fictional-have a
special power. There is a reason most of us remember
stories with messages: the parables of Jesus, the fables
of Aesop, cautionary fairy tales.
Indeed, the greatest teachers have always used stories.
And now we have scientific backing for why stories work
so well. Bestselling author Carmine Gallo, in his book
Talk Like TED, cites Princeton University research in
which MRis were used to study how the brains of audi-
ence members reacted to stories. The research showed
that stories actually activate all areas of the brain.
Writes Gallo: "Brain scans reveal that stories stimu-
late and engage the human brain, helping the speaker
connect with the audience and making it much more
likely that the audience will agree with the speaker's
point of view."
That's remarkable. Perhaps we should be telling
stories all the time. Certainly most of us should be doing
it a lot more.
When you can combine a great story with your facts
and figures, your audience listens. They identify. They
are moved. They feel, as well as calculate. Further, while
it's hard to remember facts and figures, people remember
stories-and share them.
Take one issue: medical marijuana. There are many
logical, fact-based arguments that can-and should-be
used. But consider this story, a version of which was

published in the Pittsburgh Press in the early 1990s,
before liberty activists began to have success in getting
states to re-legalize marijuana for medical purposes:
James Burton, a former Kentuckian, is living
literally in exile in the Netherlands. Burton, a
Vietnam War vet and master electrical techni-
cian, suffers from a rare form of hereditary glau-
coma. All males on his mother's side of his family
had the disease. Several of them are blind.
Burton found that marijuana could hold
back, and perhaps halt, the glaucoma. So he
began growing marijuana for his own use and
smoking it.
Kentucky State Police raided his 90-acre farm
and found 138 marijuana plants and two pounds
of raw marijuana. At his 1988 trial, North
Carolina ophthalmologist Dr. John Merrit-at
that time the only physician in America allowed
by the government to test marijuana in the
treatment of glaucoma-testified that mari-
juana was "the only medication" that could keep
Burton from going blind.
Nevertheless, Burton was found guilty of
simple possession for personal use and was
sentenced to one year in a federal maximum
security prison, with no parole. The govern-
ment also seized his house and his farm, valued
at around $70,000. Under forfeiture laws,
there was no defense he could raise against the
seizure of his farm. No witnesses on behalf of
the defense, not even a statement from the
Burtons, were allowed at the hearing.
After release, Burton and his wife moved
to the Netherlands, where he could legally
purchase marijuana to stave off his blindness.

Instead of a sprawling farm, they now live in a
tiny apartment.
They saytheywouldlove to return to America-
but not at the cost of Burton going blind.
See how that puts a human face on the medical mari-
juana issue?
There are equally moving, equally appalling stories
about taxation, utility monopolies, First Amendment
issues, gun rights, licensing laws ... virtually any issue.
Anywhere the government has committed aggression
against individuals, there is a story to be told. (The
Institute for Justice, a libertarian legal defense orga-
nization, has done a particularly good job of collecting
and dramatizing such stories. Check out their website
for some wonderful contemporary human interest tales
of courageous individuals fighting against great odds
to defend their lives and property against oppressive
government.)
Whenever you come across moving, emotional stories
of victims of government, or victories for liberty, collect
them for future use.
Put names and faces on issues and tell moving stories
along with your facts and figures. This is essential if you
are to be persuasive. Most people accept or reject ideas
not just because of bare facts and theorizing but also
because of feelings and emotions. Give them stories
to hang your facts on, stories that make your theories
come alive, and you will be far more effective in your
political outreach.
A Law Isn't Just a Suggestion
"I like a lot of libertarian ideas," he said as he

approached the smiling young libertarian woman at the
OPH booth.
"Great!" she said.
"But I could never be a libertarian."
"Why not?" she asked.
"Because I don't believe in gay marriage. Or gay rights.
My church teaches that homosexuality is immoral. I
think that homosexuality should be outlawed."
She paused a moment, then said: "Let me ask you a
question. Do you think gays should be put in prison?"
"Oh, no," he said, clearly horrified by the suggestion.
"I wouldn't want to see that."
"But if we outlawed homosexuality, that's exactly
what would happen," she pointed out. "A law isn't a
suggestion, or a public statement, or an expression of
disapproval. It's a command. Those who violate the law
will be arrested, which can be a devastating, shattering
experience by itself. If they're found guilty, they will face
fines or imprisonment or whatever punishment the law
demands. Even if the penalty is not imprisonment, gay
people who were repeat offenders or who resisted arrest
would be put in jail."
He was stunned. He simply had not thought of this. In
moments his mind was made up.
"I wouldn't put them in jail," he said. "Or punish them
in anyway. So I don't favor laws outlawing homosexuality
after all." He smiled. "I guess I could be a libertarian!"
*****
It's easy to imagine a similar conversation on a wide
variety of laws that prohibit consensual but controversial
activities many people disapprove of, like gambling, drug

use, prostitution, gun ownership and so forth.
The same principle applies to many economic issues,
too. Should someone be punished or imprisoned for
hiring someone at less than minimum wage, practicing
hair braiding without a license, selling unpasteurized
milk, or engaging in other consensual but controversial
economic acts?
Many people's first thought about such activities is to
feel "there oughta be a law" against engaging in them.
That's because they strongly believe these activities are
wrong or immoral or sinful, and in their minds a legal
prohibition is a kind of social statement of disapproval.
But many of these same people would not actually
want to see people lose their jobs because of an arrest, be
publicly shamed in the local newspaper's arrest reports,
be imprisoned, or face other dire consequences.
They just haven't considered that a law is not a sugges-
tion or a social statement: it's a command, enforced by
guns and punished by fines, imprisonment or worse.
Indeed, as many people have pointed out, every law, even
a minor one, is ultimately backed up by deadly force. If
you resist the police, guns will come out. If you resist the
guns, deadly force may be used.
The key question is not whether you approve or
disapprove of an activity. It is, rather, whether you are
willing to have someone fined, imprisoned, or otherwise
punished for engaging in that activity.
Sometimes bringing a person around to the liber-
tarian position on such an issue is as easy as asking a
simple "Aha!" question: Do you want to put people in
prison for that?
You can make this even more effective by personal-
izing it:
"If your bowling friend was gay, would you want him
arrested and imprisoned for that?"
"If your college-aged daughter smoked marijuana,

would you want her put in prison for doing so?"
"If your unemployed and broke friend, trying to pay
bills and earn a living, started a business braiding hair,
without spending over a year in classes and paying thou-
sands of dollars to get a state license to do so, would you
want her to be arrested and tried in court for that?"
Try it.
If Guns Are Outlawed ...
Here's a neat variation on an old gun-rights saying

that can win you friends-and open minds to a very
libertarian message.
When pro-gun rights people say to you they're
concerned about gun rights, agree with them about the
importance of this issue.
Then ask if they've heard the old saying, "If guns are
outlawed ... "
Sometimes they will fill in the rest of it themselves. If
not, do it yourself:
1
' ••• only outlaws will have guns."
Your listeners will probably nod enthusiastically.

You've made a point near and dear to their hearts.
Then say: "But you know, that's not really true."
Your listeners will register surprise.
You continue:
"The truth is, if guns are banned, only outlaws-and
government-will have guns."
Watch the light bulb flash on in their heads.
"And you know," you continue, "of the two-outlaws
and government-it's the government that scares me the
most-by far."
Expect interesting conversations to follow!
Too Radical?
"Your libertarian beliefs are just too radical to ever be

accepted," he said to her across the restaurant table. "It
just makes you sound foolish when you advocate them.
Your libertarian ideas won't get anywhere-because
they're just too radical."
"Well, I think a lot of your political ideas are very
radical, too," she responded.
"What do you mean?"
"Well, consider that gentleman over there." She indi-
cated a black man at a nearby table. "Do you think it
should be legal to own and sell him?"
"Of course not."
"I agree," she said. "And so does everyone else-now.
But that was an extremely radical idea in this part of
America back in, say, 1859. Still, some people had the
courage to stand up and, at great personal risk, fight for
it. And because of them, that man is free today."
She pointed at his glass.
"Do you think it should be legal for you to buy that
wine?"
"Of course."
"That's another radical anti-Establishment idea of
yours," she said. "The manufacture, sale and transpor-
tation of alcoholic beverages was outlawed in 1920-by
a constitutional amendment, no less. Prohibition lasted
until 1933-until years of hard work by radical anti-
Prohibitionist activists finally resulted in that amend-
ment being repealed.
"And what about voting?" she continued. "Do you
think I, and other women, should be allowed to vote?"
"Naturally."
"That's still another radical belief you hold," she

smiled. "In fact, the first U.S. political party to propose
it was the Liberty Party in 1848-one of those radical
third parties you laugh at. But it wasn't until1920 that
the U.S. Constitution was finally amended to allow
women to vote. It took nearly a century of hard-and,
yes, radical-activism to bring that about."
"But all that was a long time ago ... "
"Let's look at more recent times, then. Do you think
it should be legal to publish and buy the works of D. H.
Lawrence, Henry Miller, and William Burroughs?"
"Of course. They're major figures in world literature."
"Your radicalism is showing again," she smiled. "It
was illegal to publish some of their major works in
America as recently as the 1960s. Booksellers were
arrested-yes, right here in America-for selling
them. First Amendment activists-who were often
denounced as radicals, pornographers, and enemies of
America-fought these laws in court until it was legal
at last to print and sell these books.
"We could go on," she said. "Legal medical marijuana-
only now beginning to win acceptance. Nudity and
cursing and controversial themes in mainstream films
for adult audiences-illegal until just several decades
ago. Strong language in stand-up comedy-remember
what happened to Lenny Bruce as late as 1964?
"My point is, we're both radicals. You're as radical as
I am on many issues. The only difference is that you're
radical on issues that were settled a while back. It's easy
now to defend the freedom to purchase alcohol or to read
Henry Miller or to listen to comedians who use strong
language. But that's only because passionate and brave
people spoke up and took huge risks-including ridi-
cule, criticism, violence and legal prosecution-when
those were the hot issues of the day.
"You and I agree on those issues. But the difference

is-I'm also radical on the burning freedom issues of
today. And let me ask you: What will happen on those vital
issues if people like you and me don't speak up now?"
Libertarians: Radicals-or the

Real Moderates?
Words can mean very different things to different

people and different audiences.
Libertarians tend to like the world "radical." We are
radical about liberty-we want to go all the way with indi-
vidual freedom. We, in libertarian writer Walter Block's
phrase, proudly "defend the undefendable." Ayn Rand
famously described herself as a "radical for capitalism."
Many of us will quickly point out that the word "radical"
comes from the Latin word "radix," meaning "root." To be
radical is thus to want to "go to the root" of the issue. To
want fundamental change. Beginning ... yesterday!
So when we say we're radical, we're saying we're prin-
cipled, consistent, and courageous in our defense of the
highest political value: liberty. And we see no reason to
wait to bring the blessings of liberty to others.
We're proud of that, and justly so.
But not everyone hears the word "radical" that way.
To some people, "radical" means a small and dangerous
group of extremists demanding drastic and disturbing
change. Danger. Chaos. Anything radical, to some people,
is frightening and threatening. A "radical" is someone to
view with suspicion.
The word "radical" will not accurately communicate to
such audiences what you want to say. It may hinder, not
help, communication.
Also, our opponents sometimes use the word "radical"
in this way against us. They say that our ideas are strange
and dangerous and will never succeed, because they are ...
"too radical."
How to Be a Sup.er Communicator for Liberty 245
If that argument is used against you, consider this

verbal judo.·
"Actually, I don't think libertarians are radicals-
certainly not in the way you use the word. In fact, I think
we are the true moderates."
"Moderates? But you're calling for--"
"Look. Libertarians simply believe that peaceful
people should not be harassed, controlled or dictated to
by the government. That they should be free to do any
peaceful thing they wish with their own lives and prop-
erty, just as long as they respect the rights of others to
do the same.
"I don't see anything 'radical' about that. In fact, I
think it's the epitome of moderation. It's just common
sense and common decency. Respect for others. Peace.
Tolerance. The Golden Rule.
"What's radical to me is the notion that some people
think they have the right to use force against peaceful
people who are harming no one. To take their money.
To tell them how to run their business. To try to control
their private lives.
"To tell them what they can eat, or drink, or smoke, or
read, or watch. To force them to risk their health, hard-
earned savings and freedom on dubious government
programs. To make them register for compulsory mili-
tary service.
"Now that is a radical idea! Forcing peaceful people at
gunpoint to live in ways they don't want or may even
find abhorrent. Taking their property. Bossing them
around. Punishing them-often savagely-for refusing
to obey. What could be more radical than that?
"Libertarians oppose that kind of radicalism and
extremism. Unlike liberals or conservatives, we don't
think we have the wisdom, or the right, to tell other
people how to live their lives.
"I think that makes us ... the real moderates."
The Incredible Power of Specific,

Concrete Examples
If you're like us, you can get pretty excited about the
free market and all its possibilities. But sometimes when
we talk about this, we get blank stares from our listeners.
There's a reason for this. We enjoy learning about
abstract ideas and speculating about what the future
could bring.
However, it turns out that most people prefer to
receive information in a different way.
According to the Center for Applications of
Psychological Type (publisher of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator), 66-74% of people are "sensory" types.
("Estimated Frequencies of the Types in the United
States Population," CAPT.org.) This means they pay
more attention to facts that can be perceived by the
senses. They're more interested in how things are than
how things could be. They prefer to deal with facts rather
than abstract concepts.
To reach them, libertarians need to quickly move from
the abstract to the concrete-by giving specific, vivid
and familiar examples of how liberty works.
One example of a familiar working free market solu-
tion can be more persuasive than a hundred abstract
theories.
We'll show you how to do this in the best way we
know: by offering you ... specific, concrete examples of
how we use specific, concrete examples.
Let's take the libertarian argument that the market
can offer consumers reliable assurances of quality and
safety-that the market can actually do a much better
job than government in this crucial area.
Listeners sometimes react with skepticism when

they hear theoretical arguments along these lines.
Or they may be bored by what they feel is a pointless
abstract claim.
But their ears open and they pay attention when
you show them how it's being done right now-all
around them.
UL: The Ubiquitous ,Lesson
We'll start with a powerful example. 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.
In 1894 an organization called Underwriters
Laboratories attacked this problem by setting safety
standards for electrical devices.
Virtually everyone has seen their familiar Underwriters
Laboratories' circled UL certification mark. It has
become a universally-recognized certification of safety
around the world.
Many people are amazed to discover that govern-
ment was not involved in this solution. Underwriters
Laboratories, a private non-profit organization, was
financed by insurance companies and businesses that
wanted to save money by reducing fires and lawsuits.
No one was forced to adapt UL standards. But manu-
facturers embraced UL certification as a way to assure
consumers their products were safe. Electricity-related
deaths, injuries and destruction decreased enormously.
Safer products quickly appeared and consumers could
easily identify them, thanks to the UL certification
mark. Today, several billion products annually carry the
seal. Few manufacturers of electrical goods will market a
product without the UL seal of approval.
When you use concrete real-world examples like this,
you'll see interest in the eyes of your listeners. Instead of
theorizing, you're talking about something they've seen

all their lives. Something they trust. Something they
know works.
Plus, you're telling a story. Most people learn quicker
from stories. Stories grab and keep attention and are
easy to remember.
Stories are fun to share, too. Many in your audience will
likely share this one. And they'll remember it every time
they see the UL certification mark on products they buy.
More Seals of Approval
Underwriters Laboratory is just one example of the
effectiveness of seals of approval. In electrical safety
testing alone, there are several other seals of approval
that meet various industry and consumer needs.
Seals of approval are a widespread form of private-
sector consumer protection. Here are some others your
listeners will 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 effective-
ness. Although it is strictly voluntary, more than 300
companies participate in the ADA seal program. More
than 1,000 common dental products-such as tooth-
paste, 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 depart-
ments specializing in engineering, chemistry, food, food
appliances, nutrition, beauty products, home care and
textiles. It reviews more than 2,000 products annually.
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 commer-
cial and government entities. Such companies also rank
the credit worthiness of potential borrowers. They are
highly regarded, and their success depends on the accu-
racy and integrity of the information they provide.
These are just some of the seals of approval used and
trusted by consumers every day.
They exist because consumers want and need assur-
ances 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 trust-
worthy, to increase sales. Businesses also want certifi-
cation that their products are safe, for insurance and
liability reasons.
The market responds to these desires. Such market-
generated regulation sets high standards, and meets
consumer needs better than government-as these
familiar, everyday examples illustrate.
It's Kosher
Here's another great concrete example most of your
listeners will immediately grasp.
Many people fear that, without government regula-
tion, 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 certifi-
cation 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 government 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. But 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, and there are hundreds of kosher certifying
organizations around the world. You have probably
seen kosher labels (usually a K or U in a circle) on many
products you buy.
Kosher certification is completely self-funding, as the
tiny cost of kosher certification is more than paid for by
the advertising and marketing 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 exacting and reli-
able 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.
Similar food labels are emerging and evolving for such
important niche markets as vegetarians, vegans, those
who don't want to consume GMO foods, animal welfare
advocates, consumers of low- and no-carb foods, foods
without saturated fat or gluten, foods consistent with
the Atkins diet ... the list goes on and on.
No one forces companies to do this. They do so

because they want to fulfill the needs and desires of their
customers, in order to gain their business.
Obviously, given the chance, similar certification
methods would quickly emerge to replace today's expen-
sive, coercive, and less stringent government labeling
system. And consumers would be safer, better informed
and have more choice.
Brand Names
Brand names are another incredibly powerful private-
sector protection for consumers we're all familiar with,
but seldom think about.
A grocery store's name-let's say Kroger-is itself
a brand name. Go inside the store, and you'll see tens
of thousands of other products, each bearing brand
names-the company names of the individual prod-
ucts gathered for sale under Kroger's roof. (For example:
General Mills, Heinz, Hormel, Kellogg, Kraft Foods.)
These brand names give you, the consumer, tremen-
dous protection and reliable guarantees of quality and
safety.
How? First consider the store brand name. Kroger
wants customers to feel completely confident about
the foods and other products they sell. They don't want
customers to have to wonder even for a moment if the
food is possibly contaminated or dangerous.
Now consider a product. If Acme Canned Peas wants
Kroger to carry their product, they must prove to Kroger
that their canned peas will satisfy Kroger's demand that
customers feel confident about their products.
If Kroger finds that Acme Canned Peas is of poor
quality, or otherwise threatens to generate customer
complaints, the store won't tolerate it. They won't dare
risk wrecking their reputation and losing customers
to other grocery stores. They'll keep Acme off their
shelves and offer other brands instead. Shelf space is

valuable real estate, and products are eager to get on
those shelves.
The average supermarket carries nearly 40,000 items.
Larger stores may carry 60,000 or more. Yet consumers
rarely feel concern about the cleanliness and safety of
these thousands of items. The desire of stores and brands
to assure customers their products are safe generates
powerful protection for consumers.
We're using grocery stores and food products as
examples, but of course these principles apply to almost
any industry.
If government regulation vanished tomorrow, private
certification services-like the ones discussed above-
would instantly spring up to help companies like Acme
Peas quickly prove to retail stores that their products
were safe and met high standards. (Indeed, as we will see
just below, this is already happening today despite the
existence of mandatory government regulations.)
This isn't because Acme Peas or Kroger loves you
personally. Nor is it because businesses are inherently
honest or caring. It's because they just can't risk losing
your trust. Because when you don't trust them, you go
elsewhere-and they go out of business. In a free market
you, the customer, are king.
Here's one powerful example. Prior to 1997, Burger
King was the biggest customer of the beef produced
by the huge Hudson Food Company. As part of their
contract, Burger King insisted on a separate production
line that required stricter sanitation procedures than
mandated by U.S. law (a good example of private busi-
nesses voluntarily exceeding government safety and
quality standards).
In 1997, some Hudson beef was found to be contami-
nated 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-even
a brand as huge and powerful as Burger King-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.
Voluntary Online Feedback, Ratings and Reviews
Every day millions of buyers and sellers interact and
exchange vast sums of money on sites like eBay, Amazon,
Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, and EatWith.
One of the major protections these services offer
consumers are voluntary rating systems. Consumers
dissatisfied with a seller can give bad ratings and reviews.
Sellers know that a bad rating means fewer sales and
more hesitant customers, so they strive for the highest
possible ratings. On sites like Amazon and eBay, bad
sellers may be banned.
Similarly, sellers have the opportunity to rate buyers
at eBay and other sites. A potential buyer with a low
rating may find himself inconvenienced, at the least,
by not being able to use a personal check, or even shut
out of a purchase entirely by sellers who won't deal with
potential buyers who have low ratings.
These simple and voluntary mechanisms have proved
themselves to be remarkably effective in creating safe
and reliable online markets. They protect consumers,
reward good businesses, and discourage bad businesses.
Similarly, local brick and mortar services like restau-
rants, theaters, doctors, dentists, home-improvement
professionals, and so on are reviewed and rated online
by large numbers of consumers on sites like Yelp, Angie's
List, HomeAdvisor.com, Judy's Book, and many others.
These reviews are instantly available to potential users

and help them make informed choices.
Online voluntary reviews and ratings let people swap
cars, offer rides, rent out spare beds and rooms, share
meals, and do many, many other things with remarkable
safety. They are great familiar examples of real-world,
voluntary, self-enforcing consumer protection.
GLOBALG.A.P.: Worldwide High Quality Food
Safety Inspection
Here's a very powerful example that can convince
people that market-based provision of safety and quality
standards is not only possible, it is highly desirable-
and more effective than government regulation. And it
is happening right now.
GLOBALG.A.P. is a private-sector, voluntary organi-
zation that certifies food standards in Europe. Europe
is the world's largest importer of food. In the 1990s,
European food retailers found they couldn't rely on the
European Union's 27 governments to ensure high safety
standards for farm products they wanted to import and
sell. This endangered consumer trust, which in turn
threatened sales.
So in 1997, some of Europe's biggest food retailers got
together to draw up global quality guidelines for meat,
fruits and vegetables. They wanted to "provide a rapid
response to things the consumer cares about, in a way
that governments can't provide," explained Nick Ball of
the British grocery chain Tesco PLC to the Wall Street
Journal in 2008.
To see that these quality standards were met, these
companies and their suppliers formed what is now
called GLOBALG.A.P. (The "G.A.P." stands for "Good
Agricultural Practices.")
GLOBALG.A.P. describes itself as "a private-sector body
that sets voluntary standards for the certification of agri-
cultural products around the globe. The GLOBALG.A.P.
standard is primarily designed to reassure consumers

about how food is produced on the farm by ensuring
food safety and minimizing detrimental environmental
impacts of farming operations, reducing the use of chem-
ical inputs and ensuring a responsible approach to worker
health and safety."
GLOBALG.A.P. is a private organization, and partici-
pation is completely voluntary. Yet it is highly effec-
tive and very widely used. Indeed, GLOBALG.A.P. has
quickly grown to become the world's most widely used
farm certification plan, offering certification to over
100,000 farmers and producers in more than 100 coun-
tries around the world.
As the Wall Street Journal noted in 2008: "Most
European buyers of agricultural products routinely ask
for proof of GLOBALG.A.P. certification before they will
purchase produce." Wal-Mart and McDonald's are both
GLOBALG.A.P. members.
GLOBALG.A.P.'s high standards insure consumer
protection and satisfaction in many ways:
• GLOBALG.A.P. monitors the entire process of
production until the product leaves the farm: from
initial farm inputs like feed or seedlings, through
waste disposal, personnel hygiene, environment
protection, and more. Any pesticides used are regis-
tered and monitored. The Wall Street Journal notes
certification requirements "include limits on pesti-
cide residue (how much is left on a fruit or vegetable
after it's washed), a ban on nonessential animals
around packing houses ... and soil analyses to make
sure farmers aren't using too much fertilizer."
• GLOBALG.A.P. certification includes annual inspec-
tions of the producers and additional unannounced
inspections.
• Humane treatment of farm animals has become a
major concern for a growing number of consumers.
GLOBALG.A.P. has responded to this consumer

concern-and the desire of businesses to satisfy
these consumers-by establishing voluntary audit-
able certifications for humane treatment of live-
stock. The criteria for achieving this certification
go beyond legal requirements for animal welfare.
Farmers around the world are eager to get the
GLOBALG.A.P. seal of approval, because it opens markets
worldwide for their products. Thus GLOBALG.A.P. has
brought safer farming practices to numerous countries.
GLOBALG.A.P. is a great example of how, and why,
the private sector can provide consumer protection
and product quality standards more effectively than
government.
Collect Them All!
Collect other examples like this whenever you see
them, and have them at your fingertips.
How do you find them? Read leading libertarian publi-
cations and blogs. And subscribe to the Liberator Online,
our free email newsletter, which regularly features
examples of how free enterprise works to the benefit of
consumers, producers, and the environment.
Concrete, specific, familiar, effective real-world exam-
ples like these will open minds and convince listeners
when theoretical arguments won't.
Libertarians Sometimes ®/SA(ijRE(!:

How to Use That in Your Outreach
We libertarians have a remarkably cohesive and consis-

tent political philosophy. We agree with one another on
far more issues and basic. principles than people in polit-
ical movements of the left or the right.
That's great for our movement.
However, libertarians do sometimes disagree-and
on some extremely important issues.
For example:
Abortion: Some libertarians believe that women
have the right to choose to have an abortion. But others
believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human
being and should be illegal. Still others believe there is
a right to abortion, up to a certain point in the develop-
ment of the fetus.
Immigration: Some libertarians favor free immigra-
tion, believing that people should be free to travel and
work wherever they want. Others favor restrictions of
various kinds on immigration, citing concerns including
national security and abuse of existing tax-funded
resources.
The death penalty: Some libertarians favor it. Some
oppose it.
Foreign policy: Most libertarians believe in a non-
interventionist foreign policy. But not all. Some feel
there are circumstances beyond a direct threat to U.S.
security that justify U.S. intervention abroad (though
almost all libertarians favor a massive reduction in U.S.
military and political intervention).
There are other important areas of disagreement
as well.
Libertarians also disagree about strategy. Some

support a flat tax or national sales tax to replace the
income tax; some do not. Some oppose participation in
electoral politics; some embrace it. Some think a medical
model as an alternative to the War on Drugs is a step in
the right direction; others disagree.
Libertarians also disagree about the reasons they are
libertarians. Some base their libertarianism on theories
of natural law and self-ownership. Others simply believe
that libertarianism will produce a better society.
Please note one important thing about the above.
They are all honest, deeply considered disagreements
about how fundamental libertarian principles should be
applied. They are not simply someone's prejudices. They
are not examples of ducking difficult issues for short-
term political gain.
Remember these disagreements, and others like them,
when you are trying to persuade liberty-minded people
to fully embrace libertarianism.
Very often, when discussing libertarianism, someone
will say something like: "I agree with libertarians on just
about everything. But I cannot be a libertarian because
of your position on ... "Then they will name an issue that
is the "deal-killer" for them.
Now, if the deal-killer issue is something like re-legal-
izing marijuana, or opposing tax cuts, or favoring a mili-
tary draft, then you've got some more persuading to do.
But if the deal-killer is an issue that libertarians
themselves disagree on, like the death penalty, immigra-
tion, abortion ... or if it's a disagreement over a partic-
ular strategy that libertarians argue over among them-
selves ... you've got a winning answer at your fingertips.
Put aside your own beliefs on the issue for the moment.
Remember, you're now speaking to your listener about
the entire big-tent libertarian movement.
Tell your listener the facts about libertarian disagree-

ment on their deal-killer issue. Be ready to even share
resources where they can find out more about how and
why many libertarians agree with them on this issue.
Say something like: "You might be surprised to
learn that abortion is an issue that principled, sincere,
thoughtful and knowledgeable libertarians disagree on.
There are pro-life and pro-choice libertarians. So if that's
the only issue keeping you from calling yourself a liber-
tarian, then ... welcome aboard!"
Don't deny those who disagree with you on one or
two issues-issues on which knowledgeable libertar-
ians themselves disagree-the opportunity to join the
libertarian movement and work for freedom on the vast
number of vital and urgent issues on which you and
other libertarians are in lOOo/o agreement.
There are plenty of times where debate on these diffi-
cult issues is constructive and, indeed, necessary. But
recruitment is not one of them.
Resources
These can all be found online:
Pro-life libertarian arguments: Libertarians for Life, 4L.org.
Pro-choice libertarian arguments: Pro-Choice Libertarians,
Pro-ChoiceLibertarians. net.
Libertarian arguments in favor of free immigration: Open Borders: The
Case, OpenBorders.info.
Libertarian arguments for limiting immigration: "The Case for Free
Trade and Restricted Immigration" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal
of Libertarian Studies, Summer 1998.
Pro-death penalty libertarian arguments: "The Libertarian Position
on Capital Punishment" by Murray N. Rothbard, Libertarian Review,
June 1978.
Anti-death penalty libertarian arguments: "Some Historical Notes on
the Problem of Capital Punishment" by George H. Smith, Cato Unbound,
March 14th, 2012.
Typography in DISAGREE inspired by Samuel Edward Konkin III (aka SEK3), from his
magazine New Libertarian (1970-1990).
Correcting a Hidden Totalitarian

Assumption
Frequently during debates over tax policy, we hear

some commentators make a big logical error-and a
dangerous one.
The argument is this: by not raising taxes, or by not
ending various tax deductions, the government is actu-
ally giving money to those who benefit.
Here are two examples of this:
• Eugene Robinson is a liberal syndicated columnist
who writes for the Washington Post. By not increasing
taxes on wealthier taxpayers, he said in one column,
the government is saying to these taxpayers: "Step
right up, and we'll write you a check."
• Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO): "If [Republicans]
think it's O.K. to raise taxes for the embattled middle
class because they're going to pout if we don't give
more money to millionaires, it really is time for the
people of America to take up pitchforks."
This is blatantly wrong, of course. When someone isn't
taxed, the government doesn't "write them a check." Nor
does the government "give" them anything.
They merely get to keep what they have already earned.
To keep what is already theirs.
That is a vast and vital difference.
Economist Thomas Sowell makes this clear:
"When you refrain from raising someone's taxes, you
are not 'giving' them anything. Even if you were actu-
ally cutting their tax rate ... you would still not be 'giving'
them anything, but only allowing them to keep more of
what they have earned.
"Is it not an insult to our intelligence to say that

the government is 'giving' us something by not taxing
it away?"
But this fallacy is worse than just wrong. It is
dangerous in what it implies. Indeed it is an inherently
totalitarian notion.
The argument that the government is somehow giving
citizens a "gift" by letting them keep some of the money
they earn has a shocking underlying, unspoken implica-
tion: that the government has the first claim on what-
ever money we earn-that the government is the actual
or default owner of that money, not the individuals who
earn it.
That the government owns, in essence, everything.
And that, of course, is downright totalitarian.
Of course, most of those who make this argument have
no idea what they are actually implying by such claims.
Certainly few if any of them are actually totalitarians.
But the implication is plainly there-every time this
argument is made.
And such concepts have a way of seeping into the
public awareness.
Whenever you encounter this widely-heard error,
it should be corrected, because (1) it is popular propa-
ganda in favor of higher taxes that can easily be shown
as logically wrong; and (2) it is actually dangerous for
such an idea to be part of everyday thinking, part of the
American political discourse.
Naturally, when correcting this in a conversation, do
so in a friendly and gentle fashion. Don't, of course, call
someone you're conversing with "totalitarian." Don't be
rude. If you can't do this, move on to another point or
another conversation. But, if appropriate, gently point
out the unpleasant and dangerous assumption that is
inherent in the idea.
"John, when you say that the government is 'giving'

someone something just by letting them keep what
they've earned, it implies that the government really
owns everything, doesn't it? That what it lets us keep
is a kind of gift from the government to us. That the
government is doing me a favor by letting me keep what
is already mine. I have to tell you, when it's put that way,
it just doesn't sound right to me."
The idea, as always, is to try to engage in useful
conversations, not start arguments that just erect walls
that block real communication.
Our aim in personal conversation is not to win an
argument on points and rhetoric, but rather to win
friends and open minds.
In a campaign, public speech, letter to the editor, op-ed,
etc., our aim may be different. But even then, gentleness
and politeness are usually preferable to scoring points
and making contentious rhetorical arguments that don't
convince others.
"Tax cut fight highlights Democrats' missing convictions" by Eugene Robinson,

Washington Post, December 3, 2010.
"Tax-Cut Debate Turns to Millionaires" by David. M. Herszenhorn, New York Times,
December 3, 2010.
The "Trickle Down Economics"

Myth-and How to Refute It
Economist and syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell

began a 2014 column this way:
"New York's new mayor, Bill de Blasia, in his inau-
gural speech, denounced people 'on the far right' who
'continue to preach the virtue of trickle-down economics.'
According to Mayor de Blasia, 'They believe that the way
to move forward is to give more to the most fortunate,
and that somehow the benefits will work their way down
to everyone e1se.'"
Mayor de Blasia is hardly the only person denouncing
"trickle-down economics." Presidents, members of
Congress, newspapers including the New York Times and
the Washington Post, and many other prominent persons
and publications have similarly attacked "trickle-down
. "
economics.
There's just one problem, says Sowell. No economist in
history has ever advocated such a policy. The phrase is pure
propaganda; the alleged theory is a straw man.
"Trickle-down economics" is a made-up pejorative
term used by opponents of free enterprise to distort
what genuine free market reform is all about and to
demonize those who advocate it.
Indeed, writes Sowell: "If there is ever a contest for the
biggest lie in politics, this one should be a top contender.
While there have been all too many lies told in politics,
most have some little tiny fraction of truth in them, to
make them seem plausible. But the 'trickle-down' lie is
100 percent lie."
Sowell argues, in his book Basic Economics: A Citizen's

Guide to the Economy and elsewhere, that no economist
in history has ever advocated a "trickle-down" economic
theory, i.e., giving tax breaks, regulatory breaks, and
other advantages overwhelmingly to the wealthy, in the
belief that some crumbs from this will eventually "trickle
down" to the poor.
"Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote
any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever
advocated this 'trickle-down' theory," Sowell continues.
"Some readers said that somebody said that somebody
else had advocated a 'trickle-down' policy. But they could
never name that somebody else and quote them."
Further, Sowell notes: . "The 'trickle-down' theory
cannot be found in even the most voluminous schol-
arly studies of economic theories-including J.A.
Schumpeter's monumental History of Economic Analysis,
more than a thousand pages long and printed in very
small type."
In short, the phrase "trickle-down economics" is a
slur, a weapon used to attack free market advocates by
distorting what they actually believe.
If you hear the phrase "trickle down economics" used
to describe what you believe or what free enterprise
reform is concerned with, don't accept it. Don't allow it
to define what we believe. Politely but firmly reject it, as
we've done above.
Say instead that what you favor is genuine free enter-
prise. Libertarians believe free enterprise benefits
everyone, especially the disadvantaged, and we want to
bring those benefits to everyone-rich, middle class,
and poor alike.
Then make a persuasive case that free market small-
government reforms will immediately benefit the poor.
You might point out how government policies destroy
jobs and keep skilled but unlicensed entrepreneurs from
starting businesses. How the government education

monopoly harms poor children. How minimum wage
laws, high taxes, convoluted tax laws, regulations, corpo-
rate subsidies, drug laws and so many other government
policies hurt poor families and deny them opportunity.
As we note elsewhere in this book, these are the
kinds of topics libertarians are frequently asked about,
and you should have persuasive, prepared, and memo-
rized soundbite answers and up-to-date facts at your
fingertips.
Enlighten others. Help the truth "trickle down" to
fellow free enterprise advocates about this too-often-
heard propaganda phrase.
"The 'Trickle-Down' Lie" by Thomas Sowell, syndicated column, January 7, 2014.

Successful Libertarian Dating
Sorry if the title misled you. This chapter isn't about

romance.
It's about an important technique that can help you
convince people to accept libertarian ideas.
Many libertarian proposals sound like radical changes
to listeners who are unaware of history.
These listeners are unaware that, in many cases, we're
simply advocating a common-sense return to past poli-
cies that worked far better than the government inter-
ventions that replaced them.
For example, many people think the War on Drugs,
the income tax, the Federal Reserve System and other
familiar statist entities have always been a part of
American life, from the earliest days of the country's
founding.
When they learn that these did not exist for much of
American history, and the country flourished without
them, many people are far more inclined to listen to you
and consider your ideas.
Suddenly they see you're not proposing something
new and untried and radical. You're simply proposing a
return to a traditional and proven American policy.
So consider memorizing some important dates and
the facts behind them to use in your conversations
about liberty.
Here are some examples and suggestions for using
them.
1914: "All drugs were legal in America well into the
20th century, until the passage of the federal Harrison
Narcotics Act in 1914 (although some municipalities
and states had begun to regulate or outlaw some drugs
before 1914). Adults had the freedom to purchase

drugs-including opium, cocaine and marijuana-
across the counter or by mail. Yet we did not have the
worst problems today associated with the War on Drugs,
such as gang violence, police corruption, loss of civil
liberties, and addicts committing crimes to pay high
black market prices for drugs. Those things are results
of the War on Drugs and the black market it creates, not
the drugs themselves. Drug abuse was generally viewed
as a personal vice, not as a crime, rather like the abuse of
alcohol is viewed today."
1937: "Marijuana was not outlawed at the federal
level until1937. (The states, largely because of federal
pressure and inaccurate scare campaigns, had enacted
laws against marijuana earlier.) Federal marijuana
prohibition happened only after a government propa-
ganda campaign of outrageous lies and misinformation
about marijuana.
"Libertarians simply want a return to our traditional
American drug policy: freedom of choice for adults. It
worked in the past far better than our failed War on
Drugs, and it would end so many Drug War-spawned
problems that plague us today."
1919 and 1933: "Yes, it's politically possible to end
the War on Drugs. The American people ended an earlier
and similarly disastrous Drug War-alcohol Prohibition.
In 1919, Congress passed the 18th Amendment to the
Constitution-which outlawed the manufacture of alco-
holic beverages. Prohibition was a nightmare. Innocent
Americans who just wanted a drink were suddenly forced
to consort with criminals. Safe commercial liquor was
replaced by poisonous bootleg alcohol. Organized crime
flourished. Police were corrupted by bribery. Civil liber-
ties were diminished. Citizens were killed by drive-by
shootings. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
"Eventually even many of those who had favored

alcohol Prohibition saw it was a disaster, and in 1933 the
18th Amendment was repealed.
"Americans repealed one bad Prohibition. We can
repeal today's failed Prohibition as well."
1913: "It wasn't until1913 that Congress ratified the
16th Amendment, creating the income tax. Yes, that's
right: America did just fine without an income tax for
the first 126 years of its history-rising during this
period to become the world's wealthiest nation. If we
abolished the income tax today, we'd see an amazing
surge in wealth and prosperity, in addition to the relief
of never again worrying about tax records, April15, and
IRS audits."
1852: "This was the year the first compulsory school
attendance law in America was passed, in Massachusetts;
by 1918, every state had such a law, and education was
largely under government control.
"But was compulsory attendance necessary? And has
education gotten better as a result? Not according to
veteran libertarian writer Sheldon Richman, author of
the excellent and eye-opening book Separating School and
State, published by the Future of Freedom Foundation.
"According to Richman, before 1850 literacy in
Massachusetts was at 98 percent.
"But today, after more than 150 years of compul-
sory attendance and government schools, literacy in
Massachusetts is ... lower.
"Richman also notes: 'Between 1800 and 1840, literacy
in the North rose from 75 percent to between 91 and 97
percent. And in the South during the same span, the rate
grew from 50-60 percent to 81 perfect.'
"What are the results of more than a century of
compulsory government schooling? According to
the U.S. Department of Education's National Adult
Literacy Survey, 42 million adult Americans can't read;
50 million recognize so few printed words they are

limited to a 4th or 5th grade reading level. Further, says
the National Right to Read Foundation, the number of
functionally illiterate adults is increasing by over two
million-every year.
"Clearly government schools are failing at this most
fundamental task. So why should we spend hundreds
of billions more dollars on this failed system? Why
shouldn't we encourage the growth of competitive,
innovative, creative alternatives to the one-size-fits-all
government education monopoly?"
1980: "That's the year the federal Department of
Education began operating. Yes, this massive federal
bureaucracy is that recent. For most of American history,
there was little federal interference in local government
('public') schools.
"And no wonder. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress
no authority at all to fund or operate schools.
"Eliminating the federal Department of Education
was part of the Republican Party platform from 1980 to
2000. However, no elected GOP president since Reagan
has tried to abolish it.
"Has it helped education? No. U.S. achievement test
scores have been essentially flat since the Department
of Education was formed.
"So why not end the Department of Education, let
American taxpayers keep those tens of billions of annual
dollars-and let them decide what kind of education
they would prefer for their children?"
*****
You can strengthen you arguments tremendously
by using these dates, and others like them, along with
the supporting facts. Learn them. They often surprise
listeners and stimulate fresh thinking.
Add the WOW! Factor to Your

Outreach
Communications expert Stephen Boyd says you

should always include one or more "Wow!" factors in
your speeches or presentations.
What's a "Wow!" factor?
Dr. Boyd explains:
"Something in your speech should make your audi-
ence think, 'Wow!'. It could be a story, a dramatic point,
an unusual statistic, or an effective visual that helps the
audience understand immediately.
"With a 'Wow' factor, you then have something to
look forward to in the speech that you know will have an
impact on your audience.
"You'll become a more enthusiastic speaker because
the 'Wow' factor will get you as well as your audience
pumped for the speech."
Boyd is right. Further, this applies to casual commu-
nication as well. Having a startling or surprising story,
factoid, or visual aid handy will instantly make your
conversations come alive.
How do you find your Wow! factors? One way is to collect
them from your reading. We include Wow! factors in every
issue of our free email newsletter the Liberator Online.
Here are a few examples plucked from past issues:
• Two little girls had their roadside fruit stand shut
down by obnoxious politicians-and, far worse,
millions of adult Americans are treated essentially
the same way by local, state and federal govern-
ments. Wow!
• After more than 70 years of the federal War on

Marijuana, 85 percent of high school seniors
described marijuana as "easy to get." That number
has remained virtually unchanged since 1975.
Conclusion: the War on Marijuana doesn't keep
marijuana out of the hands of kids-even though
that is arguably the single major justification for
it. Wow!
• A study shows that more public school teachers
support education tax credits-that help families
afford private schooling-than oppose them. Wow!
You can find Wow! factor nuggets in other publica-
tions, of course, and on the Internet, in casual conversa-
tions, and so forth. Just have your antennae up, and jot
down those electrifying examples when you find them.
And what about Wow! factor visual aids? Here's an
easy one. To always have a great visual aid and hand-out,
just carry World's Smallest Political Quiz cards with you.
They fit in your purse, pocket, glove compartment and
so on. They're available from the Advocates.
Seek out and learn Wow! factors for your favorite
topics, or topics you expect to be asked about-and
watch your communication instantly become more
memorable.
Wow!
Stephen D. Boyd shares communication wisdom at his blog SBoyd.com.

Libertarian Features Versus Benefits
In sales and marketing, there is a well-known concept

called "features vs. benefits."
You may have heard it referred to as "selling the sizzle,
not the steak."
What does this mean, and how can we apply it to
spreading libertarian ideas?
A feature is an attribute a product has even if it's not
being used by a human being. For example, on a car,
features would include adjustable seats, a V-8 engine,
mag wheels, anti-lock brakes, power windows.
A benefit, on the other hand, is something that the
product does for the person who buys it, including the
feelings a person has using the product. The benefits
provided by the five features above would be comfort,
speed, status, safety, convenience. The car's benefits may
also include a sense of freedom, independence, or even
its help in generating the envy of friends and neighbors.
Marketing experts tell us that people don't buy a
product unless they can see themselves enjoying the
product. The customer knows-either consciously or
unconsciously-that the product will make them feel
better than they feel without it.
As libertarians, our product is our ideas, or a liber-
tarian society. We know we have a great product. Can we
be better "salesmen" for it? You bet! One way is by selling
our customers on the benefits of our product.
Features of a libertarian society include "liberty,"
"rights," "private property," "civil liberties," "a non-inter-
ventionist foreign policy," "justice." Great concepts that
are the building blocks of a free society.
But the benefits of a libertarian society include such

things as "abundance," "harmony," "security," "choice,"
"tolerance," "the pursuit of happiness."
People relate far more readily to the "benefits" words.
They can picture themselves being able to comfortably
feed their families in a nice home (abundance). They
can get excited about having a more tolerant and less
violent society (harmony), where they get to keep what
they earn (security) and are free to pursue their vision of
happiness.
By talking about a free society in terms of benefits
instead of features, we help others see themselves in
the picture. The more they are able to see themselves
enjoying a free society, the more likely they will be to
"buy" libertarianism.
Harry Browne was a master at this. Check out the
way he presents the benefits of ending the income tax,
quoted in the chapter in this book entitled "Painting a
Picture with Harry Browne." You can almost feel your
income tax money back in your hand!
In his book Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion Michael
Cloud suggests libertarians add a "benefit phrase" every
time we describe a libertarian position or proposal.
You can do this, he says, by adding one of the following
phrases:
1. "... and here's what this means to you ... [name
three or four benefits]."
2. "... and here's what this does for you ... [list three
or four benefits]."
3. "... and here are three ways that this benefits you:
[list]."
4. "There are three major benefits to my proposal.
They are ... [list]."
He gives this example of a discussion with parents or
grandparents about ending the War on Drugs:
"... and here's what ending the War on Drugs will mean
to your children. There will be no obscene profits for
pushers selling drugs to your children, no Drug Gangs
trying to recruit them. And if, in spite of the best you
can do, one of your kids gets involved with drugs, he'll
have every opportunity to stop using, with the help of
family and friends, rather than being sentenced to ten or
twenty years in prison. A better world for your children.
Isn't that what you want?"
Always remember the importance of talking about
benefits. Benefits sell liberty. Benefits will stimulate
many people to learn more about liberty, while abstract
descriptions of features alone may leave them unmoved.
Adding benefits to your discussions will enormously
increase your effectiveness at persuading others to
embrace liberty.
Yes, the libertarian steak is delicious. But many people
may never get around to tasting it-if we neglect to let
them hear the sizzle.
Painting a Picture with

Harry Browne
The late Harry Browne was a master libertarian

communicator. He was able to open many people's minds
to consider, and accept, bold libertarian positions.
Harry urged libertarians to "paint a picture of a better
America, showing the prospect how much his life could
be improved."
Take, for example, ending the income tax and Social
Security taxes. That's a breathtakingly radical concept to
many Americans. The first time they hear this proposed,
they may be shocked. After all, they've spent their entire
lives under the burden of these taxes. It's hard for many
to imagine a world without them.
It's also an abstract idea, a policy proposal that sounds
to some people like it has little connection to the politi-
cally possible.
But Harry was able to make this abstract, radical-
sounding idea come alive-by painting a vivid verbal
picture.
Harry would tell audiences:
"If you're like the average American family, when we
repeal the income and Social Security taxes, you'll have
$10,000 or more to spend every year.
"What would you do with the money?
"Will you put your child in a private school?
Will you take a better vacation every year?
"Support your church or favorite cause or charity in a
way you've never been able to do before?
"What will you do with that money?"
By the end of this, many listeners could actually feel
that money in their hands. They had a concrete picture of
what they would do with that money-and they wanted

it. Harry painted a picture of the benefits of repealing
those taxes, and the issue of income tax repeal came to
life in his listeners' minds.
Of course, for this to work, the listener must also be
persuaded that such tax cuts could actually be made.
Harry had the numbers handy, proving this was possible.
(See, for example, his classic books Why Government
Doesn't Work and The Great Libertarian Offer.)
Businesses have long used this technique of using
words to "paint a picture" to make products come alive
for consumers.
"Imagine yourself behind the wheel of this magnifi-
cent automobile. Can you see the look on your neigh-
bors' faces?"
"Imagine the explosion of flavor as you bite into this
delicious, juicy burger."
"Wouldn't an ice-cold Cherokee Cola taste great sliding
down your throat on a blazing hot day like this one?"
This method can be used for any libertarian issue.
Liberty brings enormous benefits. Paint a vivid picture
of these benefits. Let your listeners see, feel, touch, and
experience these benefits as never before.
"Be an Effective Salesman of Liberty" by Harry Browne, January 26, 2003,

HarryBrowne.org
The Best Outreach Tool in the

Liberty Movement
Here's some good news: the world's best and most

popular libertarian outreach tool is also the easiest to get
and use.
It's the Advocates' world-famous World's Smallest
Political Quiz-widely hailed as the greatest libertarian
outreach tool ever invented.
It's so easy to get-you just order it from the
Advocates-and it is guaranteed to transform your
political conversations and encounters.
But don't just take our word for it. Here's what
Ron Paul-who knows a thing or two about political
outreach-said about the Quiz in the Congressional
Record:
"The World's Smallest Political Quiz is responsible
for many Americans' first contact with libertarian
ideas. While traveling around the country, I have
often heard people say, 'I never knew I was a liber-
tarian until I took the Quiz!"'
The Quiz was invented by Advocates
Founder Marshall Fritz in 1987, based
on a chart created by Libertarian Party
Co-Founder David Nolan. The Quiz is a
remarkable and irresistible eye-opener
and mind-changer. It works as an
icebreaker, a visual aid, and a handout.
It makes explaining libertarianism
easy and fun. It's a libertarian outreach
kit on a card!
And talk about convenience: the handsome Quiz cards

are easy to carry in pockets, purses or glove compart-
ments, so you can always have some with you. They're
available both in business-card and index-card sizes.
Fast, Fun and Accurate
In mere moments, in a fun and engaging way, the
Quiz:
• Shows instantly why the old left-vs-right, conser-
vative-vs-liberal map of politics-that excludes
libertarians-is so wrong. No one who has seen the
Quiz ever looks at politics the same way again.
• Educates about what a libertarian is.
• Gives instant insights into every Quiz taker's own
political views.
• Promotes clear thinking about politics and political
positions.
• Encourages new thinking about some of today's
most important-but often ignored-political
issues.
• Shows people of all political persuasions that, on
many key issues, libertarians are their allies.
• Identifies libertarian-leaning individuals.
• Gives libertarians who didn't know they were liber-
tarians a name for their ideas.
• Offers those who score libertarian the chance to
instantly learn more about libertarian ideas and the
liberty movement.
Whew! And the numbers are just amazing. Tens of
millions of people have encountered the Quiz, whether
in its card form, at the acclaimed online Quiz site, in
leading national newspapers (including the Washington
Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, London
Sunday Times), magazines, books, talk radio, TV, class-
rooms, thousands of websites, and more.
Why is the Quiz so amazingly popular and effective?

Two reasons:
1. The Quiz is fun and fast. It has the speed of a comic
strip, the irresistibility of a crossword puzzle, and
the "Aha!" -inducing power of a Zen koan.
2. Most important-the Quiz is startlingly accurate.
The Advocates has spent many years developing
the Quiz into a fast, fun, effective, and honest
educational tool that gives reliable and useful
insights to all who take it-no matter what their
political beliefs-about their own political posi-
tions and the political spectrum.
Indeed, it's so reliable that non-libertarian educators,
political scientists, journalists and others can-and
do-use it and recommend it.
As the Washington Post said: "The World's Smallest
Political Quiz has gained respect as a valid measure of a
person's political leanings."
And the Quiz is in America's classrooms. It has been
featured in the text or supplemental material of some
of America's best-selling college and high school text-
books-including texts from leading publishing compa-
nies like McGraw-Hill, Prentice Hall, and Houghton
Mifflin, used in thousands of classrooms across America.
In fact, we feel confident in making this bold state-
ment: the Quiz has radically changed the way millions of
Americans view the world of politics today. It has liter-
ally put libertarianism on the mental map that people
use when they think about politics.
Imagine having this powerful tool with you wher-
ever you go. You can use it as part of a longer political
conversation, or just give it to someone you meet casu-
ally. (See the chapter "Give Them Something" elsewhere
in this book.)
In additional to being fun, fast and accurate, the Quiz

is non-intimidating (there's no "wrong" score), familiar
to many ("Hey, I saw that in my high school poli-sci
class!"), and has credibility (the Washington Post quote
above is printed on every card).
Your Turn
Okay, we're done bragging. But like so many libertar-
ians, we love the Quiz, and we think you will, too. Get
some Quiz cards and try it out yourself!
PS: The Quiz is the major ingredient in Operation
Politically Homeless (OPH)-our acclaimed "event in a
kit" that lets two or more libertarians find lots of liber-
tarian-leaning people at any popular gathering. If you're
interested in effective mass outreach, check out the
article on 0 PH elsewhere in this book.
281
SECTION SEVEN
Libertarianism Everywhere
Of course we want libertarian ideas to spread

throughout the world. Liberty is too good to
keep to ourselves!
Here are lots of ways to take these ideas to a
world hungry for freedom.
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 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, always use the words "liber-
tarian" or "libertarianism."
This accomplishes three vital things:
1. It helps people become aware of those words.
It helps them understand that libertarianism
is a distinctive political philosophy-a political
"b ran d".
2. Unless you explicitly and consistently brand your
ideas as libertarian, people will miss the oppor-
tunity to learn about the only movement that is
devoted to liberty on every issue-and to become
a part of it.
3. Unless you brand a particular idea as libertarian,
your letter to the editor or your conversation may
be seen as an "ad" for conservatism or liberalism
instead of libertarianism.
This third point is often overlooked. As an example,
a powerful 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.
While you might make some good paints on the gun
issue, you'll also be promoting the conservative move-
ment-not the libertarian movement.
Similarly, a speech opposing the War on Drugs will

be considered 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 solu-
tions to political problems, we want them to think of
libertarians and libertarianism. A letter or conversation
or speech that brands solutions as "libertarian" will send
customers who like it to the libertarian "store"-where
they can sample our other "products," that is, other
libertarian positions, the libertarian ideology, and the
libertarian movement.
More and more people are looking for an alternative to
both liberalism and conservatism. And they are increas-
ingly hearing positive and intriguing things about liber-
tarianism. Clearly distinguishing our positions as "liber-
tarian" helps them find us.
Let's not hide our libertarian light under conservative
or liberal baskets!
Message Amplification Isn't Linear:

Insight from Seth Godin
Communication and marketing guru Seth Godin has

written more than fifteen bestselling books that have
been translated into over 30 languages.
He also writes the most popular marketing blog in
the world. Godin's blog is consistently stimulating and
provocative, and highly recommended to anyone who
wants to become a great communicator and marketer.
In a blog post entitled "Message amplification isn't
linear" Godin makes an important point that every
libertarian who wants to rapidly increase awareness and
understanding of our ideas should consider.
Godin writes:
"Put two loudspeakers next to each other, and the
perceived sound isn't twice as loud-and ten times as
many speakers certainly doesn't seem ten times as loud.
"But when you hear an idea from two people, it
counts for twice as much as if you randomly hear it once.
And if you hear an idea from ten people, the impact is
completely off the charts compared to just one person
whispering in your ear.
"Coordinating and amplifying the evangelists of your
idea is a big part of the secret of marketing with impact."
If your neighbor hears the word "libertarian" once, it
may pass right by him, unnoticed. Ten times, from ten
different people? It will then be part of his worldview.
He'll become curious and want to know more.
If your colleagues hear an explanation of libertari-
anism one time, they may not know what to think about
it. Ten times, from ten different people, in an attractive
and appealing manner? They'll probably know what

libertarianism is, be aware of it, and be open to learning
more.
If readers of your local newspaper see the world "liber-
tarian" in a letter to the editor one time, they may hardly
notice it. By the time they've seen the tenth letter?
They'll be aware that there is a fast-growing and active
libertarian movement-and maybe they'll want to be
part of it.
The libertarian message is spreading. But there are
still millions of people who have yet to even hear the
word libertarian. And millions more who haven't heard
enough about libertarianism to be more than briefly
familiar with it. And still more millions who have inac-
curate or incomplete understandings of it.
That's one of our chief jobs. Not necessarily to be the
final convincer, the one who closes the sale, but to be
another of those many voices amplifying the libertarian
idea-calmly, kindly, respectfully, persuasively, accu-
rately, effectively.
To be the first voice. Or the tenth. Or the hundredth.
That is how we will take the ideas of liberty to the world.
And that is why it is so very important for every liber-
tarian to learn to be an effective evangelist and ambas-
sador for liberty.
The above post from Seth Godin's blog was used with his permission. Read Godin's
blog, subscribe to his newsletter, and learn about his many books at SethGodin.com.
Be a Name-Dropper for Liberty
Soft drink commercials use them. So do lobbying groups.

And you should, too.
Celebrity endorsements.
Celebrity endorsements are extremely powerful,
especially when targeted to an appreciative and appro-
priate audience.
That's why businesses use celebrities to sell their
products-and why successful political movements use
celebrities to advance their agendas.
Liberals and conservatives have been doing this for
years, with great success.
Now you can do this for libertarian ideas. The
Advocates has made it easy!
We have a "Libertarian Celebrities and VIPs" section
of our website. It was the first list of its kind in the world.
There you'll find lots of pro min en t people from a wide
variety of fields-including some of the most famous
celebrities on the planet-who have publicly declared
they are proud libertarians. You'll also find quotes from
many of them 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."
Or quote legendary TV journalist John Stossel:
"Libertarians want government to leave people alone-in
both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free

to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt
anybody else."
Our list is extensive. We have movie and TV stars,
authors, rock stars, syndicated columnists, and more.
Share these names and quotes with your friends.
Sprinkle their names in your conversations. Use their
quotes in letters to the editor and speeches.
Some libertarians object to this. "Just because
someone is famous doesn't mean he's right," they say.
"It's not a rational argument."
Maybe that's right. Maybe in a perfect world, more
people would read Ludwig von Mises' Human Action than
People magazine.
But it is a fact: People care-sometimes a lot-about
what famous people say and do and think.
Celebrities matter. Millions of Americans are inter-
ested in them, fascinated by them. That's why news-
papers, magazines and broadcast media are filled with
the sayings and doings of celebrities, whether in the
worlds of entertainment, industry, politics, intellectual
pursuits, sports, or elsewhere.
Celebrities matter in politics, too. It makes headlines
when a celebrity endorses a politician or a movement for
political change.
When Clint Eastwood told USA TODAY, "I like the
libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone. Even
as a kid, I was annoyed by people who wanted to tell
everyone how to live," millions of people took note.
When Penn Jillette says he's a libertarian, people want
to know more.
It instantly becomes more "respectable" to be a liber-
tarian-even cool. Such attention mainstreams the
word libertarian and the ideas behind it. Many people
get curious to learn more.
It's not that someone will become a libertarian simply

because Clint Eastwood says he is one. But such public
statements add to our credibility and believability. People
know that celebrities rely on their good names to main-
tain their position as celebrities. So prominent public
figures won't endorse a product-or an idea-unless they
truly believe it is legitimate and won't discredit them.
So a person hearing about libertarianism for the
first time will be far less suspicious of the label if it has
already been endorsed by public figures who are putting
their income and reputation on the line every time they
make a public statement.
That's the value of our list. One celebrity endorsing
libertarianism might be a quirk. But dozens-that's a
sign to many people that the ideas are safe, trustworthy,
and worthy of further investigation.
On a more personal level, celebrity quotes can help your
personal outreach. Quoting a celebrity can get your meta-
phorical foot in the metaphorical door. You then have the
opportunity to make your argument in your own words.
Quoting celebrities who speak favorably about liber-
tarianism definitely helps spread the word and makes it
easier for others to communicate our ideas. Every such
mention, in conversations, on social media, and else-
where, advances our cause.
Remember, there's a reason why soft drink and
sneaker companies spend millions of dollars on celeb-
rity spokespersons. There's a reason why politicians and
political groups eagerly seek out celebrity endorsements.
That reason? Simply put, it works.
So why not put this proven strategy to work advancing
liberty? We have the equivalent of millions of dollars'
worth of celebrity endorsements for libertarianism at
our website. Use them.
Go ahead-be a name-dropper for liberty.
Raising the Overton Window
In the 1990s we had the great pleasure of meeting the

late Joseph P. Overton at a leadership seminar at the
free-market Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Joe was senior vice president of Mackinac. He was
brilliant, charismatic, inspiring and fun to be with. The
liberty movement lost a great leader when he died in a
plane crash on June 30, 2003.
One of Joe's many contributions to liberty was the
popularizing of a vital concept that now bears his name:
the Overton Window.
The Overton Window is explained by Mackinac this
way:
"Joseph Overton observed that in a given public policy
area ... only a relatively narrow range of potential policies
will be considered politically acceptable.
"This 'window' of politically acceptable options is
primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but
rather by what they believe they can support and still
win re-election.
"In general, then, the window shifts to include
different policy options not when ideas change among
politicians, but when ideas change in the society that
elects them."
This is a powerful concept. You can see it clearly
when you illustrate it, as Joe did, by lining up possible
positions on a political issue in order from more free to
less free.
Let's do this with drug policy. Here are a few positions
on this issue, lined up (starting from the bottom) from
most oppressive to least oppressive:
All drugs are legal for adults to buy, sell, and

consume
"Hard drugs" legal but only with doctor's
prescription
Some other drugs in addition to marijuana also
legal; other still illegal
Marijuana legal to own, grow, sell with permis-

sion from government
Marijuana legal to buy but not sell
Marijuana legal for medical purposes only, with
doctor's prescription
Marijuana illegal but only minimal punishment
All drugs illegal with stiff penalties
Mandatory drug tests for all Americans

Harsh punishment for drug use
Death penalty for drug use, possession, sale
See the gray area in the middle of the box? That

shows today's most politically-acceptable options.
That's the Overton Window at this time.
Those policies inside the Overton Window are politi-
cally acceptable. It doesn't mean they are right, univer-
sally agreed on, or that they are law. It just means that
people holding or seeking political office can say they
support them, and still get elected.
In contrast, the policies outside the Overton Window
are not very politically acceptable. It is far harder to
advocate them and get elected. Not impossible, but
more difficult.
The Overton Window makes our goal as libertar-

ians clear: to raise the window. To push it ever higher. To
make currently unpopular libertarian positions accept-
able. To bring those positions into the mainstream
political debate.
As we do so, we also raise the bottom part of the
window, so that previous authoritarian solutions are no
longer acceptable.
How do we do this? Surprisingly, not by electing poli-
ticians, according to the Mackinac Center:
"Many believe that politicians move the window, but
that's actually rare. In our understanding, politicians
typically don't determine what is politically acceptable;
more often they react to it and validate it. Generally
speaking, policy change follows political change, which
itself follows social change. The most durable policy
changes are those that are undergirded by strong social
movements."
Politicians are lagging indicators; that is, they usually
reflect what is acceptable, rather than leading a move for
a significant new policy change.
The Overton Window model gives us some major
insights into how we can effectively change govern-
ment policy. Rather than just hoping to elect the "right
people" to office, it suggests that the most powerful
way to changing government policy lies in changing the
views of the public as to what is acceptable.
Do this, and the politicians will follow. Witness the
growing popularity of the movement tore-legalize mari-
juana. It's not a movement that was brought about by
politicians. Rather, politicians are reluctantly accepting
it because of years of work by liberty activists to educate
the public to demand reform.
That means our job as libertarian communicators
is to constantly be pushing the window up-gently
but persuasively-in the direction of liberty. In our
discussions with people, in our outreach efforts, in our

casual conversations.
When, for example, re-legalizing medical marijuana is
politically possible, we support that-but we also argue
that marijuana should be legal across the board, for
everyone. And as that idea begins to win, our job is to
push it further, until we reach the full libertarian ideal:
adults are free to use whatever substances they wish.
Similarly, on taxation, our goal right now might be a
particular tax cut or a lowering of the tax burden. But
we also want to argue for something that's now outside
the Window-like ending the income tax, for example-
in order to introduce that idea into the debate and thus
raise the Overton Window. And as that idea gains trac-
tion, we discuss more seriously the libertarian ideal:
ending all taxes.
Important: This does not mean that we should delib-
erately pursue gradualism or avoid discussing long-range
and ultimate libertarian goals. We don't have to move one
small step up the Overton Window at a time. The great
abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison said, "Gradualism
in theory is perpetuity in practice." We should be ready
and happy to argue persuasively for the full libertarian
position any time. Indeed, doing so is part of raising the
Overton Window.
However, during a political discussion in which there
is general agreement on a particular libertarian reform,
there is often a great opportunity for us to push the
discussion a bit further-to raise the Overton Window
higher. Be alert for such opportunities.
This also suggests that, for most of us, using effec-
tive and persuasive communication methods, such as
those taught by the Advocates, is crucial. While we need
our Menckenish curmudgeons and pundits, most of us
can't do that well. We can be most effective by winning
the trust of our neighbors and community members,

bringing them to our side.
Ultimately it is public opinion, not political power,
that changes society. Which means we have in our hands
the ability to make bold political change. Which means
the more successfully and persuasively we can communi-
cate our ideas, the greater our chance for victory.
So let's use that power to push the Overton Window
up, up, up until it's wide-open-and we welcome in the
fresh air of liberty.
Much more on the Overton Window can be found at
the website of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
OPH: The Fastest and Easiest Way

to Find Lots of New Libertarians-
Everywhere! (PS: It's Fun!)
Do you want to discover dozens or even hundreds

of libertarians and libertarian-leaning people in your
community? And get their names and contact informa-
tion, so they can become active, involved libertarians?
Then OPH is the tool for you!
OPH stands for Operation Politically Homeless.
And for decades OPH has been one of the most effec-
tive and widely-praised outreach tools in the libertarian
movement.
OPH is the Advocates' "event in a kit" that transforms
an ordinary, dull outreach table in to a crowd -drawing,
fun event. The core of OPH is the world-famous, mind-
opening World's Smallest Political Quiz. OPH combines
the proven magic of the Quiz with banners, a gorgeous
full-color poster, and other material and techniques to
make your table an irresistible draw.
OPH lets just two or more libertarian activists (or
in a pinch, even one) set up a fun, eye-catching booth
that entices passers-by to take the World's Smallest
Political Quiz, see where they fit on the political map,
and encounter libertarian ideas in an entertaining and
positive way. Your OPH kit makes it super-easy to find
those who want to learn more about libertarianism
and your libertarian organization, and to collect their
contact information-so you can turn their interest into
support and activism.
All you add is volunteers. And that's easy. Because OPH

is designed so it can be run effectively by newcomers and
veterans alike-making it a perfect volunteer activity.
And more: it's actually FUN!
Libertarian Outreach-FUN?
Yes-OPH is fun! Year after year, over and over again,
users tell us how much FUN they have doing OPH:
"I've been doing OPH for several years. I have adminis-
tered thousands of Quizzes, seen people with all manner
of political views, been asked questions ranging from the
insightful to the provocative to the absurd, and generally
had fun. That's right, I had fun."-S.K., Alabama.
"Folks, OPH has got to be one of the best PR devices
ever invented! We signed up new members and
made lots of friends. The neatest thing about OPH
is that it works so well, and it's just so much fun for
everybody."-D.T., Ohio.
Here's more from OPH users:
"OPH is our number one recruiting tool."-M.H.,
college libertarian.
"The reaction to OPH was thrilling. People thronged
our table, asking if they could take the Quiz! We got
some awesome new recruits."-N .H, college libertarian.
"Enticed by the colorful posters and the full table display,
nearly one hundred students came up ... Group member-
ship increased ten-fold!"-M.H., college libertarian.
"At times, we had six, seven, or eight people lined
up at our booth taking the Quiz. By the final day we
had over 500 colored dots on the chart and dozens of
names."-E.M., Vermont.
"Unlike the other political booths, we had something
that intrigued people-they wanted to see and take the
Quiz, they wanted to see where they stood politically on

the chart. OPH is a great, great tool to have-a great way
to discover new libertarians!"-B.M., Georgia.
Where Do You Do Your OPH?
Where do you do your OPH? The short answer is:
wherever people are gathered.
Some examples: Political rallies and forums. Campus
events. Rock festivals. County and state fairs. Gun shows.
The possibilities are endless. The OPH manual has many
more suggestions.
College campuses are fantastic places for OPH. Indeed,
the Advocates has shipped over 1,000 OPH kits to
campus libertarian groups at their request. These
students are using OPH to build membership and take
the message of liberty to their fellow students.
How many libertarian-leaning people can you hope

to discover with OPH? It depends on where you do
your booth, how many people man it, and other factors.
Some OPH booths at huge events have gotten hundreds
of names in a single day. In many locations-again,
like some college campuses-you can productively do
a dozen or more OPHs a year. The potential is almost
limitless.
But your emphasis should be on quality. You want
names and contact information from people who will
become active libertarians. And just a dozen or two good

new members can invigorate and enhance a local organi-
zation or campus group.
Hundreds of thousands of people have encountered
the ideas of liberty through 0 PH. Thousands have
become libertarians. And millions more are out there,
just waiting for someone-maybe you?-to introduce
them to the libertarian movement.
It's Up to You ...
Our extensive OPH manual-which is free to read
and download online at TheAdvocates.org-tells much
more. Learn what the OPH experience is like. How to get
maximum benefit from your OPH. How to use OPH to
get local media coverage. How to best use those dozens
or hundreds of names you will get from your OPH. And
much more. Check it out!
You can see photos of OPH in action at our website.
Lots of smiling faces-on both sides of the booth!
Somewhere near you, this weekend there will be an
event-an arts festival, a political rally, a county fair,
a concert, a campus orientation day-that is perfect
for OPH.
Will OPH be there? Will attendees encounter the ideas
of liberty and become new libertarian activists?
It's up to you. Learn more about OPH at TheAdvocates.org.
SECTION EIGHT
Tips from Craig Cradswell,

the World's Worst Libertarian
Communicator
When the Advocates announced in 1999 that

we would be publishing a magazine called the
Libertarian Communicator, we received a packet
of articles from a potential contributor, one Craig
Cradswell. Cradswell described himself as "active
in many local and state libertarian groups."
As we began reading them, we were ... shocked.
Not only did the articles violate every rule of
good communication the Advocates had taught
since our founding, they did so with a kind of
gleeful malevolence.
We immediately sent them back, saying that,
although we appreciated his submission, we
were strongly opposed to both his ideas and
his presentation. In fact, we told him, the only
way we would ever publish them would be as
examples of exactly what not to do.
"Go ahead," he wrote back. "I don't care. Just

publish them."
After some consideration, and with some trepi-
dation, we decided to do just that.
Thus began the column "I'm Right and You're
A Statist Idiot!"-Communication Tips from
the World's Worst Libertarian Communicator,
Craig Cradswell.
To our surprise, and somewhat to our alarm,
that first column was very well received. Readers
demanded more. In all, we published five
columns by the irascible Mr. Cradswell before
the magazine ended in 2005.
We didn't hear much from Cradswell after that.
There were rumors he had gone into hiding,
fearing shape-shifting reptilians working with
the CFR-Bilderberger-UFO conspiracy. (No, we
didn't understand that, either.)
But as we were putting this book together, we
were surprised to receive a short note from
Cradswell. He was, he assured us, still very active
in libertarian outreach. These days, he said, he's
doing a lot of writing on the comments sections
of numerous political websites and blogs, under
various pseudonyms. Well, that explains a lot,
we thought. And, he added, he still surfaces
occasionally to volunteer at OPH booths and
other libertarian outreach events. Heaven help
our movement.
At any rate, here are all five Craig Cradswell
columns, together for the first, and probably
last, time. Enjoy... we think.
Tough Answers to the Short

Questions
Forget Mary Ruwart's "Short Answers to the Tough

Questions." I've got something far better: "Tough
Answers to the Short Questions."
My method is fast. It gives you instant answers to
every question. And you won't have to waste any time
memorizing and practicing soundbites. You can do it
right now.
And believe me, it works.
Recently I was invited to be on a local radio show. The
host was allegedly sympathetic to libertarian ideas. It
was a perfect chance to use my "Tough Answers to the
Short Questions" technique.
Here's a transcript:
Host: Libertarian ideas sound good, but I have some
questions.
Me: Tough. Why don't you go read some books before
you start talking about something you don't know
anything about?
Host: Well, that's why I invited you on the show. Let
me ask one question. I'm worried about the poor in a
libertarian society. Won't they suffer terribly if we just
end welfare?
Me: Tough. No one has the right to initiate force or
fraud against others. Work or die. Liberty isn't for sissies.
Host: Whew, that's pretty strong.
Me: Tough. No one has the right to initiate force or
fraud against others. Anyway, welfare doesn't work.
Read some books, for God's sake.
Host: Okay, let me try another one. Suppose we priva-
tize the roads. What if someone buys up all the roads, then
won't let anyone but his friends drive on them, and makes
the rest of us pay him gigantic tolls or starve to death?
Me: Tough.
Host: "Tough?" That's not very reassuring ...
Me: Tough.
Host: Okay, let's try another topic. I agree with liber-
tarians that the War on Drugs is a failure. But if we
legalize drugs, won't some people who aren't using them
now be tempted to try them? Even kids?
Me: Tough cookies.
Host: I've got to say, it sounds like you don't care
about children, the poor, the elderly, your other fellow
Americans ...
Me: You're breaking my heart.
Host: It also sounds as if you're uninformed and your
ideas are completely unworkable.
Me: Tough, tough.
Host: Well, I thought I was libertarian-leaning. But
now I'm sure I'm not. In fact, I don't want anything to do
with libertarians ever again!
Me: Tough. It's your loss.
Success! I nailed him. I exposed him for what he
was-a statist pig.
And it didn't take a minute of practice, research or
work.
It's an easy method. Give it a try. It'll work exactly the
same way for you.
And if it doesn't ... well, you guessed it: Tough!
-Craig Cradswell
I DARE YOU to Read This Article

(You Spineless Jellyfish)!
I've read a zillion articles on how to write successful

letters to the editor. And every one of them is WRONG!
I don't follow any of the typical advice. Yet I've written
hundreds of successful letters to newspapers.
So listen up. Here are some of my secrets for letter-
writing success.
Break the rules! Newspapers typically publish guides
on how to get letters printed. Don't waste your time
reading them. You're a rebel, right? A non-conformist?
So Question Authority, already! And you're smart, or you
wouldn't be reading my column. So you already know
how to write letters better than some hack editor. And
who cares what their editorial "needs" are?
Forget timeliness: Everyone says a letter should
be "timely." Preferably about something that's just
happened.
Hogwash! The best letter is the one that YOU want to
write, when YOU want to write it! For instance, lately
I've been pondering the 1916 U.S. invasion and occu-
pation of the Dominican Republic. The more I think
about it, the more steamed I get. So I'm firing off a letter
condemning it!
Expose the Conspiracy: We all know the media is
part of the vast anti-libertarian Conspiracy, right? So
expose them! Tell your local paper right up front that
you know all about their Bilderberg-Trilateral-Illuminati
connections, the alien tunnels under Marietta, Georgia,
and which Congressmen are shape-shifting reptilian
aliens (hint: ALL OF THEM!). Don't let them hide behind
the mask of respectability!
Use a fake name and phone number: For obvious

reasons. Who wants shape-shifting reptilian aliens
coming after them?
Forget computers: Handwritten is best. Editors pay
lots more attention to your writing when they have to
retype every word into their computers.
Always use this surefire line: I always end my letters
with I DARE YOU TO PRINT THIS! or I BET YOU DON'T
HAVE THE GUTS TO PRINT THIS, YOU SPINELESS
STATIST JELLYFISH DUPE! or a similar challenge. USE
ALL CAPS for greatest effect.
Word lengths: Did Tolstoy or Cervantes face word
length requirements? What if someone told Ayn Rand
that Atlas Shrugged had to be no longer than 200 words
or be subject to editing? Who do these editors think they
are, anyway?
Personally, I write as long as I please-and I always
include a note refusing permission to change even a
single word. I've never sent a letter under fourteen pages,
and I've sent several book-length manifestos, heavily
footnoted. Believe me, if it's good enough, they'll print it,
every last word. Unless, of course it's too good-then they
won't dare print it, but at least you'll know it wasn't run
because it was too revealing, too powerful. So far, every
single letter I've ever written has been that powerful!
I hate word length restrictions. Even the Advocates
tried to limit me to a certain number of words for this
article. What a laugh! What are they going to do, cut me
off right in the middle of
-Craig Cradswell
Using an OPH Booth to

Crush Statist Pigs!
I love the Advocates' OPH (Operation Politically

Homeless)! It's an incredible tool. Put an OPH booth
anywhere people are gathered, and you'll have dozens-
maybe even hundreds-of folks coming by, eager to
learn about politics.
But forget all the gooey Advocates stuff about "persua-
sion." I'm going to tell you the best way to use OPH-the
way I use it.
The beauty of OPH is that it instantly lets you know
where a person stands politically. And that gives you a
fantastic opportunity to ferret out all the evil non-liber-
tarians and expose them for the statist pigs they are!
This, in my opinion, is the major purpose of an OPH
booth.
I love it when someone scores in the bottom sector of
the chart.
"Do you know what this score means?" I roar. "You
have the same political views as ADOLF HITLER!"
A bullhorn really adds to the effect. "HEY, EVERY-
BODY! THIS GUY SCORED JUST LIKE HITLER!"
Everyone will turn and stare, guaranteed.
I've gotten into some fantastic political discussions
with this approach. In fact, I don't consider my OPH a
success without at least a dozen shouting matches and a
fist-fight or two.
It's the same with those who score in the other sectors.
Never mind showing where they agree with libertarians.
Instead point out where they differ-and let 'em have it!
"A Liberal?" I whip out my measuring tape. "Look at

the chart-you're just a half-inch away from being a
socialist totalitarian!"
"Conservative?
,
You must hate individual liberty, you
tyrant .1
... and so on.
What about those who score in the Libertarian sector?
Don't let them off the hook! Try to find out if they're
inconsistent on some issue-after all, the Quiz has only
10 issues, and there are hundreds more. Find out where
they're wrong-as they almost certainly are, on some-
thing-and then nail them.
Handouts: Forget those handsome brochures or
flashy outreach newspapers some libertarian organi-
zations will supply you with. I make my own stuff-it
tells it like it is, without all the hand-holding "outreach"
pablum. By using really tiny fonts and no margins or
paragraphs, I can fit 20,000 words-the size of a small
book-on one side of an 8-1/2 by 11 sheet. Sure, you
have to use a magnifying glass to read it, but most
people have magnifying glasses at home. If they don't,
well, too bad for them!
And forget about collecting names for a mailing list.
Most libertarian organizations are small and already
strapped for volunteers, time and funds. Why waste your
precious resources gathering names and doing mailings?
In fact, my local libertarian organization consists
of just one member-me! Which proves how little the
people in my community care about liberty.
See you at the state fair!
-Craig Cradswell
Finding-and Exposing-Hidden Statists
There are millions of people out there who think they

are libertarians, or think they agree with a lot of liber-
tarian positions.
But they are wrong. And I love to pin them down and
expose them for what they really are-statist pigs!
Recently at a local libertarian meeting I met a guy who
said he admired libertarians for our consistent defense
of the right to keep and bear arms. That made him want
to find out more about other libertarian views. So he
came to this, his first libertarian meeting.
I'd met this kind of phony many times before.
"So you believe in the right to keep and bear arms?"
I asked.
"Yes!" he answered enthusiastically. "It's a passion
of mine. It's one of the most essential rights of a free
peop1e-"
I cut him off.
"Clam up for a second and let ME talk," I said.
He stopped in mid-sentence.
I began to probe.
"Do you believe in the right to own ... machine guns?"
I asked.
"Machine guns? Hmmmm-haven't thought much
about that." He paused. But before I could fill him in on the
details of the 1939 Supreme Court decision United States
vs. Miller, he spoke. "Yeah, I could go along with that."
But I was just warming up.
"What about-bazookas?" I asked.
"Well, I don't know-"
I smirked. "I guess you don't REALLY believe in the
right to keep and bear arms, then."
He paused, hesitated. "Well-I'd have to think about

that last one. I mean, bazookas-"
"AHA! So your belief in the right to keep and bear arms
isn't really a PRINCIPLED position!" I cried in triumph.
"You believe in the right to own SOME arms, but not
ALL!"
"Well-" he began. But again I cut him off.
"Think about THIS while you're deciding how much
freedom you're willing to dole out. What about tanks?
How about the right to plant a big fat HOWITZER on
your front lawn?" I poke him in the chest, hard. "Huh?
How about HOWITZERS, Mr. Second Amendment?"
I had him now.
"And atom bombs!" I shouted, now just inches from his
face. "A government that's big enough to take your atom
bomb is sure big enough to take away your handgun,
buddy!"
He was speechless.
I had trapped him in his own contradictions. I had
expose him for what he was-an enemy of freedom. I
had won another victory for liberty!
Soon he left the room, without talking to anyone else.
His kind are everywhere, if you just know how to look
for them.
And I'm always on the look-out.
-Craig Cradswell
The Case for Libertarian Pessimism
This theme of this issue of The Libertarian

Communicator is "The Case for Libertarian Optimism."
Complete with smiley faces on the cover, no less.
Ugh-I think I'm going to gag!
The Advocates are a bunch of Pollyannas. Pardon me,
but there's a far stronger case for libertarian pessimism.
I've been gathering the evidence for years.
Here's some of it.
1. People are stupid. You can't convince them by
logic. Even when you clearly prove to them that
they are dead wrong, they still won't change. I
once utterly demolished a man's arguments at
a party. Tore his every utterance apart with my
ruthless libertarian logic. Proved he was wrong,
ignorant, evil, unprincipled and a fool. And this
was in front of all his friends. I then invited him
and everyone else there to contact me to learn the
truth about politics. Yet not a single one of them
did. Stupid!
2. People are stupid. They don't read books. yet
we all know that the only way you can learn
libertarianism is to read books-a LOT of books.
Whole libraries of books. A friend once asked me
what "this libertarian stuff" was all about. So
I brought him a few books. Man, Economy, and
State. Atlas Shrugged. Human Action. A few more.
"Read these for starters," I said. "It'll give you
some of the basics." "Hey, man, this is over 4,000
pages of reading!" he cried. "I'll bring a few more
by next week," I said. "And there WILL be a quiz."

Never heard from him again. Stupid!
3. People are stupid. They're ruled by their
emotions. "What about the poor?" I'm so sick
of that one! How many times have I pointed out
that welfare is immoral, that anyone on welfare
is a parasite, that parasites are evil. That in a
libertarian society the poor will starve to death
unless they can get a job or find someone willing
to support them.
Obviously this is the only moral answer to
the question of poverty. Yet time after time the
bleeding hearts find this somehow unsatisfying.
Stupid!
4. People are stupid. They have no initiative.
They'll come to one of our libertarian meetings,
but they won't come up to us and ask how they
can give us their names and addresses so we
can put them on our mailing list to keep them
informed of future events. So they never know
about our next meeting, and we never see them
again. How stupid can you get!
Oh, I could go on and on. I've got a thousand
similar examples.
People are stupid. Stupid! That's why liber-
tarianism will never win. Because we libertarians
are simply so much smarter than the rest of the
human race.
You'd think they'd see it. Except ... they're
stupid!
-Craig Cradswell
311
SECTION NINE
Conclusion
The Weight of a Snowflake ...
We would like to leave you with one of our favorite

stories.
"Tell me the weight of a snowflake," a little bird
asked a wise old owl.
"Nothing more than nothing," said the owl.
"In that case, I must tell you a marvelous story," the
little bird said. "I sat on the branch of a fir, close to
its trunk, when it began to snow, not heavily, not in
a raging blizzard, no, just like in a dream, without
any violence. Since I didn't have anything better to
do, I counted the snowflakes settling on the twigs
and needles of my branch. Their number was exactly
3, 741,952 when the next snowflake dropped onto
the branch-nothing more than nothing, as you
say-and the branch broke off."
Having said that, the bird flew away.
The wise old owl thought about the story for a while
and finally said to himself: "Perhaps there is only one
person's voice lacking for peace to come to the world."
(author unknown)
If you ever doubt that your work for liberty is making
a difference, remember this story.
The next person you win to liberty may just be that
last voice needed to bring liberty and peace to the world.
Thank you for reading this book. Thank you for your
dedication to successfully sharing with others the good
news about our great Cause that makes all other great
causes possible.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express gratitude to the
following people:
Advocates for Self-Government Founder Marshall
Fritz, for seeing the vital need for an organization
devoted to helping libertarians become successful
communicators, and for the vision and determination
to create that organization; the special group of vision-
aries who consulted, advised and worked with Marshall
as he brought this extraordinary organization to life;
Carole Ann Rand, second President of the Advocates,
for keeping the organization alive and well while taking
it to a new level of effectiveness; the many dedicated
members of the Advocates Board of Directors, who
have given their time, energy and wisdom; Advocates
donors, without whom none of this would be possible;
and the tens of thousands of libertarian activists who
have used Advocates products and services, supplied
invaluable feedback, and made it possible for the
Advocates to continue to grow, innovate, and serve.
Dagny Smith and Evelyn Hanson for their long and
dedicated service with the Advocates, and in particular
for their support, hard work, and encouragement on
this project.
Libertarian communication pioneers Michael Cloud,
Mary Ruwart, David Bergland, and Harry Browne for
(along with Marshall) inspiring and mentoring us.
Rex May (Baloo) and Ted Slampyak for the wonderful
artwork in this book.
Craig Cradswell for ... well, for being Craig Cradswell.
Watch out for those shape-shifting reptilians, Craig!
Steve Smith (Chapel Hill, NC) for proofreading and
suggestions.
The two Amys, Amy Cole and Amy Landheer of

JPL Design Solutions (Wyoming, MI), for their excel-
lent layout and design work, and for going above
and beyond to make sure we met a near-impossible
printing deadline.
Thanks, everybody!
About the Authors

Sharon Harris and James W. Harris first met at a
Libertarian Party meeting. They have been married
since 1991.
James has been with the
Advocates for Self-Government
since 1991\ Sharon since 1995.
So as of this writing, they have
a combined near-half-century
of working for liberty with the
Advocates.
Sharon is President of the Advocates. A communica-
tion expert, she conducts workshops across the country,
teaching libertarians how to be powerful and successful
communicators of the ideas of liberty.
A co-founder of the Libertarian Party of Georgia, she
has been active in the libertarian movement since the
early 1970s.
She holds a bachelor's degree in Journalism and
a Master's Degree in Counseling and Educational
Psychology.
In 2012, Sharon was presented with the National
Libertarian Party's Thomas Jefferson Award for
"outstanding leadership, high character, and dedication
to the principles and goals of the Party."
James is editor of the Liberator Online, the Advocates'
online newsletter, which under his editorship became
one of the largest subscription-based libertarian publi-
cations in the world. He has played key roles in many
other Advocates projects.
James has written hundreds of articles that have
appeared in numerous publications, including The Nation,
Reason, The Freeman and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

He has been a Finalist for the Mencken Awards, given by
the Free Press Association for "Outstanding Journalism
in Support of Liberty."
He has been an active libertarian since 1980. He has
spoken at numerous political events, has been a guest on
dozens of radio talk shows across America, and has twice
been a Libertarian candidate for statewide office.
About the Illustrators

Baloo (Rex F. May) is one of the most acclaimed
cartoonists and gag writers of our time. Liberty maga-
zine called Baloo "the best cartoonist in the world"
and Smithsonian proclaimed him "king of gag writers."
His instantly-recognizable cartoons and his gags have
appeared just about everywhere ink is splashed on paper:
National Review, the National Lampoon, the Wall Street
Journal, the New Yorker, Playboy, Punch, zillions of news-
papers, and on and on. Visit BalooCartoons.com to see a
treasury of his work and to have Baloo 'toons delivered
online to you daily for free.
Ted Slampyak was the last cartoonist on the
legendary comic strip Little Orphan Annie. He created
the highly-praised comic book and webcomic Jazz Age
Chronicles and was artist for Neil Caiman's Mr. Hero and
other comics. In the 1990s he self-published mini-comics
featuring his libertarian heroine Suzi Romaine. In addi-
tion to working in comics, Ted is a widely published illus-
trator and also storyboards TV shows and movies, among
them "Terminator Salvation," "Breaking Bad," and "In
Plain Sight." Learn more at StorytellersWorkshop.com
319
~~WORKSHOPS
FOR YOUR LIBERTARIAN GROUP!
Like this book? Then you'll LOVE our
"How to Be a SUPER Communicator"Workshops!
qj~/
Perfect for:
Libertarian conventions
Leadership retreats / 1., I
Candidate trainings /
Volunteer trainings // / I 34/N
Campus activist meetings ... and other libertarian events!
You and your fellow libertarians will get a chance to discuss

and practice the techniques in this book-and much more!
Sharon's libertarian communication workshops

consistently get rave reviews:
"This workshop should be taken by every student and individual in
the liberty movement. The practicality and content have the power
to take us from a minority to a majority."
"/believe this workshop can show everyone how to be an effective

communicator and how to appeal to everyone."
"It is a fabulous workshop for anyone interested in cultivating their

communication skills (especially on liberty) and Ms. Harris is a bril-
liant presenter. Absolutely a worthwhile endeavor."
"This will help you go from sparking liberty in the hearts of others to
lighting a fire for freedom in their souls."
Call or email today to get more information and to set up a fun

and enlightening workshop that will transform participants' abil-
ity to successfully share the ideas of liberty.
sharon@TheAdvocates.org
770-386-8372
Communicati~gliberty.com
320
SUCCESSFUL
LIBERTARIAN OUTREACH
rvt().re.~u~st~·~~i.?9····pr~·~•ucts.•fre>f11·····the
Advocates forS.elf+Government
Tools
World's Smallest Political Quiz cards: The world's most popu-
lar libertarian outreach tool! An instant eye-opener and mind-
changer. Fast and fun.
Operation Politically Homeless (OPH): The acclaimed "libertar-

ian event in a kit" has everything you need to start finding new
libertarian recruits by the dozens in your community. Fun for
newcomers and veterans alike.
Books and Free Newsletter

Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion and Unlocking More Secrets of
Libertarian Persuasion by Michael Cloud. Learn to quickly and
effectively open people's hearts and minds to liberty.
Short Answers to the Tough Questions, Expanded Edition by

Dr. Mary Ruwart. Short persuasive answers to the common
questions libertarians are always asked. Dozens of issues cov-
ered-from abortion to zoning.
Liberty A to Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites by Harry Browne. Nearly

1,000 short, powerful, thought-provoking, and highly quotable
remarks on virtually every topic.
The Liberator Online is the free email newsletter of the Advo-

cates. Articles on effective libertarian outreach and much more.
Speakers and Workshops

Learn exciting, proven ways to revolutionize your libertarian
outreach! Sharon Harris, Michael Cloud, and Mary Ruwart are
available to speak to your group and to conduct communica-
tion workshops.
.•
~e~iJll.o~~ •.·.a~~~~··t~te.e and•·.iJta~}'
9tJj~r.1'3~tl1l~~s.••~~~···~erl1c~s.• V'isit.l1s. !~~~~.•~t
1heAdv~ates~org ot ¢all toU..ftee 8Q0:?32.-.~ii'6

How To Be A Super Communicator For Liberty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How To Be A Super Communicator For Liberty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

§,UæESSFUILY

Advocates for Se1f-Government

All rights reserved unde! Intemational end Pen-Americân copyright conventions. No

Published in the United Stetes

SPECIAL CONVENTION EDITION

Herris, Sharon; Harri6, Jame6 W,

1. Politics 2, Political communicâtion 3. Libertârianism

Illustations by Bâloo (Rex F. Ma, ând led Slampyâk

Joe Thomas Tisdale

Libertarianism in One Lesson

Liberty A to Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites

Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion

Unlocking More Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion

Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage

The Haiku Economist

Short Answers to the Tough Questions, Expanded Edition

Discovering Self-Government: A Bible-Based Study Guide

Introduction: The Great Cause That Makes All Other

2. Word Choice ................................................. 69

3. Libertarian Communication Errors:

4. Liberty in Sound bites ...................................... 159

5. The Power of Questions ................................... 183

6. Cool Tools & Super Strategies ............................ 201

7. Libertarianism Everywhere ............................... 281

8. Tips from Craig Cradswell, the World's Worst

9. Conclusion ................................................. . 311

Acknowlegements ................................................................................ 315

The Great Cause That Makes All

Why be an activist for liberty? Why take the time

As a libertarian activist, you are not only helping to

these lines, please check out the many communication

Good libertarian communication begins here.

The Golden Rule of

The Golden Rule, according to philosopher and scholar

• Refuse to listen to your viewpoint?

A "Good Neighbor Policy"

One of the best ways to win others to libertarian ideas

Don't Begin with an Apology

If you owned a restaurant, would you advertise: "Our

Taking YES For an Answer

Picture this scene:

she steered the conversation as quickly as she could to

Establishing rapport on the areas of agreement makes

When to Take NO for an Answer

Do you know someone with whom you've argued

These are the people you should be talking to about

Being Agreeable-Even (Especially!)

Benjamin Disraeli once said, "My idea of an agreeable

person you are talking to feels comfortable enough to

The Most Popular

No matter who you're talking to about libertarianism,

Libertarians have all the facts on our side. We know

Little Johnny had been playing outside. He came

Another danger is that you may miss the particular

around the room. Be ready to ask a permission question

Listen Up! The Incredible, Free and

One of the most powerful-and frequently over-

they in turn will be more interested in you and

To be a good listener, you must really listen-not just

• Breathe. and focus on what the other person is

The Power of Echoing

In one Dilbert cartoon, the obnoxious Dogbert char-

words in their mouths. It's a technique to make sure you