George Donnelly makes two contributions today. The first is his rebutal to the grieved Joseph Stack, who published a suicide note online before flying a single-engine plane into an Austin building housing the offices of the Internal Revenue Service on Feb. 18. Stack had claimed he was left no other option, stating that “violence not only is the answer, (sic) it is the only answer.” Donnelly wrote:

Am I powerless? My vote doesn’t count. My voice is not heard in the corridors of power in Washington. My bank account is too small to fund political change. My salary is siphoned off into FICA taxes, income taxes, gas taxes, mortgage payments, credit card payments and inflated grocery bills before I see a dime. At any time I could be assaulted by the cops, fined by meter maids, tasered by the state police, murdered by the ATF, seized by the FBI or left penniless by the IRS. I am a punching bag standing patiently in line for my turn in the wringer. …

When I’m frustrated I remember that none of it matters. It doesn’t matter that the wrong candidate won office. He doesn’t rule me! He only has as much power as I voluntarily grant him. I never agreed to be bound by the laws he passes. I live my own life with integrity and honor by following the natural law: I do not aggress against others and I keep my word. …

As I grow more happiness and independence in my own life, I will help others do the same. I’ll boycott the strategies, agencies, options and involuntary obligations that once led me into vulnerability. I’ll exhort others to do the same. Soon we will be free, happy, at peace and prosperous. I am powerful. I have many options. I can overcome. I can make a better life for myself. I can.

In another post, “We Must Live in Alignment with Our Principles,” Donnelly makes a point I’ve been reconciling in my own mind.

Liberty starts with each of us. If we can’t make the voluntary society happen in our own lives, what hope is there of making it happen on a large scale? Change requires that good people set good examples. If nothing else, your efforts will keep the promise of liberty alive until conditions become more favorable. It’s our best option. No one will make this happen but ourselves. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

~ Answering the ‘Yes, But the State is Inevitable’ Falsity

For context, Benjamin Tucker defined government as “the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will.” BK Marcus answered whether government was inevitable.

And for me, the question “Isn’t some form of State inevitable?” is like saying We will never get rid of rape and robbery, murder and torture, so what sense does it make to take a principled stance against these things? They will always be with us.

It’s sad to me that such a basic thing as the principled opposition to coercion is considered to be extremist, unreasonable, unrealistic. Why do I have to believe in permanent peace to oppose war? How is it utopian to denounce force?

I share your confidence that force and fraud will always be with us, and I will always oppose them. But Statism is more than the prediction of “the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will.” Statism is the claim that institutionalized proactive coercion is justified. Anarchism rejects that conclusion” (emphasis in original).

~ The New Normal for Government Services

Wendy McElroy has a post from TechDirt about the new ways that government is servicing you. In California, the city of Tracy is going to charge residents $300 and non-residents $400 when the fire department is called to a medical emergency. I would completely support this but for the fact that residents already have to pay for the fire department with taxes. The reason the city is having to take such measures is to pay back the government-backed labor union that lobbies for excessive compensation and funded the city council member’s election campaigns. The city spends $9 million per year in a city of 80,000 on employee pensions and deposits ¢33 for every dollar the police and fire fighters make in wages.

No charge will be issued when the fire department responds to a car collission or a fire. So the solution is simple enough, according to McElroy: “In short, if you see someone have a heart attack in the street, you should quickly set a trash bin on fire.”

~ Think Small, Change the World

Libertarian persuasion guru Michael Cloud has some advice and motivation for activists.

Because the vital few, the great men and women, the key events were indispensable and necessary to what happened — but they were *not* sufficient to make it happen.

Without the vital, indispensable small actions of many forgotten individuals, the great events would have faltered, fizzled, and failed. …

Think small. Start small. Work small. For liberty. You can change the world.

~ Speaking of Changing Minds

Seth Godin has a post on the importance of extremists. He concludes:

It’s interesting to note that an enormous amount of apparently principled argument goes on about relatively tiny movements in where the line is being drawn. In most cases, to paraphrase an old joke, “we’ve already figured out what sort of girl you are, now we’re just arguing about the price.” It’s not the principle, in fact, it’s just the degree of compromise we’re comfortable with and content to argue over.

And so it’s left to the zealots. The people at either end have little hope of moving the masses all the way to their end of the argument. Instead, what they do is make it feel safer to change the boundaries, safer to recalibrate the compromise. Over time, as the edges feel more palatable, the masses are more likely to be willing to edge their way closer to one edge or another. Successful zealots don’t argue to win. They argue to move the goalposts and to make it appear sane to do so.

That is OK. Those who believe aggression is wrong are actually at a distinct advantage — several actually — when it comes to spreading our ideas. The first is that we are not trying to impose beliefs or positive obligations on others. We are seeking but a “mere negation,” as Frederic Bastiat said. We only “oblige him only to abstain from harming others.” For anyone but authoritarian sociopaths, that seems simple enough. Other political ideologies require coalition building for a dominant majority to implement and sustain them, while the believers in a voluntary society must only win over a much lower threshold, something of a passive neglect on the part of anyone who does not share our opinions. We only have to convince them to leave peace lovers alone, you see.

Second, we seek to respectfully disagree. If some think that the best way to protect us from terrorists is to build military instillations in foreign countries, I say go for it. I am confident they are just looking out for our best interests. Personally, I disagree and think that trading with others promotes mutual aid. It was Bastiat again who said that “When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” (What does some French guy know about war anyway?) In this instance, it seems both sides are at a stalemate as to what to do together. There really is no settlement that could be made, so both sides should be free to part ways and spend their time and money how they best see fit. Surely, in a free country, peaceful and civil people can agree to that much.

And if we do live in a free country, then surely anyone who peacefully disagrees should not be attacked or threatened by the government for having a different opinion. What good is freedom, after all, if we can’t peacefully disagree? Freedom of thought would be a petty and shallow consequence if others did not respect that freedom themselves. For that matter, what good would it do to disagree if someone could use force without repercussion to compel peaceful people’s obedience? Free people should not be made, by force, to counteract their conscience by being taxed to pay for or participate in actions and programs they found repugnant. Surely, in a free country, peaceful and civil people can agree to that much.

If someone can’t simply agree to disagree, anyone who insists on imposing a positive obligation on peaceful people is just a bully. In fact, what took place was not a discussion at all. It was more a hostage negotiation — between hostage negotiator and hostage taker. That is important to remember. Hostage negotiations are distinct from discussions. It is no longer an examination of facts and hypothesis, but a relationship based on control. Early in a negotiation, the hostage taker may attempt to take the dominant role of authority figure. The early role of the hostage negotiator is to access the circumstances and uncover background information, finding what brought the subject to those conclusions. Once the assessment is made, it is time to build rapport and perhaps reduce the stress of the situation. The goal is always to convince the hostage taker to let everyone go free. If no progress can be made, however, it is best to halt the negotiation to retain some self pride.

Some Advanced Techniques

One post-negotiation technique I have practiced over the years is building cognitive dissonance. I save it for after the negotiation period because it creates a sense of tension by making observations the listener believes are true yet should not be true by his or her own assumptions. The tension can be applied quickly and has a way of building over time, like a delayed detonation in the mind.

For longer encounters, use Socratic questioning, which requires more finesse from the questioner and intellectual honesty from the listener, to create some cognitive dissonance. Jan Helfeld is especially adept at this. His questioning of Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) illustrates an example of how this might be done. In this clip, Helfeld got the senator to admit that those in government use coercion and that individuals in their ordinary capacity had no right to initiate force. The senator said that the government had been delegated that power by the people through the constitution. Helfeld again confirmed with the senator that ordinary individuals do not have the right to initiate force, and then he asked how individuals could delegate to the constitution the power to initiate force if they themselves do not have that right to delegate. Basically, how can they delegate a right they do not have?

Try isolating the moral nature of the relationship being proposed; get to the root of the issue; get to the priority of it all. You know you’ve found it when someone responds by saying “Yes, but.”

At other times, it can be helpful to make a statement and ask listeners what they think of it. The most important lesson I’ve learned about discussion is that I cannot change anyone’s mind. Only they can. The harder I try and the more effort I expend, the less I am likely to succeed. It really is like any other relationship. Coming across as pushy or arrogant leaves healthy people resentful of the time they spent with you. The key to it all is asking questions. (I mean in a real way; I think people recognize someone acting artificially.) If I am genuinely curious about the reason why someone thinks a certain way, more often than not I am reciprocated in kind. If nothing else, it helps me understand the objections others have and how I can improve my own ideas. I also listen to words and phrases that are repeated or given an extra emphasis. The great thing about speech is how much easier it is to recognize the different vocal inflections. Those are all little insights that reveal what is important to someone.

It is nearly impossible get a reversal of opinion, a complete conversion, on the spot. It’s probably some ego thing we have in our mind. So I’m not that ambitious when introducing these ideas for the first time. It’s easy to forget that I didn’t always hold the beliefs I do now; we are all trying to integrate our own understanding of the world. Since we can’t change their minds, we can change the assumptions on which their ideas are based. If you want to light the fires of liberty, be patient for these combustive ideas to soak in.

(Note: In a later post I will write about the three most important points to get across in any political discussion.)