Ademo Freeman and Fear, the State’s Primary Weapon
Since his conviction on August 13, I have been meaning to publicize the case of Adam Meuller, aka Ademo Freeman. He is the founder of CopBlock.org, a site dedicated to the peaceful yet persistent pursuit of police perfidy. The folks at CopBlock do things like post videos of cops beating the heck out of people, and act as a clearinghouse for reports of police abuse. Apparently the police don’t like people recording them with their cell phones, and Freeman and others have previously spent time in jail for such acts.
(Let me offer a quick aside: In the competitive private sector, trucks have signs on the back that say, “How’s my driving? Call 888-555-1234 to report problems.” Funny that “New York’s finest” and other public servants don’t have a similar policy.)
The latest incident with Ademo Freeman, however, concerns a high school student who was manhandled by a police officer in the cafeteria. I don’t want to get bogged down in the details in this post, so I’ll outsource them. Here is a Reason blog post on it, and for the most information (though obviously coming from a pro-Freeman perspective) here is the dedicated link at CopBlock.
The quick version is that a high school student apparently took his sister’s purse and had it at lunch. A school official asked for it back, and he repeatedly refused, saying they were just screwing around and he’d eventually give it back to her. Finally they took it from him and told him he was suspended. He said, “What the f*ck am I suspended for?” and that’s when a police officer (who I guess works at the school, which is weird to me) slammed the kid onto a table. The kid’s buddy recorded the whole thing on his phone, and lied to school officials when they told him to delete the recording. CopBlock got the footage and publicized it. Freeman then called the police and school the next day, asking why the officer was still reporting to work etc., and recorded those calls. He posted a YouTube of the calls, and that is why he’s now serving jail time. He was charged with 3 felony counts of wiretapping, and could’ve gotten 21 years if they had thrown the book at him. (!!) Perhaps because he realized the case was absurd, the judge actually sentenced Freeman to “only” 3 months. (Technically he was sentenced to 12 months with 9 months suspended.)
Here are my reactions to these events:
==> First and foremost, Ademo Freeman is a hero. I don’t know much about him personally, but insofar as he founded a website to use nonviolent means of curbing police brutality, and is willing to go to jail for this cause, he is a hero. When someone on “our team” gets pinched like this, there’s not much the rest of us can do except to say, “Hey, that’s awesome that you are willing to do that.” So, Ademo, that’s awesome that you are willing to do that.
==> Second, notice that this is really all the government can do to you. Sure, they can have guys from the CIA kill you, but in terms of garden variety activism, of just alerting your neighbors to what you perceive to be abuses by the State, really the worst thing that is going to happen is that guys with guns will come to your house, and throw you in a cage. If you can deal with that–and notice that you have to get over fear of black people, if that’s something plaguing you–then things become much clearer. The State relies not so much on force, but on fear. And that is power that you give it over yourself.
==> Third, I feel I must say this, even though I know it may cause some grumbling: This particular case never had a shot of garnering mass sympathy for CopBlock or the broader civil liberties movement. Why? Because the victim here was not particularly sympathetic. Most people over 45 hearing of this story are going to think, “Somebody should have slapped that kid around, teach him some manners.” I’m not condoning that reaction, I am just stating a fact.
The sad fact is that most Americans right now do not believe they live in a police state, even though the New York Times openly discusses the fact that the president and his advisors have a secret list of Americans whom they are trying to kill with flying robots. I can’t believe I just typed that sentence, but I did, and it is true. As Jar-Jar Binks would ask, “Whensa yousa thinkin we’s in trouble?!”
So the primary task of liberty lovers right now is to get others to see the problem. It makes it difficult to do this when people on our side are dropping f-bombs and coming off as completely disrespectful. The Civil Rights movement was effective to the extent that its participants seemed completely harmless and in the right. When you are hopelessly outnumbered, you have to appeal to the moral conscience of the masses to win them over.
Being educated, eloquent, and well-mannered isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also the best strategy for liberty.
This is why I visit your blog everyday.
well said Bob! especially the bit about educated, eloquent, and well mannered.
personally, I’m a fan of casual resistance (e.g. opting out of being pushed around not seeking moments to be antagonistic)
“Being educated, eloquent, and well-mannered isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also the best strategy for liberty.”
Uh oh. I think that you’ve just raised the bar well above my capabilities.
http://jo-kes.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/what-i-learnt-at-finishing-school.html
My “finishing school” was the US Navy.
“the president and his advisors have a secret list of Americans whom they are trying to kill with flying robots”
I’d like to think Barrack hides his list under his peace prize!
Bob, first of all why did you just randomly mention fear of black people? Is it because there are lots of black people in jail?
Second of all, what is the libertarian position on wiretapping a phone call without the other person’s consent or knowledge? Does that run afoul of privacy rights, or is it fine because it doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle?
Yes there are a lot of black people in jail, and there are plenty of white people who would be afraid of what would happen to them if they went to jail for that reason. I am not saying whether this is statistically accurate, I am saying that’s really what a lot of white people are afraid of when they think about going to jail for a few months.
I did a weekend stint in general population as a sophomore in college, and while the majority there was black, race was of zero concern. You’re basically just trying not to piss anyone off, and in which case you really sort of have to go out of your way to do. I’m not sure if he’s in a cell or in gen. pop., so all I can attest to is from my own experience. So while my interaction with the inmates I bunked next to was cordial and pleasant, the place overall is a hell hole that I wouldn’t wish on too many people. And if Ademo is facing lengthy probation I would sort of expect him to tone down his noble efforts.
Once the State has you in their system it is very difficult to get out. I’m not sure what level of discretion the judge has on probation in NH, but he may also limit Ademo in some of his activities. And if he violates his probation enough they might just throw him in prison.
As far as I know, the name “Bubba” isn’t race-specific. However, the Bubba’s of the world are for some reason attracted to soap-droppers like a magnet.
In other words, for me personally, it is the Bubba’s, as well as those who are trying to assert their reputation, that worry me. Race is an afterthought.
Then again, I live in da hood of East Side Cleveland. So, the demographics probably wouldn’t be much different from what I experience now.
Keshav Srinivasan: “Second of all, what is the libertarian position on wiretapping a phone call without the other person’s consent or knowledge? Does that run afoul of privacy rights, or is it fine because it doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle?”
He was recording calls made to public officials. They therefore have no expectation of “privacy.”
Not only were they public officials, but they were acting in that capacity at the time of the recordings.
Today I renewed a 2 year contract with my wireless service. I negotiated with a “customer retention specialist” instead of using the website. (Believe it or not I saved myself somewhere around $900 over 2 years.)
I didn’t record the phone call — I took notes. But let’s say I had.recorded the call to have evidence of whatever we agreed to.
Does a “customer retention specialist” representing a wireless service provider have an expectation of privacy?
Does a “customer retention specialist” (or any employee) representing her employer — a private security company for example — have an expectation of privacy?
Is the answer to the obvious next question any different?
Factor in that these public officials represent a state enforced monopoly for which I’m not a customer but rather a “citizen.”
Then just for the hell of it factor in that these particular public officials have a job whose essential, distinguishing characteristic is the performance of violence.
“Being educated, eloquent, and well-mannered isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also the best strategy for liberty.”
For the masses? Sure. It’s nice to have nice people waving Ron Paul flags. But it won’t suppress the enemy intellectuals, nor their core following.
In my social circles, no one is openly pro-government, and it isn’t because they’re afraid tat a Ron Paul fan might have a polite disagreement with them. They’re afraid an internet-commando will make them look like an idiot, then call them an idiot, and never let them live it down, all in a public forum.
My more sadistic friends save screencaps to flaunt as trophies.
OK Joe, and so your strategy will work if your “social circles” come to embrace 30% of the country. Which they won’t.
I didn’t say it only worked in my social circles. It’s just a data point.
But, just in case you thought my social circles were obscure, consider that one of them was a website called debate.org. So if you googled “debate”, that’s what you’d get. The anarcho capitalists dominated for an entire year. The intellectual battles were won very early, and most of the leg work involved chipping down individual egos.
What are you saying, Joe? That if someone cursed in those debates, that was more effective, other things equal? I can’t even believe someone is challenging me on the point that being “educated, eloquent, and well-mannered” is more persuasive than not.
I did not say “persuasion”. I said “suppression”.
Joe,
You could not be more wrong. The “enemy intellectuals” are mostly human beings, not super villains. While there are some truly evil people who advocate for government precisely because of the power it will grant them, the average individual supports government because they think it will bring about positive changes.
Paul Krugman is a great example. He is motivated by a desire to improve people’s lives. I remember how starkly this clicked for me when that video of him debating an elderly Spanish (I think) economist made the rounds. His concern for those suffering from unemployment was obvious when he incredulously asked why Austrians only care about the harm done to savers via inflation, and not those countless unemployed who would be benefited by stimulus.
Anyways, the point is that by preemptively determining that these people are enemies and have the worst of intentions virtually guarantees they will never recognize the merits of libertarianism.
Citing internet forums as an example of how effective the ultra aggressive style you prefer is, is horribly flawed. Not only is it a totally insignificant and unrepresentative size of the population at large (compare Ron Paul’s online poll results to his results in the actual election, for instance) but you are assuming that because pro-govt people no longer assert themselves in your social circle, they just disappear from the intellectual debate.
Which is incredibly foolish. This is clearly demonstrated if you attend any university, read academic journals, watch the news, or stand on a street corner polling people on their views of government. You have quite literally embraced a style that does nothing other than potential libertarians away from libertarianism merely because it allows you the illusion to believe there are now less of them, in the tightly restricted and unrepresentative social circles you confine yourself to.
I’ve spent years working on becoming a better representative of liberty and there is no greater feeling than seeing someone who used to vehemently oppose abolishing the min wage law, patiently and thoughtfully explain why its beneficial to do so to a third party as I listen on.
If the merits of libertarianism are valid – as I believe they are – the last thing we want to do is suppress and reject others whom mostly share the same fundamental objectives we do. It is our task to identify these shared concerns and patiently articulate the reasons we feel libertarianism is a better way to achieve them.
“the average individual supports government because they think it will bring about positive changes.”
This is me caring.
…
…
…
I don’t care. Nice murderers are still murderers.
“Paul Krugman is a great example. He is motivated by a desire to improve people’s lives. I remember how starkly this clicked for me when that video of him debating an elderly Spanish (I think) economist made the rounds. His concern for those suffering from unemployment was obvious when he incredulously asked why Austrians only care about the harm done to savers via inflation, and not those countless unemployed who would be benefited by stimulus.”
If pointing out that Krugman was out of shape caused him to shut up and withdraw from the public arena, would you do it?
“Anyways, the point is that by preemptively determining that these people are enemies and have the worst of intentions virtually guarantees they will never recognize the merits of libertarianism. ”
It’s a good thing I’m not trying to convert these people. I mean, the comment you are responding to is me saying suppression, NOT PERSUASION. I don’t care about persuading randos or intelligentsia.
I took the trouble to read your long post…
“Citing internet forums as an example of how effective the ultra aggressive style you prefer is, is horribly flawed. Not only is it a totally insignificant and unrepresentative size of the population at large (compare Ron Paul’s online poll results to his results in the actual election, for instance) but you are assuming that because pro-govt people no longer assert themselves in your social circle, they just disappear from the intellectual debate.”
The internet under-represents the unwashed masses. But it over-represents active intellectuals.
Active intellectuals are the target.
And I don’t know if they withdraw from all venues, but if they withdraw from debate.org and facebook, only to post opinions on revleft.org, that’s pretty good.
“Which is incredibly foolish. This is clearly demonstrated if you attend any university, read academic journals, watch the news, or stand on a street corner polling people on their views of government. You have quite literally embraced a style that does nothing other than potential libertarians away from libertarianism merely because it allows you the illusion to believe there are now less of them, in the tightly restricted and unrepresentative social circles you confine yourself to.”
Right. I know I’m not presenting a controlled study. You don’t have to keep complaining that my sample size is “unrepresentative”. But it isn’t like debate.org is an obscure website.
And it isn’t about reducing their numbers. That would be nice, but all that counts is that they stop voicing their arguments in public. Without intellectual support, a cause fails.
“I’ve spent years working on becoming a better representative of liberty and there is no greater feeling than seeing someone who used to vehemently oppose abolishing the min wage law, patiently and thoughtfully explain why its beneficial to do so to a third party as I listen on. ”
Yeah well, good luck with that. You’re just not addressing the other side of the coin, which is that there’s a bunch of leftist intellectuals going around doing the same thing you are. Except they have an easier sell because all they have to do is say “Government should do ” and no one will disagree. So for every person you convert some pinko infects 3x as many. And when you get to the infected, they’ll remember how persuasive his platitudes were and say “well you make a good case, but this other guy made a really really good case…”. What then?
“If the merits of libertarianism are valid – as I believe they are – the last thing we want to do is suppress and reject others whom mostly share the same fundamental objectives we do”
I’m not saying you should go to their house in the night and murder them. I’m saying you should discredit their intellectual status in the eyes of their peers, and even their self image. Whatever makes them lose credibility, it doesn’t matter.
“It is our task to identify these shared concerns and patiently articulate the reasons we feel libertarianism is a better way to achieve them.”
Right and this is the messed up thing about grass-roots persuasion based activism. You are begging strangers for your rights. Some of us find that distasteful. I shouldn’t have to ask to be free.
Sorry some issues with HTML and text.
It should read:
“Government should do *good things*”
Maybe my opinion in this matter is biased to favor my own method, but personally I can say that I have had far more success being caustic and occasionally condescending and thinly veiled insulting, than being nice and cordial.
I find that statists are a bit more energetic in terms of self-development and self-criticism when they have memories of those times when they felt like a fool on account of the harsh words I used on them. Sometimes it works so well that they will even go out of their way to prove to me via repeated statements that they agree with the libertarian principle in question. Often I feel a little bad about it because I realize I am dealing with a person who doesn’t take ideas all that seriously.
In addition, I have found that those who respond most favorably to my nicer and more cordial comments, tend to already be libertarians. They say wow, that was eloquently put, and so on.
But when I am more harsh, I hardly ever get comments from libertarians, but I do attract a whole lot of non-libertarians who feel insulted and desire to set me straight and put me in my place.
Finally, I have also found that being more harsh almost always brings out the more honest sides of statists. They show what they really believe and think when their energy rises and their minds get stimulated in a defensive manner.
Murphy’s cordial method is, I think, effective for those who are kind of sort of on the fence, and choose the side that is more eloquently presented. Why do I say this? Because those who are on the fence must be viewing both libertarianism and statism in similar lights. Who else but nice, cordial people would view statism as so similar to libertarianism that they aren’t sure which side to take?
What about those who are so far into statism precisely because they are not very cordial people? These folks I think respond more to caustic and harsh criticism, because that’s how they roll in the first place. Many of those who are otherwise outwardly nice, are discovered as having incredible anti-social and evil convictions, but have learned to couch them in nice sounding rhetoric due to social pressures and what have you. But when I took to them harshly, they typically find out that I am not someone who responds favorably to terrible ideas that sound good. They learn that they can swear and name call and so on with me, because they think I deserve it. That’s when their true colors are revealed, and deeper and rewarding debating can take place.
In summary, I don’t think there is a single method that works for everyone. Murphy has had success using his method, and I think I have had success using my method. Of course, my success rate is not 100%, and for those I have “failed”, they may respond better to Murphy, because they respond better to eloquent and cordial explanations.
For those who would sense weakness in Murphy due to his cordial approach, however misguided such a sense may be, I don’t think that being nice works on them. I think these types of people are bullies who prey on nice people, and will only respect their interlocutor if they are on equal douchebag footing with them. I think that’s where I come in.
I consider myself someone who enjoys being in the trenches with the arseholes. Bullies tend to respond well to those who out bully them. At first it’s rather messy and rather unproductive, as they use their bullying tactics as per usual, but to no avail, so they step it up, but at some point, they’ll realize that their bullying won’t work, and they will have to change tactics. Once they do, that’s when their guard finally goes down, and THEN I think being nice and cordial works.
It’s sort of like how two gorillas will thump their chests and make loudmnoises when they first meet each other, but then after the obnoxious territorial stuff is out of the way, then there can be more productive interactions.
“Once they do, that’s when their guard finally goes down, and THEN I think being nice and cordial works.”
No!!! KILL KILL KILL
And just a quick side note for people reading this, when you say “in the trenches” and stuff, you don’t literally mean “stoop to their level”. Like they might start calling you names non-sequitur, whereas if you called them names, it would be a reference to something they had said or done, and not purely out of anger or desperation.
If I read you right.
Joe,
Just checked out debate.org as I have never heard of it before. It seems pretty obscure. In both the economics and the politics section I haven’t seen one debate with more than 100 votes or unique users weighing in, and most have less than 50.
Was it more popular when you first joined? And have you given any thought that your suppression tactics just destroy opportunities to recruit new converts, as it is very easy to abandon online social circles dominated by hyper-aggros who make debating unpleasant, and instead, move on to areas where your existing viewpoints are the dominant ones.
For instance, you may render debate.org a site that is dominated by an-caps but if all the pro-government guys (some of who may have be open to changing their minds) now exclusively reside in Krugman’s blog or similar sites, what exactly is being accomplished?
A few times you mentioned if it would be worth it to call Krugman fat, if he would stop blogging. Have you ever had any success at suppressing someone of his reach, or even anywhere close to it?
Otherwise it seems like this entire approach amounts to nothing more than an extremely small and obscure group of internet commandos bragging over how they have banished all dissenting opinions from their online forums.
“Just checked out debate.org as I have never heard of it before. It seems pretty obscure.”
It’s dead. A company called “juggle” took it over and now no one uses it anymore. But if you google “debate”, that’s what you get…
“And have you given any thought that your suppression tactics just destroy opportunities to recruit new converts, as it is very easy to abandon online social circles dominated by hyper-aggros who make debating unpleasant, and instead, move on to areas where your existing viewpoints are the dominant ones. ”
That was the whole point. To get them to withdraw from the venue. I don’t care if they find an echo chamber somewhere else. As long as they aren’t polluting “independent” venues.
“For instance, you may render debate.org a site that is dominated by an-caps but if all the pro-government guys (some of who may have be open to changing their minds) now exclusively reside in Krugman’s blog or similar sites, what exactly is being accomplished?”
Man. You really need to realize that it’s okay to not convert every single person. Like, there’s a point in debating someone even if you know they won’t be converted. Right? If you chunk them, at the very least they will think twice before debating their views again.
“A few times you mentioned if it would be worth it to call Krugman fat, if he would stop blogging. Have you ever had any success at suppressing someone of his reach, or even anywhere close to it?”
I didn’t “mention” it. I asked you the question. Because it’s supposed to be really obvious that suppressing someone using “unorthodox” tactics can be worthwhile.
But who is the biggest fish I’ve fried? On facebook, some “professors”. In real life, a lawyer. It caused them to… re-evaluate…
“Otherwise it seems like this entire approach amounts to nothing more than an extremely small and obscure group of internet commandos bragging over how they have banished all dissenting opinions from their online forums.”
It’s not “our” online forums. The forums are neutral ground. Facebook is neutral ground. And we don’t “banish” it. We cause them to withdraw. To silence themselves. That’s important because it means there are fewer people willing to openly push their views.
And it’s only “extremely small” because we’re like 5 people. Most anything any individual does is “extremely small”. But I doubt you would use these words if I had “converted” a couple of people. Your rhetorical tricks are incredibly rude/patronizing. Kind of ironic, don’t you think?
By the way you left about 20 issues unaddressed from the previous posts. But if you want to just pretend like they don’t matter and continue re-asserting your point with mostly rhetoric, well, that’s par for the course on the internet.
And that’s another thing. I am so sick and tired of lay-libertarians who fold at the slightest pressure. It’s embarrassing to have some college sophomore lose to some statist’s “what if” montage. It is worse than if he hadn’t been a lay-libertarian at all, because now the statist thinks libertarianism is a joke. In fact, most statists think libertarianism is a joke, because they have plenty of anecdotes to draw from.
It would be better to have 100 uncrackable libertarians than 10 million mushy pro-right-to-bear-arms slobs.
If a debate like Murphy v. Krugman ever happened, it wouldn’t be important that Murphy was a libertarian, it would be important that Krugman got served in public. And it wouldn’t matter that people disagreed with Bob’s politics, as long as they realized that he could probably dunk them in a debate.
Rinse, repeat, what is more intimidating? A legion of angry pseudo educated teenagers? Or if 0.0001% of the population is totally unbreakable and can run circles around the best leftists? Which says more for the credibility and strength of ideas?
Equating being hyper aggro with “uncrackable” is wrong.
You can easily be “uncrackable” ie. extremely knowledge and a skilled debater, while also being polite.
You often seem to assume that which you are trying to prove in these convos, which is why I ignore most of what you write.
The entire thesis of suppression being effective is the question, and you’ve used an example of something you are not and can not do – silence Krugman – to justify the strategy of yelling at people on Facebook.
I’ve never said everyone needs to be converted or should. I ask questions about your strategy and you repeatedly get defensive and make flat out false implications, such as:
“You really need to realize that it’s okay to not convert every single person”
I don’t think that, and certainly never implied it. There is no need to get so defensive when someone is inquiring as to your strategy to advance liberty.
You also seem hyper-defensive and signs you are being attacked in everything I write, which strikes me as an extremely unpleasant way to live.
In regards to your comments that lay-libertarians fold so easily and I’ve left “20 issues unanswered” could you specifically mention or list some of those?
Our initial convo it was quite clear I misunderstood your point and was referring to the most effective strategy of persuasion while you were talking about how to suppress small groups on active posters on the Internet.
When you made this clear, I posted “Good luck!” If you think there are legitimate arguments that you have made that I am avoiding, given that, please go ahead and share those so I can give you the same courtesy you’ve shown me by responding to all my questions.
“Equating being hyper aggro with “uncrackable” is wrong. ”
Well it’s a good thing I don’t think that either.
“You can easily be “uncrackable” ie. extremely knowledge and a skilled debater, while also being polite.”
Yes. And you can also be uncrackable and a hermit who never speaks to anyone. So what? My sub-point here is simply that quality >>> quantity, so it isn’t automatically a good idea to go out converting people if they’re just going to be sloppy embarrassments.
“You often seem to assume that which you are trying to prove in these convos, which is why I ignore most of what you write. ”
Where. Quote me.
“The entire thesis of suppression being effective is the question, and you’ve used an example of something you are not and can not do – silence Krugman – to justify the strategy of yelling at people on Facebook. ”
I’ve used a lot of other arguments to try and convince you, but you just ignore them. So I get frustrated and ask (FOR THE THIRD TIME!!!) whether you would tell Krugman he was out of shape if it meant he’d resign from the public arena.
Would you???
You claim to be ignorant of the arguments you’ve left unaddressed. I’m not even going to
“I’ve never said everyone needs to be converted or should. I ask questions about your strategy and you repeatedly get defensive and make flat out false implications, such as: ”
No. You are not here just “asking questions”. It’s a face-saving contest for you at this point. That’s why you continually drop points and bring up new ones.
“I don’t think that, and certainly never implied it.”
Right, so when you expressed concern that I might alienate the small minority of leftist elites from ever being converted libertarians, what does that imply? Because it’s a small minority, it shouldn’t matter unless you think we seriously have to go on a maximal conversion safari.
Asking questions that imply values without committing yourself to those values is underhanded. Again.
“You also seem hyper-defensive and signs you are being attacked in everything I write, which strikes me as an extremely unpleasant way to live.”
Ah, pity. Don’t need it. You know I’ve got some smart-alec remark about unpleasant ways to live, but, you know. Little below the belt.
“In regards to your comments that lay-libertarians fold so easily and I’ve left “20 issues unanswered” could you specifically mention or list some of those?”
Do you really want to know or are you just pretending? Oh wait. Don’t answer. Social desirability bias and all that…
How about:
“You’re just not addressing the other side of the coin, which is that there’s a bunch of leftist intellectuals going around doing the same thing you are. Except they have an easier sell because all they have to do is say “Government should do ” and no one will disagree. So for every person you convert some pinko infects 3x as many. And when you get to the infected, they’ll remember how persuasive his platitudes were and say “well you make a good case, but this other guy made a really really good case…”. What then?”
“Our initial convo it was quite clear I misunderstood your point and was referring to the most effective strategy of persuasion while you were talking about how to suppress small groups on active posters on the Internet. ”
No. I am not just talking about the internet. I am talking in general. If you see a leftist proselytizer, it is worthwhile to discredit him. No?
By the way, the reason I’m spending so much time on this exchange is that I share much of your viewpoint. It’s extremely frustrating to me when libertarianism is poorly represented, and you are right, in terms of sheer volume, it is more often someone who lacks a deeper understanding of the material, than it is someone who is unbreakable but comes across as a dick.
When you concluded our last thread with your comments recognizing the validity of multiple approaches, how your method is not optimal for everyone etc, it seemed like there was not much worth discussing past that point, as I am in total agreement with that paragraph.
I like persuasion because it builds the ranks and has a domino effect. I think suppression is less effective in that the status quo is so powerful, most people remain pro-government by default even if there are less pro-government posters on facebook, for instance.
And this is kind of the key question for me, in what sense does the suppression truly occur and how effective is it? I’m sure you would agree that people are pro-government by default. The media, schools, society are all enormously pro-government.
So in that climate, I think suppressing people from online forums of facebook, doesn’t necessarily suppress the spread of pro-government ideas. I think the aforementioned avenues are so much larger that attacking ancillary venues is a bit of mistaking the forest for the trees. People withdraw from forums, but they retreat into a pro-government society with pro-government ideas still in tact. And that’s what worries me. As Ron Paul’s fanbase so amply demonstrated, winning the online war doesn’t come even close to winning the actual one.
In a nutshell, I think it is way too easy for 0.0001% of the population to be simply ignored, no matter how unbreakable they are.
“it is more often someone who lacks a deeper understanding of the material, than it is someone who is unbreakable but comes across as a dick.”
Well it’s a false dichotomy.
“When you concluded our last thread with your comments recognizing the validity of multiple approaches, how your method is not optimal for everyone etc, it seemed like there was not much worth discussing past that point, as I am in total agreement with that paragraph. ”
In the OP, Bob wrote:
“Being educated, eloquent, and well-mannered isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also the best strategy for liberty”
“I like persuasion because it builds the ranks and has a domino effect.”
I pointed out how it can have a reverse domino effect. If you arm a man, and send him out to die, you have a dead man and emboldened enemy.
I also pointed out how my strategy can have a domino effect, since obviously reducing pro-government speakers harms their ability to build a base against us.
“I think suppression is less effective in that the status quo is so powerful, most people remain pro-government by default even if there are less pro-government posters on facebook, for instance.”
And what is the world if it is full of apathetic statists, but no true believers?
“And this is kind of the key question for me, in what sense does the suppression truly occur and how effective is it?”
I don’t know. I don’t have a controlled trial. As far as I can see, I’ve made a lot of self-censor and shut up a few completely.
But I’ll tell you what’s not effective is spreading libertarianism one by one. What little success libertarians have had with Ron Paul has not been predicated on libertarian principles. It’s a bunch of slobs all mahd about the spehndin’ and the boogie-mahn-bankehrs and the defuhsit. These people just want their right to bear assault rifles and could give a damn about true human rights abuses.
“I think suppressing people from online forums of facebook, doesn’t necessarily suppress the spread of pro-government ideas.”
Quality > Quantity. The public has always believed a smorgasbord of completely insane things (not just politics). What difference does it make if a million people come to believe that Paraguay has WMDs? They’ll get chunked if they try and act on it in any serious way.
“In a nutshell, I think it is way too easy for 0.0001% of the population to be simply ignored, no matter how unbreakable they are.”
Wrong. Politics is ALWAYS dominated by a tiny, tiny minority of the population. Wouldn’t the left be so much poorer without Krugman, Klein, and Maddow? Wouldn’t libertarians be so much poorer without our few dozen figures?
The victim here is the US economy.
Point is that if you have some people getting busted for wiretapping, while other people get caught in far more massive cases of illegal wiretapping and get away with it… then you can’t have an efficient operational economy. Either bust all of them, or none of them. If some people get busted for physical violence, but others can
Hmmm, seem to have cut myself short there. Never mind you get the point. An economy operates more efficiently with consistent and non-arbitrary enforcement of laws.
Joe,
Your reply is truly breathtaking. I don’t think talking to people about libertarianism is equivalent to “begging strangers for your rights.”
It is clear that you have chosen what you believe to be the most effective means and it is unlikely anything said here will change that. One final point I think is worth considering is in regards to when you wrote:
“I’m saying you should discredit their intellectual status in the eyes of their peers, and even their self image. Whatever makes them lose credibility, it doesn’t matter.”
Have you ever considered that your preferred argumentation style may result in doing just that for yourself?
This is a rhetorical question as you have repeatedly emphasized the superiority of your method and thus are unlikely to immediately acknowledge an inherent flaw that would render it as counter-productive. Just something to ponder going forwards!
“Your reply is truly breathtaking. I don’t think talking to people about libertarianism is equivalent to “begging strangers for your rights.””
Well if you’re talking to an infant, then yeah. It’s not. But if you’re talking to someone who believes in the warfare welfare state, then it is.
“It is clear that you have chosen what you believe to be the most effective means and it is unlikely anything said here will change that.”
This is true for you too. It is true in 99.99% of arguments. You’re just saying this for rhetorical effect to make me appear close-minded and stubborn. What you’re really doing is backpedaling out of all your initial arguments and trying to save face. Not cool.
“Have you ever considered that your preferred argumentation style may result in doing just that for yourself?”
Who cares. The libertarian movement already has scores of family-friendly evangelists. I don’t want or need randos to find me persuasive.
“This is a rhetorical question as you have repeatedly emphasized the superiority of your method and thus are unlikely to immediately acknowledge an inherent flaw that would render it as counter-productive.”
Jesus. I mean, I’d hate to imply that you have reading comprehension issues, but my very first sentence in this thread was:
“For the masses? Sure. It’s nice to have nice people waving Ron Paul flags. But it won’t suppress the enemy intellectuals, nor their core following.”
Do I say my way is best? No. Do I say if everyone does it my way, then things will work? No. Do I say that polite persuasion has no merits? No.
My position, and this should have been crystal clear, is that it is a good thing we have many “polite” and “persuasive” figures in the movement. This incontrovertibly builds the libertarian base. But leftists are building and maintaining their base too. If you can harm their credibility, or make them withdraw from public forums, you reduce their political influence.
Like, I’ll ask you again. If telling Paul Krugman that he was out of shape caused him to withdraw from public light, would you do it?
“Just something to ponder going forwards!”
Don’t patronize me.
Good luck!
And just for clarification, I don’t mean to patronize you (again!) Within the narrowly defined group you are referring to, I can see the point that you are making. I don’t have enough experience or familiarity with these circles comprising of internet commandos and the like, to have any opinion as to whether or not your method is effective.
I don’t think talking to people about libertarianism is equivalent to “begging strangers for your rights.”
For those wwantonly seek to harm you via the state, yes, it is.
This might be of interest to you when it becomes available online or if you subscribe to the journal and have a print copy on hand:
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=898
New Hampshire, where the events occurred, is what is known as a “Two Party” state. That means that both ends of the conversation must consent before a recording is legal.
However, the “wiretapping” statute was the result of 3rd parties listening to -other-people’s- conversations, a-la Watergate.
There is already both state and federal judicial precedent here that police officers and other “public officials” have no expectation of privacy while in the performance of their duty. This is the result of individuals video and audio recording their own traffic stops, and being charged by the police with “wiretapping”.
The New Hampshire representatives have, since Ademo’s persecution, held hearings on changing the law to prevent such abuse on the part of govt officials, although although the matter would be resolved easily by changing to a “Single Party” law, where you get to record your own conversations even if the other person is not explicitly notified.
Note, please, that the police use microphones, dashboard cameras, and other recording methods CONSTANTLY without any notification what so ever, regardless of the law, and use it as evidence when it is in their favor, yet tend to loose it mysteriously when it shows the cops doing bad things.
This is institutional hypocrisy.
Lastly, please keep in mind that Ademo was convicted by a jury for three (3) FELONY counts. Felony! Yet there was no secrecy, no conspiracy, no intent to harm (mens rea?), and in fact no harm done at all. While I would have preferred the judge throw out the case as absurd on its face, watching the trial it is clear that he could hardly believe the state was bringing the case in the first place. At ever turn he gave Ademo the benefit of the doubt, and the sentence of 3 months for three felony convictions is very telling all by itself.
I urge anyone interested to look up the trial, it is on YouTube, along with Ademo’s recordings of himself on the phone asking for comment about the events from the cops and school principle (whom I personally believe instigated this with her friends at the prosecutors office as vindictive retaliation for daring to question her at all).
BTW, on the witness stand the school principle, a former prosecutor, who was called during school hours in her office, made the claim that she was not a government official at all, and that’s why the “no expectation of privacy while performing their public duties” didn’t apply to her.
The principal of the school reminds me of Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. She’s even wearing pink.
Joe,
You wrote:
“Wrong. Politics is ALWAYS dominated by a tiny, tiny minority of the population. Wouldn’t the left be so much poorer without Krugman, Klein, and Maddow? ”
You’ve done this so much during our conversation of switching the terms of what we are disagreeing over. Obviously the left would be weaker without Krugman et al. That’s not what I’ve ever been arguing with you, and as you would say, not cool, rhetorical tricks etc etc.
The question is: Does your approach have any chance of silencing Krugman? You keep referencing his removal as an example of how great your strategy is, but never demonstrate how what you are actually doing – attacking people on the Internet in a very aggressive manner – will acheive that goal, or a similar goal.
Re: “Wrong. Politics is ALWAYS dominated by a tiny”
Isn’t this what we call a strawman? When did I ever say anything to the opposite effect of the above? What is this “Wrong!” in reference to? I assume its my statement that 0.0001% of the population can be easily ignored, which you then replied to by shooting down the strawman that politics is dominated by a tiny majority. Well, ya, that’s pretty obvious.
But again, unless your strategy is directed at effecting change at those political actors, I don’t see how that is relevant at all. And if it is directed at them, you are going to have to explain just how arguing in a hostile manner on the Internet is going to affect the political elites.
“You’ve done this so much during our conversation of switching the terms of what we are disagreeing over. Obviously the left would be weaker without Krugman et al. That’s not what I’ve ever been arguing with you, and as you would say, not cool, rhetorical tricks etc etc.”
I am trying to get you to admit that suppressing the enemy intellectuals is worthwhile. This will effectively reduce your argument to a complaint that I am not able to tangibly affect the biggest fish in the pond. An argument which is easy to handle. I just want you to stop jockeying between the “scope” argument and the “tactics” argument.
“The question is: Does your approach have any chance of silencing Krugman?”
No. It is not “the” question. It is a bastardized version of the question I asked you, whose sole purpose is to demonstrate that it’s okay to be rude if the payoffs are high. Do you concede? No one has any hope of silencing Krugman. But he may be discredited. That’s the point. There’s no point trying to convert him.
“You keep referencing his removal as an example of how great your strategy is,”
No. I don’t. Quote me. I don’t say “Man my strategy is awesome because if it worked 100% of the time, you could get Krugman to shut up!”. It is a hypothetical that has no chance of coming to pass. I do not use it as evidence for my position.
“but never demonstrate how what you are actually doing – attacking people on the Internet in a very aggressive manner – will acheive that goal, or a similar goal.”
I attack people with varying degrees of civility. They often withdraw or shut up. Their ideas are publicly discredited, and they lick their wounds knowing they got chunked by a no-name stranger. Mission accomplished.
“Isn’t this what we call a strawman? When did I ever say anything to the opposite effect of the above? What is this “Wrong!” in reference to?”
I dunno. It is in response to ONE SENTENCE. Here. I’ll quote it for you:
“In a nutshell, I think it is way too easy for 0.0001% of the population to be simply ignored, no matter how unbreakable they are”
“I assume its my statement that 0.0001% of the population can be easily ignored”
Excellent deduction.
“But again, unless your strategy is directed at effecting change at those political actors”
Uhh… yeah that’s the ideal. Except I can’t make Rachael Maddow debate me so I have to settle for facebook debates with “esteemed” professors.
“And if it is directed at them, you are going to have to explain just how arguing in a hostile manner on the Internet is going to affect the political elites.”
Yeah. You keep going with that straw man. My method is not necessarily hostile. I have implied that hostility is acceptable, but it is not required nor always wise. But it is sometimes wise.
I mean, I think you are guilty of excluding the middle here. I disagree with Bob that you should always be a polite gentleman, so you think I’m advocating its opposite. Tsk tsk tsk tsk.
Oh and you still haven’t answered the question. For the fourth time (is this getting embarrassing?), would you tell Krugman he was out of shape if it meant he would resign from the public arena?
Well you’ve effectively suppressed my desire to continue.
Your intellectual dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge there is a difference between my point that 0.0001% of the general population – specifically you guys on the Internet operating in a fashion you described in a comment above to Major Freedom as “KILL KILL KILL” – can be easily ignored, or any extremely small segment of the population can likewise be ignored, is Wrong! because the ruling class is also a small segment of the population is absurd and they aren’t ignored, is pretty lame-o.
Thanks for the chat, it was surprisingly more fun than I would have guessed.
“Well you’ve effectively suppressed my desire to continue. ”
And whether or not you admit it to yourself, you will think twice before sniping at someone. Because you might screw it all up again by excluding the middle (in politics of all subjects!) and embarrass yourself with a straw man and then have to spend the next few days backpedaling and changing the subject…
All until you can find one little issue – in this case an alleged misunderstanding – blow it out of proportion, and use it as an excuse to bail on the debate. Bravo.
“Your intellectual dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge”
Hang on, even if this is true, you’ve refused to acknowledge about fifty other things I’ve written to you. Even when you said “point them out to me”, and I picked one, you still ignored it. You’re still ignoring the Krugman question even though it is a simple yes-or-no answer. Do you really want to play the “who is most intellectually dishonest” game? Lol.
“there is a difference between my point that 0.0001% of the general population – specifically you guys on the Internet operating in a fashion you described in a comment above to Major Freedom as “KILL KILL KILL” – can be easily ignored,”
You never claimed this. You never claimed it was easy to ignore internet commandos. You only claimed it was easy to ignore 0.0001% of the population, which is false.
Get your argument straight. You can’t expect me to cross-apply disjointed concepts for you.
It’s also really difficult for me to read that whole run on sentence. Read literally, I think it says my intellectual dishonesty is “Wrong”? Lol.
“You only claimed it was easy to ignore 0.0001% of the population, which is false.”
That speaks for itself. And the best:
“And whether or not you admit it to yourself, you will think twice before sniping at someone. Because you might screw it all up again by excluding the middle (in politics of all subjects!)”
Now this is special. If you said this upfront I wouldn’t have wasted so much time!
Let’s see what I excluded the middle from, exactly:
“They’re afraid an internet-commando will make them look like an idiot, then call them an idiot, and never let them live it down, all in a public forum.
My more sadistic friends save screencaps to flaunt as trophies.”
Yup, I totally took your humble statement that there are multiple ways to engage in debate, without exclusively being polite, and grossly mis-characterized you as “attacking and aggressive” while erroneously excluding the middle. Boy, what a fool I am!
I honestly laughed out loud at your proud declaration that now I am less likely to “snipe” at someone in the future, because I recognized what a waste of time this is.This is the equivalent of: “Haha I won, I just know it even if you don’t and my evidence of success exists solely in my mind and is entirely non-falsifiable.” That’s pretty weird.
It’s also quite revealing. In a conversation between two an-caps about the most effective way to spread libertarian ideas, you think that conversation would be a civil one as both claim to share the same goal.
But it has become crystal clear that your preferred style of presentation has very little to do with objective and cool-headed analysis over what is the optimal method to spread the ideas of liberty, and much more with what is a truly pathetic exercise to validate yourself and feed your ego. And that explains quite a bit, indeed.
“That speaks for itself.”
This is not a rebuttal. This is just kicking the can down the road.
“Now this is special. If you said this upfront I wouldn’t have wasted so much time!”
I didn’t know in advance that you were so obtuse.
“Yup, I totally took your humble statement that there are multiple ways to engage in debate, without exclusively being polite, and grossly mis-characterized you as “attacking and aggressive” while erroneously excluding the middle. Boy, what a fool I am!”
Yep. Sarcasm notwithstanding, I never said it was necessary to be hyper-aggressive. QQ4u.
“I honestly laughed out loud at your proud declaration that now I am less likely to “snipe” at someone in the future, because I recognized what a waste of time this is.This is the equivalent of: “Haha I won, I just know it even if you don’t and my evidence of success exists solely in my mind and is entirely non-falsifiable.” That’s pretty weird.”
Oh jesus. Where to begin. First, it’s speculation about the future. So it is falsifiable. Second, you have backed off every single one of your initial claims, all your secondary claims, and are now backpedaling trying to set the record straight that you even understood me properly in the first place, which you didn’t. You’re so forgone from any of the issues that it’s hilarious. You ain’t pushin’ your agenda anymore, and are just saving face.
“It’s also quite revealing. In a conversation between two an-caps about the most effective way to spread libertarian ideas, you think that conversation would be a civil one as both claim to share the same goal.”
Oh yeah. Most people want world peace so it’s kind of weird that they ever dislike each other!
“But it has become crystal clear that your preferred style of presentation has very little to do with objective and cool-headed analysis over what is the optimal method to spread the ideas of liberty,”
Oh please. I’ve flowed every single one of your “arguments”, and you’ve dropped all of mine. You’ve even dropped all of the issues you brought up, and are just niggling now. You’re the reason we can’t have an objective discussion.
“and much more with what is a truly pathetic exercise to validate yourself and feed your ego. And that explains quite a bit, indeed.”
I’m sure you know what confirmation bias is. Whatever you walk away thinking, just remember all the arguments you failed to address, and how flimsy and mushy you are when the dirt hits the road.