Finding the coercion advocates, and shunning them.

[FTL_Ian]

In our eternal quest to communicate about Liberty and persuade others towards it, we inevitably discover people who believe force is an acceptable means to solve problems.

These coercion advocates, if not persuadable, should eventually be outed and ostracized as the social pariahs they are.  They are true psychopaths and should be handled as such.

psy?cho?path
    A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
-American Heritage Dictionary

The question is, how would you like to see them outed and ostracized? 

As an example, on Free Minds TV Mark outed Margarita's (the restaurant in NH whose management supported the smoking ban) and said on-air he refuses to eat there.   

[David]

I agree with you completely.  And I like your approach to dealing with the cheerleaders of aggression.
I just wish they were not so common.   

[d_goddard]

One does catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
It feels righteous and sounds fun, but I'm having trouble thinking of concrete examples where naming-and-shaming has won masses of converts to a movement.

The great mass of people are apolitical and on the fence. The right nudge can land them firmly in our ideological camp.

FTL is a wonderful example of such a "tool for nudging".
Another is the Philosophy of Liberty animation. How about getting that in front of as many NH eyeballs as possible?

[Michael Fisher]

Shaming opponents into submission works very well for any purpose. It's not a question of whether it works, only whether you think it's an acceptable thing to do.

As long as people are free to make that decision for themselves without the moral majority deciding for them, our movement will flourish. I may not agree with such a method, but as long as nobody initiates or threatens force, I will do little or nothing to stand in the way of any effective activism.

[Brock]

In our eternal quest to communicate about Liberty and persuade others towards it, we inevitably discover people who believe force is an acceptable means to solve problems.

These coercion advocates, if not persuadable, should eventually be outed and ostracized as the social pariahs they are.  They are true psychopaths and should be handled as such.

I could not agree more.  By labeling PEOPLE as a pro-this or anti-this "group" puts a mask on individual faces that, at heart, just want to tell you what to do.  They may have even more sinister motives that the mask allows them to hide, a point I eventually tried to make about drug warriors.

[FTL_Ian]

One does catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
It feels righteous and sounds fun, but I'm having trouble thinking of concrete examples where naming-and-shaming has won masses of converts to a movement.

The great mass of people are apolitical and on the fence. The right nudge can land them firmly in our ideological camp.

FTL is a wonderful example of such a "tool for nudging".
Another is the Philosophy of Liberty animation. How about getting that in front of as many NH eyeballs as possible?

You missed my point.  Outing and ostracizing these people would not have the goal of converting anyone.  It would simply identify social pariahs for all to see.  It would be applicable to those anti-social people who will not take to any of our "nudging".  This is not something for "the great mass of people", who are persuadable.  It is intended to target true advocates of coercion.

[d_goddard]

I may not agree with such a method, but as long as nobody initiates or threatens force, I will do little or nothing to stand in the way of any effective activism.

Ditto, of course!
It's all a matter of what we each choose to do with our most precious and limited resource, namely, our time here on earth.

As for me, I've burned The Philosophy of Liberty onto 5 DVDs: one for each of my 4 woefully statist State Reps (damn Concord!) and one for the most powerful person in the State of New Hampshire, the President of the Senate, Sylvia Larsen, who lives a few blocks down from me

I'll be personally handing the DVD to each of these people, and asking them to spend 10 minutes of their time watching it, with the intent of discussing their reactions with me in a follow-up.

Since these people are Democrats, and are fully aware that disgust with the Iraq situation is what got them into their current position of power, I suspect they may be amendable to the message in the animation that it is the governmental initiation of force that is causing so much needless violence in the world.

[Rocketman]

It feels righteous and sounds fun, but I'm having trouble thinking of concrete examples where naming-and-shaming has won masses of converts to a movement.

What about when (some) Democrats accuse (some) Republicans of being heartless racists who don't care about children or the poor?  Does that count?

[Atlas]

Great idea Ian.

[FTL_Ian]

Great idea Ian.

Thank you, but it was also a question:

The question is, how would you like to see them outed and ostracized? 

[FrankChodorov]

nd one for the most powerful person in the State of New Hampshire, the President of the Senate, Sylvia Larsen, who lives a few blocks down from me

I believe that is "up the hill overlooking me"...

[Dave Ridley]

I think publicly speaking out against companies should be avoided since it just gives them free publicity.   Speaking out against politicians and bureacracies is a different story. 

Also you should always leave the bad guy a graceful line of retreat.

[Sweet Mercury]

In our eternal quest to communicate about Liberty and persuade others towards it, we inevitably discover people who believe force is an acceptable means to solve problems.

These coercion advocates, if not persuadable, should eventually be outed and ostracized as the social pariahs they are.  They are true psychopaths and should be handled as such.

psy?cho?path
    A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
-American Heritage Dictionary

The question is, how would you like to see them outed and ostracized? 

As an example, on Free Minds TV Mark outed Margarita's (the restaurant in NH whose management supported the smoking ban) and said on-air he refuses to eat there.   

Where is the shame?

I've discovered, much to my dismay, that the majority of people are authoritarian at heart, and only disgree with authority and cohersion when it inconveniences them circumstancially—there's no disgreement to authority on principle.

Our voice, when considering the country as a whole, is the minority voice. We are the pariahs, sad to say. You can't shame someone, truly, when they are acting both according to their desires and according to accepted public sentiment. Who's more likely to become a pariah in our country? The person who advocates forcing the Boy Scouts to adhere to a government enforced PC agenda, or the person who, while decrying the type of homophobia displayed by the scouts, defends their right as a private institution to set membership standards?

[Michael Fisher]

I think publicly speaking out against companies should be avoided since it just gives them free publicity.

Speaking out against companies is extremely effective. It has worked wonders for Caspian:
http://www.boycotttesco.com/
http://www.boycottbenetton.com/
http://www.boycottgillette.com/

We could easily organize something like this for each company that supports, funds, and lobbies for coercion.

Also you should always leave the bad guy a graceful line of retreat.

Of course.

[aries]

I'd like to see their opinions changed.

The best way to change someones opinion is to, however you choose, get them to do what they are so adamantly against... then point it out... they wont want to admit mistake and will come around. Persuasion is 10,000 times harder.

I dont want to see those who advocate coercion dealt with violently or by demeaning them verbally. They're human beings as any other and their politics does not need to be "dealt with" in any way. The use of force needs to be dealt with but not ideas.