Truth about Motivations

[Kat Kanning]

I was listening to Katherine Albrecht's radio show the other day and she said something I thought was interesting and maybe applicable to us.  She was talking about fighting issues for reasons other than your real reason.  Specifically she was talking about fighting real ID on the money issues.  Her point was that if you put forth a reason other than your real reason because you think it's more palatable to the public - it doesn't work.  Her example was the government fixing the money problem with Real ID and keeping the whole program.  People put all sorts of effort/energy into fighting the thing giving out the 'money' reason - the government fixes that reason, then all the momentum is gone and the energy wasted. 

I was thinking it was a reasonable point - what if you spend all your energy on something, say medical marijuana, and actually get what you "want" - when what you really want is to be able to smoke pot and not be hassled (for example).

Anyway, something to think about.  Maybe honesty/openness is best.

[J’raxis 270145]

Selling policies to people for reasons they can agree with, as opposed to your own reasons for wanting it, is the primary reason the State has been so successful implementing so much draconian legislation. They want a new law for their own power and self-aggrandizement; they sell it to us by pounding on the "terrorism" or "for the children" drums. It works for them, and when used properly, it can work for us, too. It's not dishonest so long as the reasons you're giving out are actually truthful and consistent.

She's right, however, in the specific case of using cost as an argument against Real-ID—but that's simply because in this specific case it's so easy for such an argument to be invalidated by the feds providing the funding.

[brandon dean]

honesty and openness are of course the best way to accomplish anything worth keeping.  there ain't much gray area in "live free or die" is there? that pretty much says it directly...
I agree--I believe one of society's biggest problems (and definitely one of my biggest pet peeves) is fear of being open and direct because of some abstract, politically correct consequence.  I probably don't have to sell the idea too much here that pussy-footing around an issue doesn't get you anything besides more politics.  we didn't win our independence from the british by asking them for freedom.  ...tried, but it didn't work.
and I would add firearms to this equation.  so many are willing to make concessions on gun regulations, and pretend that the real issue is how many bullets fit into a magazine or some such thing, when the real issue is we need to and will defend ourselves from tyranny.  living in los angeles, I arm myself not so much because I'm worried about criminals, but so I may, in my uttermost last defence, protect me and my family from the stormtroopers and tyrannical government agents.  so, if your purpose really is to just be able to hunt and shoot burglars, they'll regulate away the rest of the purposes for guns until all you have is the right to hunt and shoot burglars, and maybe not even that.

[dalebert]

I can't argue a point very well if I'm not sincere. I can, for instance, agree that constitutional government is not as bad as a government that doesn't follow the constitution. However, arguing for anything on a constitutional basis feels so absurd to me because the document has no validity or value to me. My skin crawls just trying to "go there". If someone else manages to persuade for a little bit more freedom that way, more power to them. I'm not the right one for that job.

I do, however, try to be smart about picking my battles. There are times when I may hear people talking about something from a point of view I don't agree with and I simply remain quiet because I can tell the time is just not right. They're not going to be receptive for whatever reason and I don't necessarily want to completely disrupt their energy, however misdirected it seems to me. I can even tell they're waiting for some kind of acknowledgment of agreement from me even if just a nod, but I don't give it. I might smile, but inside I know I'm smiling because they sound silly. If they take it as something else, that's fine. It smooths things over without me having to lie.

[J’raxis 270145]

Why I want my freedom is irrelevant to most other people. But if I can convince them that such freedom is also beneficial to them, for their own personal reasons, I have a much better shot at gaining their support. And when it comes down to it, what matters is what people are doing (or not doing, in the case of convincing people to not support government oppression), not what they're thinking while they're doing it. It's a kind of consensus-building, and it's how you can get disparate groups to work together and coöperate on something even though they hold widely-different viewpoints.

This kind of selling tactic is neither insincere, nor dishonest—at most, you may be able to claim someone engaging in such a tactic is "lying via omission" (as opposed to a lie of commission), or being disingenuous. If you can make someone desire freedom for their own reasons, why insist on pushing your own reasons on them—especially if it might run the risk of making them oppose you?

[srqrebel]

I was thinking it was a reasonable point - what if you spend all your energy on something, say medical marijuana, and actually get what you "want" - when what you really want is to be able to smoke pot and not be hassled (for example).

Anyway, something to think about.  Maybe honesty/openness is best.

That is the difference between focusing your efforts on mediating the short-term harm of the Authoritarian Model of Government, when in fact what you really want is no AMOG at all, and for good reason.

Well stated, thank you!

[Kat Kanning]

That Katherine Albrecht is one sharp cookie.

[KBCraig]

Why I want my freedom is irrelevant to most other people. But if I can convince them that such freedom is also beneficial to them, for their own personal reasons, I have a much better shot at gaining their support.

I use that a lot, especially when arguing for reform in something that doesn't personally affect me, like marijuana laws. I don't smoke marijuana, but I believe anyone should be able to do so without risking jail. "One person's marijuana is another person's gun collection, is another person's religion", and so forth.

[Raineyrocks]

Why I want my freedom is irrelevant to most other people. But if I can convince them that such freedom is also beneficial to them, for their own personal reasons, I have a much better shot at gaining their support.

I use that a lot, especially when arguing for reform in something that doesn't personally affect me, like marijuana laws. I don't smoke marijuana, but I believe anyone should be able to do so without risking jail. "One person's marijuana is another person's gun collection, is another person's religion", and so forth.

Preach it!  YES!

[Jim Johnson]

I think the gist of Katherine's point was, don't ask for something you don't really want.  Especially if it is because you think they will be more accepting of a lesser desire.
If they acquiesce to your lesser desire you can not come back and ask for more.

1)  You have to ask for more than what you want. 
2)  They will not be willing to give you as much you ask.
3)  They will always offer you less than what you ask for.
4)  If you want something from them, you have to have something that they want.

[ThePug]

If you can make someone desire freedom for their own reasons, why insist on pushing your own reasons on them—especially if it might run the risk of making them oppose you?

Personal story on this: I spent three months trying to convince my strongly pro-life Mom & Stepdad that Paul's position on abortion was best, based on the rule of law, the Constitution, and a sort of "If they can violate the Constitution to do this, why can't they do it for something else?" argument. It was the argument that worked best for me- one based on the principles of an inviolate Constitution rather than one focused on abortion itself. It was a complete flop. Then, one day, Scott (my stepdad) found a video of Paul talking about how a get-it-back-to-the-states approach would save countless lives as some states would immediately ban abortion, as opposed to what other "pro-life" candidate's advocate- unrealistic long-term solutions like a Constitutional amendment or appointing better SCOTUS justices that leave Roe v. Wade intact for the foreseeable future. Scott was impressed by the argument, and insisted I'd mischaracterized Paul's position on abortion, when the only actual difference was the argument used to support it.

I don't want to get into libertarianism and abortion, and whether or not I really convinced them of a "pro-freedom" position, but the point is that the same principle you're talking about was clearly demonstrated by the episode. Offering up a different justification for the exact same position resulted in a radically different response from the target audience.

There's nothing dishonest about tailoring your argument to the person you're trying to convince, as long as you don't change the actual position you're advocating. It can easily be the difference between turning someone off to your viewpoint completely and winning them over.

Oh, and I'm no real fan of the Constitution and "social contracts", either. I just find the government violating its supposedly inviolate charter to be something so egregious that we'll never get to true liberty without going through a return to Constitutional government as an intermediate step. And the simple fact is the people who see the Constitution as some sort of divine scripture are willing to help us go in the direction of more liberty. It's the same way I view the whole minarchist/anarchist deal- we both want the Freedom Train to go in the same direction, so let's just work on getting it going there. If we ever reach the point where one party says it's gone far enough, they can just hop off. Anyway, I'm getting a bit OT, so I'll stop now before I really get in over my head.

[J’raxis 270145]

I think the gist of Katherine's point was, don't ask for something you don't really want.  Especially if it is because you think they will be more accepting of a lesser desire.
If they acquiesce to your lesser desire you can not come back and ask for more.

1)  You have to ask for more than what you want. 
2)  They will not be willing to give you as much you ask.
3)  They will always offer you less than what you ask for.
4)  If you want something from them, you have to have something that they want.

These steps are certainly good advice for any form of negotiation, but I don't think it's necessarily true that you can't go back and ask for more later on. Later on, the audience could be different—a new legislature, for example—and perhaps more receptive, so you go back and try again at what you were originally trying for. Another tactic is to coördinate with others so that you yourself aren't the one going back, another fellow liberty activist is.

[Jim Johnson]

I think the gist of Katherine's point was, don't ask for something you don't really want.  Especially if it is because you think they will be more accepting of a lesser desire.
If they acquiesce to your lesser desire you can not come back and ask for more.

1)  You have to ask for more than what you want. 
2)  They will not be willing to give you as much you ask.
3)  They will always offer you less than what you ask for.
4)  If you want something from them, you have to have something that they want.

These steps are certainly good advice for any form of negotiation, but I don't think it's necessarily true that you can't go back and ask for more later on. Later on, the audience could be different—a new legislature, for example—and perhaps more receptive, so you go back and try again at what you were originally trying for. Another tactic is to coördinate with others so that you yourself aren't the one going back, another fellow liberty activist is.

Your right J'raxis.
Deception and missdirection.
Never let them know who you are, how many you are or what you really want. 
Your in politics, a good lie is better than all the truths in world.

[J’raxis 270145]

Your right J'raxis.
Deception and missdirection.
Never let them know who you are, how many you are or what you really want. 
Your in politics, a good lie is better than all the truths in world.

I did not suggest lying, nor trying to hide my identity, number of supporters, or what I'm after—simply why I'm after it. As for deception and misdirection—the State is the opponent and only a fool shows his whole hand to his opponent. I'm going to guess that your complete mischaracterization of my argument simply stems from some sort of prejudice based on the fact that I'm an "inside-the-system activist" as opposed to yourself, and leave it at that.

[grasshopper]

Why I want my freedom is irrelevant to most other people. But if I can convince them that such freedom is also beneficial to them, for their own personal reasons, I have a much better shot at gaining their support.

I use that a lot, especially when arguing for reform in something that doesn't personally affect me, like marijuana laws. I don't smoke marijuana, but I believe anyone should be able to do so without risking jail. "One person's marijuana is another person's gun collection, is another person's religion", and so forth.

  Ya, both "smoke" and both are kind of intimidating to politicians   
   I agree that pot should be legalised but in the bill, it can not be used for an excuse for the "People with Disabilities act."
   I can't see paying for a young adult to sit home with his play station and his bong when I'm working my ass off. 
  If we approach legislation with solutions other than just legalising it and having enough with it, we are going to loose also.  I'd keep an age limit on it and the disabilities thing.  With this option as well as the cost of imprisonment, we might get it legalised.