What will the liberty movement look like in 100 years? That is a question I think about a lot, and frequently ask my guests on the Anarchist Standard podcast. It’s a question which, because it involves the future, cannot be answered with certainty. And it is one particularly relevant for this blog. Anarchiststandard.com aims to be a type of liberty “industry journal.” And a part of what industry journals do is speculate about where their industry is going. Therefore, in this essay I am going to elaborate a few potential paths down which the liberty movement could develop over the next few generations. I am not certain which track we will choose to follow. Probably it will be a mixture of each as they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As you will see, each path possesses certain advantages and disadvantages.
The purpose of this essay is to frame a few different options and generate some discussion within the liberty community about strategy. The idea is to get people thinking about where this movement is going and what would be the best way to bring about a free society. Strategy is a topic that we do not discuss enough. We talk a lot about the past, and a lot about what the future could be but on the question of “how’, we are silent. And this silence is a weakness. It holds our movement back. Hopefully, this essay will be a modest contribution to changing that. For convenience sake, I will label the three potential paths profiled below the “bottom-up”, the “top-down” and the “middle-out” strategies, respectfully.
Bottom-up:
The first path I will profile is my personal favorite. I want to be transparent about that ahead of time. I am calling it the “bottom up” path because it describes a future where the liberty movement becomes a movement of lower class people. I have written before about how our ideas might find fertile ground among the poor. Too often liberty advocates assume that people without decent education or prospects will necessarily demand more government. They assume that such people will not be able to understand our ideas or even consider them. I disagree. I do not think such assumptions are fair to them. Such assumptions are overly cynical and ultimate harmful to our movement.
I think it is possible to convert a significant percentage of the underclass. But to successfully market our message to them we must think hard about their psychology and motivation, and how it differs from the rest of us. Then we must conform our message to that understanding. Let us briefly consider the experience poor people have of the world. The poor have a sense that “the system” is rigged against them. They feel that someone, somewhere is taking advantage of them. They are completely correct. As we know, it is because state employees intervene in the market that opportunities are limited. It is because of this intervention that the poor find themselves with limited means of improving their conditions. It is because of this intervention that they feel trapped, without options. But, unfortunately, they do not understand this. Instead, they have an intuition that the world is unjust, but that intuition is raw and formless. It seeks definition and elaboration.
Statists understand this psychology, and play on it far better than we do. They sell the poor a compelling narrative. First, they acknowledge the injustice that the poor feel. They connect with their grievances. They do not trivialize them. The poor are not used to such treatment. They are used to people ignoring them, or telling them that their feelings of injustice are wrong. They are used to be called lazy, undisciplined etc.. So, when they hear statists doing otherwise, they listen. They give statists their attention. Statists take advantage. They identify a culprit. They explain that the greedy rich are to blame. The poor, not being big fans of the rich, listen and absorb that message. Then, after convincing the poor that they have the correct diagnosis to the world’s problems, the statist offer a solution. They tell the poor “give the state more power and it will use that power to hurt the rich and curb their greed. It will tax, regulate, and redistribute their wealth, and in doing so will create a more just society.”
But the statist message, as successful as it seems to be among the poor, has an inherent weakness, one that anarchists could exploit. And I’m not even talking about the fact that it is wrong. That’s something different. Instead, I’m talking strictly about the way statists market their message. It has to do with envy. Statists try to stimulate and inflame a person’s sense of envy. They try to get the poor to feel rage toward the rich. But I do not think that most poor people enjoy feeling envious. On the contrary, I think they are like the rest of us. When they feel a sense of envy, they feel ashamed for having felt it. They understand that indulging in envy debases them. So when they observe statists trying to stimulate their envy, they feel disrespected. It doesn’t feel right. So, they are reluctant to accept the statist interpretation of the world. They might acquiesce and parrot the statist party line. But they do so not out of conviction but “pragmatism.” They think to themselves “Well, who knows what’s right, but why not take the money if they are offering it?” So to the underclass, statism is largely amoral. It may give them justification for demanding money but that’s all. It doesn’t give them that what they really need – something much more valuable: dignity.
This is what the liberty movement can offer the poor. Dignity, and a sense of self respect. We can give them an alternate narrative about why the system is unjust. We also can legitimize their perspective. We also can identify the source of the injustice in the world: the state. We also can offer a solution: the elimination of the state. But unlike the statists, we can do this not by appealing to what is base in people, but instead by appealing to what is noble and enlightened within them. Our narrative can give them something the statists never can. We can show them how they can be morally superior to other people. We can give them a way to place themselves above those who are materially well off. We can explain: “Those who are well off, almost as a rule, play ball with the state. They benefit from it, or at least are harmed less by it, and for that reason they refuse to condemn it.”
Such a message has the advantage of being true. The well-off do, generally speaking, refuse to seriously engage our arguments, and a big reason for that is because they have so much to lose. The poor have no similar vested interests. They have little to lose. In fact they are looking for words to explain why they are at the “bottom.” We can give them those words. We can offer them an interpretation of the world that is consistent with their intuition that the world is unjust, but fundamentally different from the statist’ interpretation, in that it will not call on them to demean themselves by indulging their envy. Instead our message will carry a call to action that could elevate their self-esteem. “Reject the state! Most rich people do not. They are corrupted. But if you do, you will be better than them.” In this way, our message becomes a moral entreaty, one that when accepted, will be adopted, internalized, owned, and cherished by the person. It will not be one that is just parroted reluctantly because a person wants to get paid. So, in a certain sense we can introduce the poor to true political ethics – something the statists do not understand. Our ideas can transform the poor into the moral authority in society, and invert traditional ideas that the poor are crude and/or less ethical.
A skeptic might respond “Well, if it’s true that our ideas will play well with the poor, then why aren’t they adopting our message? What are we doing wrong?” The answer has to do with our delivery. The less educated and informed members of society, do not think the same way as those of us who are educated. Anarchists tend to be very analytical and intellectually independent. And we expect, somewhat naively, that other people will respond to the same kinds of arguments and/or messaging that has worked for us. But most people are not analytical or intellectually independent. They require a different approach. What works for them? Probably same things that are effective in consumer marketing. Repetition and emotional appeals. Think about evangelical preachers. They are charismatic and get people riled up. They make a show out of their sermons. They deliver simple moral messages while making people feel good. They do not spend much time with intellectual rigor or strenuous discursive reasoning. They have a goal in mind which is to grow the number of people who are following them. And the method they deploy obeys that goal. If we are ever going to develop a mass movement around the ideas of liberty, we will need to start taking some pages from their playbook.
Now, I appreciate that this idea may be distasteful to many anarchists. It is not the method we would prefer. But the world we live in is not the world we would prefer either. We would prefer a world where reason rules the minds of men, a world where rational argument would suffice to convince them. But in such a world, there would be no state, since the state is indefensible by reason, and so we would not have this problem in the first place. Look around you. We are far from that world. The brutality of the state has harmed people. It has crippled their faith in reason. It has led them to disregard and deliberately disobey it. It has distorted their minds so much that most think that ethics is something unpleasant.
So, given the world as it is, maybe we should be asking ourselves how to grow our numbers, and make that a priority instead of being overly dogmatic and insisting that the only proper way to spread our message is strictly by rational argument. Consider the success of someone like Stefan Molyneux. He alone has converted thousands of people to anarchism. It is hard to argue with success. Yet some people in the movement take pleasure in mocking his style. Sure, he makes a show out of liberty. That’s probably why he has been so successful. But purists seem to find him and his style distasteful. Why is that? Is it because they like being a small elite in the world of ideas and want to maintain a monopoly position on those ideas? Is it because they despise the cheap sales pitch necessary to a mass consumer society? Is it because they abhor any dilution in the message, even one that simplifies it in a way that makes it more comprehensible? Do they take a perverse pleasure in the knowledge that they have the right ideas and nobody else does? Perhaps we will need to reconsider such attitudes before our movement will go to the next level. In my opinion we should prioritize and celebrate any success by a person who condemns the state.
There would be many advantages to the bottom up approach. The poor tend to be more passionate, and less restrained. This could be a positive if it enables us to find people willing to commit and exert themselves wholeheartedly for our cause. The poor also tend to be less calculating and independent, which means that once we have converted them, they will be less critical and less willing to take a dogmatic exception to a particular idea or nuance with which they do not agree or do not understand. They would be more willing, in my estimation, to follow the line established by the leadership. Personally, I think this could work to our advantage. The liberty movement is currently so fragmented by sects, who fight dogmatically over relatively small ideological differences, that when you look at it in aggregate, it is hard not to conclude that much of the infighting is counterproductive to our ultimate end of keeping people passionate, spreading the ideas, and growing the movement. Lower class people, lacking the confidence of the more successful, might be easier to unify. The negative aspect of this characteristic is that when they do unify, it will almost certainly be around charismatic individuals instead of the ideas themselves. They would give significant amount of power to those charismatic individuals. Some might see that as problematic. But, I don’t. If it is true that some people need leaders, if they are not yet ready to stand alone, then why not have them follow a leader who promotes our ideas, or at least a version of our ideas? Yes, the cult of personality can be dangerous. But, having a few superstars of liberty who proselytize the non-aggression principle does not sound bad to me. We need such people in our movement.
Of course there are some negatives to the bottom up approach as well. One is obvious. The cult of personality can go to someone’s head, and make him less willing to coordinate and work with other people in the liberty movement. Bad ideas by that leader, converted to bad ideas among his followers, could harm our movement’s reputation among the larger population. Our reputation could also suffer if we become known as a movement of the masses. “Anarchism? Don’t make me laugh! That’s the crazy dream of the poor!” But, frankly if we gain traction among the lower classes, and if they in turn, by sheer weight of numbers, force those who are better off to engage the ideas, is it really such a big deal what the better off think of us? Imagine millions of poor getting on their high horse, mocking and judging those who are successful, but who refuse to condemn the state. To me, that is a beautiful vision. Yes, the well off may dislike us and our movement, but at some point they won’t be able to stop us.
Another potential disadvantage to the bottom up approach could be the lack of personal discipline and circumspection that tends to be more prevalent in the lower classes. People with nothing to lose might become highly radicalized by our ideas, and misapply them, whereas a person of more position in the world, would be more likely to temper their enthusiasm. But again, would it really be that bad to have a bunch of poor radicals for liberty out there raising hell? As long as they are not violent and aggressive towards others, which they would probably not be because non-aggression would be the core of their belief, then they would be harmless at worst, and maybe even a overall benefit for the movement.
However, there is one major disadvantage to the bottom up approach to which I don’t have a good counterargument. That is that if the bottom up approach becomes our movement’s primary approach, if we find resonance with the lower classes, and we are unable to do so with most of the rest of the population, then we could be setting ourselves up for conflict. In such a scenario, as our movement grows, and exerts pressure on the state, those with position and power will probably try to fight back. And since they cannot beat our arguments through reason, they very well may resort to force of arms. So, such a bottom up approach while it seems to me to be the most promising path to a free society, is also potentially the most disruptive.
Top-down
A much smoother transition to a free society could, in theory, be effected by the successful execution of the completely opposite strategy, one that focuses our energy on converting the wealthy. This is an approach that also deserves our serious consideration. It also has its own advantages and disadvantages. The wealthy command resources which would be a huge benefit if we can convert them, and convince them to contribute to the movement. Look at the amount of money given to promote our ideas by the Koch brothers. Sure, we can be critical about some of their programs and favored policies, but on balance they have had an enormous positive impact for our ideas. Money matters. The more money we have in our movement the better. The advantage of appealing to the wealthy is that changing people’s minds is laborious and tedious work. Focusing on the wealthy could give us more bang for our buck.
In addition to the resources they could contribute to our movement, the wealthy are also generally very intelligent and well educated. This would make it easier for us to sell our ideas to them. Because, although our ethics are easy to understand, our vision of how the world would look and work if those ethics were ever consistently applied is not. To believe that a free society is possible, requires an imaginative leap, a leap that is much easier for a person who possesses knowledge of history. Historical knowledge opens a person’s mind to the fact that society and the ways humans interact can change dramatically over time. A person without historical knowledge looks around and assumes everything has been and always will be the same. They don’t understand our moment in time’s place in the long sweep of history. They take “what is” as a given. But a person who understands how differently humans have lived in the past, has a greater ability to consider how differently we could live in the future. Therefore the wealthy, because they tend to be more educated about history, probably have a greater capacity to conceptualize our “outside the box” ideas about how the future could be different.
In addition, the wealthy, because they are wealthy, are freer to think dispassionately about the larger problems of the world, and in some cases they possess a sense of stewardship. Many of them sincerely want to contribute to a more peaceful and prosperous future. This noble impulse, when combined with statist ideas can and does lead many of them to pursue very dangerous visions for the future, including the horrific dream of instituting a world government which many wealthy have adopted because they think it would permanently end war. However, if we can get our ideas in front of them, we might be able to co-opt that same impulse, and convince them to work towards our vision of the future. And there is reason to believe that our ideas might resonate with them. Many wealthy are far more astute to the non-intuitive problems created by state intervention, then are most people. Since they generally have business interests, they are more likely to have been exposed to the lunacy of the state at a higher level than other people. Therefore, we may find hooks in their minds, on which to attach our ideas. We could say for example: “Remember when politics forced the state to block that project, that pipeline, that housing development etc? In a free society, one governed exclusively by private property, they would not have been able to do so.” In such a way we can show the rich how the practical implementation of our ideas would manifest in a better outcome for particular frustrations they have experienced.
But there are disadvantageous to the top down approach as well. One would be the challenge of gaining access to the wealthy. It will be very difficult. Why would they talk to us? And even if we do figure out how to gain access to them, we still face the difficult challenge of converting them. This is the same challenge we have with normal people, who are rarely willing to sincerely reconsider their political philosophy. In fact, this normal resistance might even be greater among the wealthy. They, like most adults, are already invested in a particular political philosophy, but because of their station in life it is probably true that a greater percentage of them have a personal history of supporting certain candidates or state programs. They are often public figures who have gone on record with what they believe. And as we all know, once a person has taken a public position, it becomes far more difficult to get him to change his mind. The rich, in short, more than the general population “know their own minds.” When they talk, they expect people to listen, not vice versa.
So converting a substantial number of the wealthy would be very difficult. But let us assume that we figure out a solution to that problem. Let’s assume we devise a successful conversion strategy, and we begin gaining traction among the rich. Assume that, as a result, our movement begins to gain political power. We begin applying pressure and having an effect on the state. And the state begins to shrink. The top down strategy appears to be working. It appears that we are effecting a sort of “bloodless coup”. The wealthy and powerful, increasingly united around our ideas, begin dismantling the state slowly, gradually, deliberately, and carefully, and humankind begins to move in the direction of more freedom. Such a scenario would be ideal. Because unlike the bottom up strategy, it would not necessitate great disruption or social upheaval. Things would change gradually, giving people time to adjust.
However, even under this very speculative and optimistic scenario, the top down path to a free society would still face problems. As we begin to succeed, and state programs are ended, or reduced, things will happen that will be correctly blamed on the shrinking of the state. For example, imagine our wealthy allies begin putting pressure on the politicians. They apply so much pressure that the politicians start bringing the American military home from their overseas bases. But then, because the military is no longer applying its own pressure on peoples who have developed an animus against America, there is a consequent uptick in terrorist attacks. Or imagine the wealthy pressure the politicians enough that they deregulate airline travel and there is a consequent uptick in air crashes or flight safety issues. Now, of course, we would know that over the long run such problems will work themselves out. And we would certainly make that case. We would argue: “Yes, terrorism and/or airline crashes have increased, but this is a temporary phenomenon. If we stay the course, the competitive play of the market will eventually solve these problems better than the state ever did.” Such an argument would be correct. However, from an optics perspective our movement will suffer from these disruptions. Our assurances will be, at best, a rearguard action and will count little for the majority of people who we have not yet converted to our vision for the future. Caring little for our explanations, they will demand the restoration of the programs whose absence “caused” the problems. In addition, such visible “failures” of the free market, temporary though we know them to be, will shake the confidence of those rich who were previously “on the fence”. They may decide to withdraw their support. Meanwhile the vested interests who have been hurt by deregulation and the reduction in the state, will be emboldened by these developments. They will certainly try to capitalize on them and demand a restoration of big government. Their demands will be hard for the politicians to resist. So even though the top down strategy would be the most seamless transition to a free society, implementing it will still create hiccups, which will threaten its success.
But let’s go further in our thought experiment. Let’s assume our wealthy allies attempt to solve the problem of hiccups that I described immediately above. Assume they say the following to themselves: “Look, we know that ultimately a free society will be best. We cannot let the frightened or illogical masses torpedo our progress. Democracy is the problem. Until we can remove the foolish people from the political process they will continue to destroy our gains.” And so the rich decide to take over the state, and put an end to democracy. They decide to “force” for lack of a better word, freedom on the people. But attempting such a thing would be problematic as well. It would require a military dictatorship or at least a strong oligopoly willing to apply repressive measures against the inevitable backlash by people who believe in democracy. Such repressive measures would be problematic to our principles even if the plan were to succeed. In addition, maintaining a dictatorship is very difficult and would also be dangerous to our ideas. Because once the rich have total political power, how can we be sure that they will use it properly? How can we be sure that they will not just be using our ideas, as a justification to take what they want, which is the control of the state? Or, even if their motives are initially pure, how can we be sure they will not start fighting amongst themselves and ultimately give up on implementing our reforms, leaving us with just another garden variety military dictatorship? Also, like in any dictatorship, the leadership’s maintenance of power would require the disbursement of tax revenues and political concessions to pay off different interest groups. With a reduced state, and progressively less taxes, our wealthy allies would have less and less to give away. Now one could argue that maybe the rich could buy off detractors, by offering them state property. “Go along with us, and you in turn will become rich.” However, I am not sure that giving away state property will be enough to create and sustain a consensus. So my overall verdict of the top down strategy is that it is overly optimistic. It would be great if we could figure out a way to pull it off, because it would be so less messy, but there are problems to be worked through before that could happen.
Middle out
The third strategy I want to profile, as you might have guessed, is one where we would focus our efforts on converting the middle class. Recently on the Tom Woods show, Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute suggested that he would like to see libertarianism become an acceptable political philosophy for the bourgeoisie. This indicates to me that he is guiding the Mises Institute along a type of middle out strategy. It was interesting to hear him say that, however, because in the same conversation, he argued that libertarians should foster a sense of radicalism and intransigent adherence to principle. But can the bourgeoisie also be radicals for liberty? Or are the two positions contradictory? It makes sense that we would want the benefits of both. Surely, if we can get regular people, businessmen, people engaged in the business of life to become radicalized by our ideas, that would be very impactful. But if we do begin to radicalize them, can we expect them to stay radical and then not also radically change their lives and leave the ranks of the bourgeoisie? Can we realistically expect them to remain “regular people”? Or, do the ideas of liberty inherently change the way a person views his role in society? Do our ideas necessarily convey a call to action that will lead converts to be drawn into “libertarian/anarchist ghettoes,” as Deist describes the phenomenon? Exploring this dynamic is critical to elaborating a middle out strategy.
Let’s think about the middle class and what advantages and disadvantages targeting them would bring to our movement. The middle class is not just a group of people somewhere in the middle between rich and poor. They have their own distinct character, challenges, and aspirations. Like the wealthy, many people in the middle class are well educated. They have a sense of history. Therefore, our vision of the future might be comprehensible to them. Also, like the wealthy, many of them feel a sense of stewardship. They care about the future, if for no other reason, than because they want the best for their children. So we could appeal to that concern. The middle class also shares certain favorable (to our movement) characteristics with the poor. Like the poor, they experience failure and lack of recognition. So, they may be more receptive to an ideology, like ours, that calls for a radical transformation of society. It could give their lives a meaning and purpose for which they might otherwise search in vain. Also as with the poor, our ideas can give them words with which to articulate their sense of injustice about the world.
Those are characteristics they share with other classes. But what is unique about the middle class? Frankly, what I think sets them apart from the poor and the rich, is the severe restraints they feel on their time, energy, and resources. They impose these restraints upon themselves because they have ambitions and goals that they are trying to achieve. More than the rich, who have surplus resources, or the poor, who lack hope and ambition, middle class people feel harnessed to their hopes for the future. They believe they can achieve some of their goals, but they know that each has a price, and they struggle to prioritize and balance the cost and benefits of competing claims. Because they feel such self-imposed pressure, they become supremely practical. Their most tangible and present priorities necessarily take precedence over those ambitions that are more distant and aspirational. This condition makes them highly critical and for lack of a better word, calculating. Projects or goals that promise to consume a lot of their time and energy but which do not promise a clear, and tangible payout, are generally de-prioritized.
This, to me, seems to be the biggest disadvantage in focusing on the middle class as a means of changing the world. To put it bluntly: they are too busy. A middle class person when learning about our project to bring about a free society quickly intuits that such a project will require some commitment. He will realize that if he chooses to commit his limited time and resources to our cause it will yield him no tangible payout. It will not help him advance toward his personal goals, nor will it give him a clear objective “goal” to achieve. If the end goal of our movement is the achievement of a free society, what does a sympathetic person, who is not willing to throw himself completely into the fight aim for? What practical and tangible steps can he take? Without having such guidance, he will begin to think about anarchism, as an interesting philosophical idea, but not practical.
This is particularly true, because it is a time consuming personal project to become conversant enough in our philosophy to confidently promote and spread our ideas and defend them against the challenges that being an anarchist inevitably invites. To become so conversant, a person must learn our terminology, become informed on the historical forces at play in our world, educate himself about economics and money and banking, and learn the theory of how a free society might function, among other things. In other words, it takes a lot of time to become an expert. When confronted with this challenge, I think many middle class people will choose to walk away. Many may be attracted to our ideas initially but at some point will ask themselves: “How far down this rabbit hole can I afford to go?”
They will wish there was some sort of “anarchist light” program that they could adopt, one that would give clear goals, but would not consume too much time. They will think “If only there was some program that I could spend a few hours a week on, and/or contribute a reasonable but not excessive amount of money to, I would gladly do that, but I don’t have time or money to become an expert. Barring such an “anarchist light” program, many will probably throw up their hands and simply think “I don’t have time to waste on this.”
If those of us in the liberty movement choose to pursue the middle out strategy, how will we solve this problem? What guidance could we give a middle class person who wants to be in our movement, but cannot afford to be overwhelmed by it? How do we convince the person to divide his loyalties? We want him to continue to pursue his ambitions in his profession, to maintain a happy contented family and social life, and continue to develop personally. We want him to continue to do those things, but also to read, be engaged, support the movement financially, and stay interested in the ideas. We don’t want to scare him off, but also don’t want him to abandon his normal life. How do we reconcile the two?
In my opinion, what the middle out strategy needs, which would help solve this problem, is a formal position in society for the “liberty laity.” Liberty advocates should develop clear guidance and expectations for those who want to be members in “good standing” of the liberty community. The guidance would tell them what they should read, how they should think, and how they should act to be consistent with the principles of liberty. It would give them action steps. It would give them a clear and discrete “to do” list that would keep them engaged, but not overwhelm them. It would enumerate manageable and clear goals and objectives to work towards. And, as they pass certain “stage gates” we would recognized their achievement, formally.
However, creating a “liberty laity” would first necessitate the creation of another new formal position in society: the “liberty clergy”. For this strategy to work, the liberty clergy would need recognition from the liberty laity that they, the clergy, are the experts. They would need a certain degree of deference. Gaining this will be a challenge. How do we get people to defer to those of us who are better read and more well versed in the philosophy of liberty? If only people would internalize Hayek’s knowledge problem, and recognize that there is much that they don’t know, and that like in any discipline, there must be a division of labor. Not everyone can be an expert. This is, perhaps, the biggest advantage of the bottom up approach, because the poor, by disposition, are far more willing to concede that someone else knows better than them.
But for the middle out strategy to work, somehow we will have to convince the liberty laity that the liberty movement will not advance until the majority of people who are passionate about liberty are willing to support a small number of experts who they will fund, support, and who in turn will be responsible to them. What we need, in short, is to create a priesthood, an organization structured like a church. One committed to promoting the ideas of liberty. It is not a coincidence that Jeff Deist, in that same interview, said that ideally libertarianism would become as innocuous as person’s religious denomination. Maybe the answer is to actually create a religion.
Conclusion:
I hope this essay will at least prompt people to consider different paths forward. I hope people will begin poking holes in it and challenging my assertions and conclusions. Because, I am convinced that before our movement can go to the next step, we must do much more hard thinking about strategy. Whenever I ask people on my podcast about their thoughts regarding the future of liberty, they generally give vague, non-specific answers. They don’t have a clear conception of how to go about reducing and ultimately eliminating the state. It is true, of course, that too much central planning is counterproductive. We are fighting a guerrilla war. And a guerrilla war requires informed and engaged soldiers willing to improvise and adapt to local conditions. Nevertheless, not having some form of unified strategy discourages people from applying themselves to this fight. Why apply yourself to something for which you have no plan for success? Mises’ action axiom says as much. People will only act if they have some belief that their actions will improve their conditions. Developing a convincing strategy for the liberty movement, is itself an act, which we must take, because doing so will improve our own condition, by reducing the reluctance some people have to stay committed to our ideas, due to the absence of such a strategic plan.
– To hear this essay read aloud, please click here, or subscribe to the podcast. –
— If you have enjoyed this content, and would like more, consider donating to Anarchiststandard.com —
Source