activism

My fellow TLS blogger Norman Horn’s recent speech, What you can do to promote liberty, called to mind some things I’ve blogged about before. In Nock and Leonard Read on “One Improved Unit” and the Power of Attraction, blogged previously here, I discussed the idea advocated by Albert Jay Nock and Leonard Read, that your primary task is to improve yourself–to strive for excellence in yourself. Then you become a bright light that attracts people; they see you are good, and successful, and worth emlating or listening to–so you win people over by the power of attraction. They come to you, and then you have more success spreading the ideas of liberty than if you go around being a boor. More detail, including excerpts from Nock and Read, are in that post.

The other post, previousyl blogged elsewhere, is reproduced in full here:

 Career Advice by North

Gary North delivered a wonderful lecture last month during Mises University 2009 (the same day I gave my own speech), “Calling and Career as an Austrian School Scholar” (a shorter version of this was in the LRC podcast 127. Gary North: Making a Difference, Making a Living, which is also excellent).  North talks calling and occupation. Calling is “the most important thing you can do with your life in which you are most difficult to replace.” Occupation is “how you put food on the table.” Occasionally they are the same, but often not; but there is no reason not to arrange your life so as to have both. He talks about how to combine them or at least have both in your life, and centers his talk around some examples, notably Burt Blumert and William Volker.

Also see Paul Graham’s “What You’ll Wish You’d Known (“I wrote this talk for a high school. I never actually gave it, because the school authorities vetoed the plan to invite me.”)

Print This Post
Share

{ 0 comments }

I’ve always liked the idea–which I’ve heard from Albert Jay Nock and Leonard Read–that your primary task is to improve yourself–to strive for excellence in yourself. Then you become a bright light that attracts people; they see you are good, and successful, and worth emlating or listening to–so you win people over by the power of attraction. They come to you, and then you have more success spreading the ideas of liberty than if you go around being a boor. See the following excerpts from Nock and Read:

From A stroll with Albert Jay Nock by Robert M. Thornton:

Albert Jay Nock was not a reformer and found offensive any society with a “monstrous itch for changing people.” He had “a great horror of every attempt to change anybody; or I should rather say, every wish to change anybody; for that is the important thing.” Whenever one “wishes to change anybody, one becomes like the socialists, vegetarians, prohibitionists; and this, as Rabelais says, ‘is a terrible thing to think upon.’” The only thing we can do to improve society, he declared, “is to present society with one improved unit.” Let each person direct his efforts at himself or herself, not others; or as Voltaire put it, “Il faut cultiver notre jardin.”

From Frederick A. Manchester, Apropos of the Presidency:

The Remnant that Saves

It would appear, then, that if we want to have leaders of high quality, Presidents among them, we, the American people, shall have to increase our understand­ing in politics and related fields. It is fortunately not necessary that all of us should become thus edu­cated, but only a sizable minority—the remnant that saves. But how are we to build up this sizable minority?

Begin, says Mr. Read in the document I quoted at the begin­ning of these remarks, by genu­inely enlightening ourselves, as in­dividuals—morally as well as so­cially, economically, and politi­cally. Thereafter, if I understand him correctly, he would have us trust mainly to the power of ex­ample. “The power of attraction—of attracting others follows all self-improvement,” he says, “as faithfully as does one’s shadow.” In thus asserting this power he undoubtedly has behind him tradi­tional wisdom. “Example,” says Burke, comprehensively, “is the school of mankind; it will learn at no other.”

The Manchester article, from a 1959 issue of The Freeman,  is apparently quoting “Wake Up—It’s Tomorrow” by Leonard E. Read, Notes from FEE, January 1959, which I cannot find; similar thoughts appear to be in Read’s How To Advance Liberty: A Learning, Not a Selling, Problem, which is available in text here and in audio and video here (and below):

[Keep reading…]

Print This Post
Share

{ 6 comments }

[I just posted this on LewRockwell.com]

Lew, I agree completely with you (and Rozeff). As detailed in posts by S.M. Oliva and Glenn Greenwald, it seems clear Amazon is just a victim of the state, and as a libertarian I make it a policy never to blame the victim. And who can blame them for capitulating any more than taxpayers are to be blamed for coughing up the dough? Amazon is  skating on thin ice as it is in heroically helping people avoid sales tax. Of course it’s rational to fear the state. Thus I disagree with condemnations of Amazon by libertarians and Antiwar.com’s call for a boycott of Amazon.

Further, Amazon’s managers have an obligation to the shareholders; they have no right to risk or waste shareholder money for political grandstanding. It’s not their money they would be risking. I also think that in addition to the anti-war libertarian activists who are up in arms about Amazon’s pursuit of profits instead of activism, a number of left-libertarians are using this as an excuse to pile on Amazon because it’s big, a corporation, and profitable.

And I, like you, have always disliked boycotts. That said, libertarians can disagree on this tactical issue; and I of course regard antiwar.com as heroic. Thus, to bolster my dislike of boycotting, and even though I disagree with antiwar.com’s stance on Amazon and their intentional rejection of Amazon revenues, I’ve  just donated $100 to Antiwar.com (and $200 to LRC).

Update: PayPal has also refused to deal with Wikileaks.

Clarification: In some of my online writings about the Amazon boycott, I’ve apparently given an impression to some that I do not wish to give. Some of my comments have been construed as more than just friendly disagreement. Let me be crystal clear: I am a strong supporter of antiwar.com. They are one of the most heroic libertarian institutions on the planet, and I greatly respect, admire and appreciate everyone who works for and supports it.  I love what they do and remain a strong supporter.

Print This Post
Share

{ 15 comments }

Activism for the long run, literally

by Juan Fernando Carpio November 23, 2010

Our fellow blogger and friend Vijay Boyapati is running 26 miles for the cause of Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. He will match up to $13,000 from the donors (you can donate 5, 10 or 15 dollars an up and he will match your donation) for a total of $26,000 to be donated to the Ludwig [...]

Read the full article →

Do More Guns Lead to Less Crime?

by Norman Horn October 6, 2010

Last week, an AK-47-wielding student caused a major scare on the UT-Austin campus. He ultimately killed himself in the library. Fortunately, no one else was hurt. That same day, the Libertarian Longhorns and UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus were scheduled to host John Lott, famed author of More Guns, Less Crime, to speak [...]

Read the full article →

Regarding Libertarian Strategy: A Reply to Ross Kenyon

by Akiva August 31, 2010

Although I find Kenyon’s analysis of the radical socialists interesting, ultimately I disagree with his categorization of libertarianism’s 3 options: Libertarians can allow themselves to be absorbed into the Republican Party and work to expand the Liberty caucus. Libertarians can abandon the Republican Party to work exclusively through the Libertarian Party. Libertarians can jettison electoral politics altogether and refuse to [...]

Read the full article →

Is Libertarian Legal Activism Worthwhile?

by Jacob Huebert July 12, 2010

These quotes from 1976 and 2010 (via “Snowflakes in Hell“) suggest an answer: Then: “Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold [...]

Read the full article →