Making the unthinkable, more popular: A libertarian goal

"Should libertarians become involved in politics?" Not a tough question for me, having run in two elections, and about to start yet another campaign. But that was the question posed in a debate at this year's Liberty Summer Seminar in Orono Ontario.

The debaters were Leon Drolet a former Michigan State legislator, arguing for the affirmative, and Anton Howes (negative) on the board of European Students for Liberty in the UK.
Despite my bias, I found it a fascinating debate and discussion, and a learning experience. Both debaters were excellent, though I, and a majority of the audience thought that Mr. Drolet carried the day. Of course I didn't need convincing, but I was exposed to a new (for me) concept in Mr. Drolet's rebuttal.
Mr. Drolet was careful to acknowledge that his opponent's position was as important as his own, namely the apolitical philosophical advocates (like the Institute for Liberal Studies and other think tanks and thinkers) were as important as the political ones. Both are required to eventually sway public opinion and make policy change in government.

In the rebuttal Mr. Drolet referred to the Overton Window, a model of policy change that describes the range of acceptable options that politicians can support and still win re-election.
In any politically related discussion there are always a range of alternatives as is indicated in the diagram above. New ideas may be so "out there on the fringe" that they are considered by most people as being unthinkable. Others are either already policy, or possible policy. Mr. Drolet suggested that it is up to the philosopher thinker or the think tank to present an idea. It is the politician's job is to sell it, so that it eventually becomes more acceptable and mainstream. In any political enterprise such as an election campaign, the “window” (named the Overton Window) includes the range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion. Any politician may recommend anything within the Overton Window without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office. Overton's idea was arranged in a spectrum on a vertical axis of “more free” and “less free” with regard to government intervention. The window moves or expands as ideas become more or less politically acceptable.
So within the context of the American campaign for the 2012 Republican nomination, Ron Paul's ideas, by and large, are considered unthinkable or too radical to make him a viable candidate. That is how the mainstream media are portraying him. But events may change the public perception of Ron Paul, and some or all of his ideas may become more acceptable or sensible to the general public. That's why he is running.
That is true about Canadian libertarians as well. The election campaign in Ontario, now underway, will give us an opportunity to advocate unthinkable or radical ideas to the electorate. The goal is to move the Overton Window toward acceptability and eventually get someone elected. Can this happen? Of course it can.
Unthinkable ideas 50 years ago, are now completely accepted. There is a black President in the US. Marriage between homosexuals is legal in Canada and many American jurisdictions. Marijuana today, seems "less dangerous" and is likely to be decriminalized somewhere in North America in the not-too-distant future. Today there is no law in Canada dealing with abortion. All of those ideas were once unthinkable, but with patience, and persistence, they are within the realm of policy and practice. There is hope.

Libertarian island : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

Straight from the Liberty Summer Seminar: Peter Jaworski on Ezra Levant. Click below to see video.

Libertarian island : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

The British Non-Working class riots

Theodore Dalrymple best expressed what is and has been happening in Great Britain lately.

"The riots are the apotheosis of the welfare state and popular culture in their British form. A population thinks (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class) that it is entitled to a high standard of consumption, irrespective of its personal efforts; and therefore it regards the fact that it does not receive that high standard, by comparison with the rest of society, as a sign of injustice. It believes itself deprived (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class), even though each member of it has received an education costing $80,000, toward which neither he nor—quite likely—any member of his family has made much of a contribution; indeed, he may well have lived his entire life at others’ expense, such that every mouthful of food he has ever eaten, every shirt he has ever worn, every television he has ever watched, has been provided by others. Even if he were to recognize this, he would not be grateful, for dependency does not promote gratitude. On the contrary, he would simply feel that the subventions were not sufficient to allow him to live as he would have liked."

It's difficult to be more incisive than that, so I won't try, and the entire article linked above is worth the read.

After the 2008-2009 financial turmoil, I recall reading financial commentators who predicted that a crisis of the sort that happened, not a typical boom and bust recession, but one where a fundamental de-leveraging was occurring, a bank and debt crisis, was the type of crisis that would lead to violence, and war. Of course a vague prediction of that sort, probably can be made anytime with some accuracy. But when I read it, it felt ominous almost Orwellian. 

Where will the next war begin or will the ones we have already grow, and become more widespread? Is the violence internal and specific to certain countries? What kind of violence? The advisors I read, pointed to violence related to the economy. Again, is there any other kind? Just about any kind of violence that does not have a sociopathic cause, is caused by economics, any war, any criminal violence, just about everything has an economic root.

The British violence has an economic root too, but its economics according to what Dalrymple suggested above, and what Stefan Molyneux has researched below. 

    

Liberty Summer Seminar - Huddle in the Hinterland

LSS 2011 under the tent

Last weekend I had the privilege of learning about liberty in the country side of Southern Ontario. Just under 100 people, Canadians, Americans, even a few Europeans, all with a deep appreciation of liberty, gathered in the woods near Orono. It was the Eleventh Annual Liberty Summer Seminar (LSS) sponsored by the Institute for Liberal Studies.

This years edition of the LSS was in jeopardy at one point. Some local politicians were determined to close it down because of arcane bylaw regulations. Thanks to widespread support, legal help from the CCF, and a municipal election that ultimately turfed out most of the offending politicians, the 2011 LSS went ahead.

From a personal point of view it's always reassuring to be in the company of other libertarians, sure there are still arguments, but they seem much more productive and satisfying.

In many ways this seminar is like an annual renewal for those attending. Friendships are renewed, ideas are exchanged, passion and determination are refreshed, and the annual downpour has a cleansing effect. It did pour, but not for long.

My plan is, to post several times over the course of the next week or so, highlighting some of the speakers and stories that were observed during the 2011 LSS, and the first one will be about a debate - "Should libertarians become involved in politics?"