The Global Liberty Community
Logic and Rationality: Why Libertarians Lose
One of the major barriers to libertarianism is that we have logic and rationality on our side. This is not how debates are won.
Our minds evolved to survive and pass on our genes to another generation, not to be Spock-like rational beings. Any rationality that comes out of our brains is purely accidental.
Bob Dylan, not logical
Contrary to what economics has taught, people don’t make decisions based on analyzing cost and benefit. Our decisions are driven more by our emotions than logical thinking. Nothing in Madison Avenue’s product marketing is based logic. A product sells based on its colors, the emotions it evokes, the prestige the buyer thinks it will bring to him, and various logical fallacies. This is why Bob Dylan’s emotional appeal influenced far more people than any logical Cato policy paper.
For far too long libertarians have promoted their cause with logical arguments and other losing strategies. We even have a magazine called “Reason.” Recall the 1960s. The liberal left became ascendant. Did they win by publishing policy papers and long detailed arguments of why their side was in accordance with reason and truth? No. They won through music, art, film, photography, poetry, and other spectacular non-rational and emotional appeals. Martin Luther King’s powerful poetry (not speeches but truly poems), the song “Imagine,” Woodstock, Bob Dylan, horrific photographs from the Vietnam War, etc.: it’s impossible to find a single 1960s influencer that succeeded for reasons other than emotional appeal. And it worked! “Reason” had nothing to do with it!
John Stewart, comedian
And it’s not just the 1960s. In more recent times, the satire of John Stewart and The Colbert Report have arguably been far more influential than real news programs. We must make liberty fun and emotionally appealing while mercilessly mocking the state for all its ridiculousness.
Here are some examples of libertarian culture-building that we need more of.
Emergent Order
In the realm of video we have John Papola and the other talented folks at Emergent Order. Their hilarious video on the Kronies action figures make a much more compelling case against crony capitalism than any long winded study from the Cato Institute.
Reason TV
Reason TV mostly produces interviews and news-like analysis. But every so often, despite their name, they produce a great video that uses humor rather than reasoned logic to make the case for liberty. These videos would be worthy of the Onion if not for the fact they were completely true. I encourage the talented folks at Reason to focus more videos on humor and satire. Here is a recent example of their fine work.
Backwords
The new band Backwordz brings an-cap libertarianism to the rap-rock scene. Eric July’s intense vocals and the powerful metal of the band behind him provide a pro-liberty catharsis. Talent on par with the big names. They should be on your local rock radio station! Find them on Facebook and YouTube.
Jordan Page
Jordan Page is a guitarist & singer. His songs include themes of peace and resistance to government. His acoustic guitar allows his lyrical message to come to the fore. And while a solo acoustic guitar might not have the power of a hard driving metal band, his lyrics pack more emotional power than any double-pedal-pounding death metal drummer.
Acadêmicos de Milton Friedman
Raised in Brazil and trained in Boston at the renowned Berklee College of Music, Acadêmicos de Milton Friedman is the first libertarian samba band. Their YouTube single “Good Intentions” provides a happy and bouncy song on the economics of wealth and poverty.
Memes & Parodies
Last but not least, there are the countless anonymous people producing Internet memes and other parodies of statists. In the age of the Internet, this, too, is a valuable form of activism. Be sure to check out the Facebook page for Everytown for Knife Safety, a parody of the gun control group of the same name. Also Robots for a $15 Minimum Wage, a Facebook page advocating on behalf of the robots who will replace human workers when the minimum wage is raised.
Here are a few more for your enjoyment.
Conclusion
Culture trumps politics. Change the culture and you will change the politics. This is why I wrote about the need to influence the youth, for it is the youth who shape a culture. Rather than donating to a political campaign, instead support culture-shaping libertarian advocacy.
If you are an artist or involved in an industry that produces or promotes music then help liberty music go mainstream. If you have a radio show or podcast then use artists like these for your bumper music and feature interviews. Buy these artists’ music. Hire them to provide entertainment at you liberty events or even your wedding reception. Get them on your Pandora play list. Call your local radio station to get them on the air, especially independent college radio.
We need less logic and rationality and fewer long winded policy papers. We need more music, more art, and more humor. We must forget about politics and instead break through popular culture to shape the culture. That is the path to victory.
Join The Discussion
13 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Kym Robinson September 3, 2016 , 6:52 pm
I agree.
The thing that often irks me about not merely libertarians but all ‘well educated’ economic or sociological advocates of most ideologies is that they seek to use models and graphs as their trump card. That in some how expressing a grand unifying theory or composing an unnatural set of examples using statistics and flawed data points that this will either talk over the average person or mystify them so much that they will simply agree and throw support their way. Hidden beneath these graphs and statistics, life, data points lost because it is IMPOSSIBLE to accumulate all of the real data. Yet some how, even in knowing this, these models and graphs of so many omissions are held up as exemplifirers of absolute truth in order to win an argument or to prove a point.
Freedom is right because it is about freedom. It does not need statistics and models. It simply needs principled actors to live it. And those people exist and suffer, they fill prison cells in nations many here do not even care for. They trudge daily for basic essentials with a single minded pursuit of survival and often many shirk authority with bribes, lies, deceits and clever antics that do not support the regimes or power bases but derides them in subtler ways.
liberty.me is full of people that seek abstract arguments or assume logical supremacy and yet often it neither helps any cause nor proves anything other than the satisfaction for the chatterers to profess their intelligence.
I have managed a family business, been an employee and spent hundreds of hours laboring in literally back breaking work where I have listened to both libertarian and socialist academics discuss business or labour and usually both of them simply do not understand or appreciate what it is that they supposedly support and adore. Usually their is a fascination that is ungrounded as though the academic chalk dust of tenure some how transcends them above those who have calloused hands and greasy sweat. Or that glass covered wall paper allows one to understand something which is every where better than those who are actually doing it, immersed among it. That those of us with such physical scars from our toils that we need these intelligent voices to speak for us and to explain to us in abstracts and praxeological studies so as to exemplify to billions what it is that they do and often otherwise know.
Despite the many books, long winded lectures and self important articles written by all sides those human beings that they seek to either control or ‘free’ go on living, making money, building things and generating wealth however minuscule despite the clever sounding words of the experts.
To me and many others I know it is in some ways insulting and extremely out of touch. I think that if the liberty movement truly wants to succeed then. Do it, be free, live it. Stop using degrees and intellectual pretensions to yell over the other guys. Ignore the academics and elites of the other side, let them have their universities and party politics. Get among the grass and weeds and have real conversations (dont lecture) with every day people and often you will find that many are more anti government than most on here in actual practice and action.
And by all means sing and tell jokes. For sarcasm and wit stabbed deeper into the heart of the Soviet bear from within than any American rhetorical threats.
That is my take on it all. Good piece.
Richard Masta September 3, 2016 , 7:14 pm Vote1
It’s pretty easy to align logic and emotion together. Nathaniel Branden’s “six pillars of self-esteem” is a perfect example. I don’t see why it has to be either/or. I think both are required to actually come close to understanding freedom — personal and political.
And for the record, I think “selling” liberty to people is shady. Just live liberty — I like what @vagabond said above. People will be attracted to that and ask questions — and teach themselves, which is emotional AND logical. And I don’t have to hand them a pamphlet or show them a dumb meme, both of which are often instantly forgettable.
David Libertas September 3, 2016 , 7:40 pm Vote0
@richardmasta There is most certainly a place for logic. If there’s one lesson you take from Ayn Rand it should be that reality exists. You must have ideas that are grounded in reality, and that’s where logic comes in. But when it comes for *selling* your reality-based ideas to the public, logical dissertations are the last thing you want!
Living liberty is also certainly a worthy endeavor and, other than this new blog, is how I approach liberty. Sometimes living it even sells it, as Henry David Thoreau proved. But my article here is meant for people who do want to actively spread the message of liberty. To those good folk I say less policy papers and more songs!
Richard Masta September 3, 2016 , 7:59 pm Vote1
Sure, I can agree with those comments. I’ll add that there are plenty of dweebs out there who love graphs and charts and want to wipe their butts with cato institute papers (why not?). I actually have met some liberals who are intrigued by such papers and find themselves leaning freedom on various issues. maybe not all, but logic can save lives too. 😉 that’s why they call it a marketplace of ideas!
David Libertas September 3, 2016 , 8:15 pm Vote0
@vagabond Thanks for the kind words! I enjoyed reading your perspective. Your example about the Soviet bear is very true, and I think it applies to many other social change movements throughout the world.
Kym Robinson September 3, 2016 , 8:21 pm Vote0
Anytime good sir.
dL 1337 September 4, 2016 , 5:13 am Vote0
The libertarian critique of the state is more or less correct. But libertarians are no more moral,wise, intelligent, rational etc than anyone else. Btw, I would say the same thing about atheism vis a vis organized religion.
Libertarianism loses at politics because politics is a rent-seeking game, rewards moral crusading and has no recourse for fraud. It is not because people aren’t rational. Indeed, is more or less rational to try to use the state as means to moral ends. “Rational” here does not mean homo-economicus or a spock-like species utilitarian calculator or even “reasons,” it simply refers to instrumental rationality in terms of the means to moral ends. Whether it be: the state should guarantee equalized outcomes or the state should merely enforce property rights, everyone thinks they can use the state for their own preferred ends.
The libertarian critique, however, is: the state is that great fiction whereby everyone thinks they use it for their own ends(Bastiat). And: in the end, the only moral end really achieved is the permanency of the security apparatus that acts as its own self-preservation agency(de Jasay).
If you equate rational with convincing everyone else to have the same moral ends as you, particularly with respect to the state as means to those ends, well you are doomed to failure. As doomed, as the marxists, the socialists, the progressives, the conservatives, etc.
That being said, while libertarianism necessarily fails in politics, it generally wins at culture. Not necessarily the “official culture,” but rather the unofficial one. Art, entertainment, music, movies. The progressive hymnal: “thank god, I wake every morning and drink regulated water,eat regulated food, drive on regulated roads, breathe regulated air…” The proggie hymnal hero would be a dorky joke stooge in literature or the movies and treated with utter contempt. Completely devoid of any evidence of agency. In culture, the regulated proggie archetype is a punch line, not a hero.
David Libertas September 4, 2016 , 5:35 pm Vote0
@dl1337 Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts!
By rationality I mean holding beliefs that comport with reality. Believing the minimum wage reduces poverty is an example of holding a belief that is irrational since the minimum wage does the exact opposite of reducing poverty. Now if you support the minimum because you want to screw the poor and think it’s a good way of doing that then, yes, that would be rational, albeit morally questionable.
Libertarians do tend towards logic and less on emotions, which explains why we have a disproportionate number of computer programmers in our midsts. I believe that has caused us to create outreach and media that primarily appeals to Spock and other Vulcans, but not to a typical human.
I love your Progressive hymnal! “Give us this day our FDA-approved bread. And forgive us our college debts, as we also have forgiven our big bank debtors on Wall Street.” -Matthew 6:11-12.
dL 1337 September 5, 2016 , 12:30 am Vote0
“By rationality I mean holding beliefs that comport with reality. Believing the minimum wage reduces poverty is an example of holding a belief that is irrational since the minimum wage does the exact opposite of reducing poverty.”
Well, it reduces poverty for those who get the pay increase. It’s the poor man’s plunder.
Are you an objectivist? If you are an objectivist, you are probably not going to like my definition of rationality, which leans much more to Hume. That is, rationality as instrumental rationality, a definition more concerned with the examination of means as opposed to reasons or ends. A definition more apropos to sociology or economics than philosophy.
Yujiri September 5, 2016 , 8:53 am
This article is exactly right. I’ve done a fair amount of debating in my life, and honestly I can’t recall EVER convincing anyone of anything meaningful. People are willing to be convinced of things like the probability of picking the same rock/paper/scissors gesture as your opponent three times in a row (although only after a >1 hour debate when I knew the answer right from the start), but when it comes to things with moral implications, people are terrified of admitting – even just to themselves – that they were wrong.
That’s why I write fiction. I think some well-written anarchist allegorical fiction has the capacity to really make waves in this world, at least compared to the strategy of arguing. I encourage some others to join me in this endeavor.
David Libertas September 5, 2016 , 5:29 pm Vote0
@dl1337 I think we agree. Sounds like you mean that rationality is a tool for figuring out how to satisfy your desires, but not what to desire. That seems to be the most probably reason for us to evolve a rational faculty via natural selection. It’s why a rational argument almost never changes what we fundamentally value as Evin (@yujiri) seems to have experienced trying to engage in debate. If I want to persuade people to have a passion for liberty (or anything else) , that is something that happens at an emotional level.
dL 1337 September 5, 2016 , 10:48 pm Vote0
“Sounds like you mean that rationality is a tool for figuring out how to satisfy your desires, but not what to desire. ”
yes
“If I want to persuade people to have a passion for liberty (or anything else) , that is something that happens at an emotional level.”
Sometimes…I think you use reason to demonstrate what could go wrong in the use of state organs to achieve moral ends, a la Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World. I think you can use reason to demolish any argument for statist authority. And the argument would have nothing to do with NAP violations.
Liberty, IMHO, is simply presumed. It is not something that needs to be argued. Any contravention of it bears the burden of demonstration.
Randall Chester Saunders September 7, 2016 , 9:37 am
Hi David,
Just one question. Did you mean the following seriously? I want to make sure it’s not just rhetoric, perhaps hyperbole, or even meant ironically.
“Our minds evolved to survive and pass on our genes to another generation …”
If you do mean it seriously, can say where the idea comes from?
Only very curious.
Randy