Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone in the
libertarian Institute today. I'm joined by read Cooley to
discuss for a new Liberty by Murray and rothbard.
We're going to focus on the end where rothbard discusses a
strategy for Liberty. Mr. Cooley is a policy fellow
with the independent Institute and former vice president of
communications at Young Americans, for Liberty formerly
students of Ron, Paul. Mr. Cooley.
Thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you. You thanks for having me when it
comes to this section. There are five mini sections
within it. Let's start with part.
One is titled education, Theory and movement.
Rothbard asks, how can we achieve Victory, social change
resting as it does on persuasion?
And conviction can be an art rather than an exact science.
He more or less explains education is the persuasion and
Version of large numbers of people to the cause.
What do you think about this as a strategy and what are some of
the ideas you have towards achieving this end?
Well, the adjective Timeless is a word that gets thrown around
to describe a great many things that the quite frankly don't
deserve it. But let's put the entirety of
the book for a new Liberty and to perspective chronologically
here for just a little bit. You know, this was published in
1973, making it you're just under Years old, I would say
that, you know, everything that rothbard describes not just in
this this final part part 3 of the book but also in part 1 and
part 2 as well, I think that it does deserve, you know, to be
described as a somewhat Timeless.
I can tell you that just a matter of several months ago as
I was reading for a new Liberty myself.
I really felt like like rothbard was sort of speaking to me
through time if you know what I mean, like he was speaking to
issues. Shoes.
That are so incredibly relevant today, right?
So like you look at part one where he talks about near the
libertarian Heritage. He gives a really good and
concise breakdown of our philosophical tradition, going
all the way back, you know through Classical liberalism,
right? All the way back to the
levellers during the English Civil War part 2, libertarian
applications to current problems, you know, he's talking
about issues in the year 1973 and obviously there are parts.
Pretty, you know immediately recognizable as obsolete or
something like that, right? Because I mean the world has
changed a good bit since 1973, but the vast majority of even
that content is is is material that that deserves a great deal
of reflection today in the year 2022, but in part 3, a strategy
for Liberty, you just, you know, you get the feeling that
rothbard you really is writing from his soul, right?
And I guess that goes for the entirety of the book, but You're
getting just pure unfettered rothbard throughout the entirety
of the book and then so, you know, like he blows your mind in
part 1 with, you know, just just giving a really beautiful
synopsis of the libertarian Heritage and the philosophical
tradition across time. He then takes it and he applies
it to the real world. And he says, look, here's the
Here's the, the new libertarian approach on this issue.
That issue that issue then part three, he Is it all back
together? What were the nice pretty
rothbard Ian bow? And he says, like, here's how
you actually take that, and you advance it.
Here's how we as he put it, achieve Victory, you know, with
the sort of new libertarianism, you know, here defined and
enshrined throughout this book. So I mean, I really felt like
rothbard was speaking to me, not just me.
Obviously. We just see he was, he was
speaking in a way that it resonated with me as much as
half a A century later I can tell you just as I've worked
with different institutions inside the Liberty Movement.
I have, you know, I have really felt like what rothbart is
describing is exactly the kind of strategy that is really going
to be needed. I mean, you know, he's imparting
a little tiny, little fraction of his wisdom on us to enjoy,
but it seems to me that as profound as this strategy is,
it's never been acted upon. Right, and I think that as the
Liberty Movement goes forward, you know, here in the midst of
covid tyranny and every horrible thing happening in Canada right
now just as a sort of microcosm example, I think that it's a
really exciting prospect to be able to take to be able to take
this strategy for Liberty that rothbard gave us, you know, a
long time ago and apply that to the world that we're that were
operating in today. When you worked at Yale or
currently, as a policy fellow for the liberty for the
independent Institute, what were some of the educational methods
or one-liners? Or elevator pitches that you saw
were really effective with grabbing people's attention.
And at least planting the seed, we're not expecting people to
admit, they were wrong for 30 years, and one conversation and
then say, where do I donate? But as far as, Planting sheets.
Go well with this educational program approach that rothbard
talks about in in a strategy for Liberty what has worked?
Well, a lot of people get to feeling that whenever you take
something as beautiful as an S, something as rich, and as
extensive. And as complex as the rothbard E
and tradition, right? And you you break it down into a
bullet point or a slogan or a tagline.
That you're diluting, it that you're weakening it.
But let's think about that proposition for a, for a second.
Did the phrase taxation is theft weakened, the libertarian
movement or did it strengthen it, did it carry it to
completely and totally new audiences and make it memorable
you to people who had never heard of Murray rothbard or
maybe didn't didn't understand the difference between the word
libertarian and librarian until they saw taxation is theft on
some me. Their Facebook tape page or
their Twitter page, or their Instagram page and started to
get kind of curious. I think that as we are doing
what rothbard prescribes here and educating people, you know,
through our Theory and through our Movement.
We have to understand it. We're never going to shove the
entire cheeseburger down people's mouths, all at once and
that's something we can get to a little bit later with one of the
subsequent subsections of part 3, but leaving the little bread
crumbs that is not to say that you make your messaging less
radical, you do not do that. You never ever weaken the
message, right? But you do take that one part of
that radical message that, that, that's, that's particularly
poignant. That's particularly powerful.
And you, you create a trail of breadcrumbs.
So to speak, leading to that to that eventual.
Cheeseburger at the very end of the trail, right?
I will say that, you know, my capacity at Young Americans for
Liberty. Why?
Is sort of a spearheading the entirety of the company's
marketing efforts, really everything that you see in
Communications and marketing at Yale.
Today is something that I created over over a period of
about three years. I brought in other great people
who could help me act on some of those capabilities and with
marketing, you know, you have to meet people where they're at.
And that does not sound like a very radical rule of thumb but
you would be surprised at the amount of institutional A tional
pushback that you can face, even from other people who claim to
be within our own Camp, right? So I got just to give you some
some real concrete examples of what I mean by that.
So that I'm not speaking in such abstract terms, you know, we
started experimenting when I was a young Americans for Liberty
with with retro wave marketing, right?
We would actually. So we were following marketing
trends that were happening, completely, and totally outside
of World of politics. I'm sure your audience knows a
little bit about Edward Bernays, right?
Pretty much. He's the father of public
relations and everything propaganda today is is
ultimately as a result of many of his theories, right?
Propaganda obviously has a very sort of Nefarious connotation
just because of its history, right?
But I think that we all know exactly what I'm talking about
there. And we don't necessarily have to
explain why Why. But Edward Bernays strongly
recommended that people who were the, people who were trying to
Market specific political ideals actually look to the world
outside of politics because politicians political orange,
political movements in comparison to two major
corporations or Fortune, 500 companies, whatever they may be,
they really pale in comparison whenever it comes to their
ability to actually Market and idea, effectively and
popularize. It propagated, right?
Hence, the term propaganda. So we started studying market
trends outside of the world of politics.
Specifically, what sorts of artistic Trends?
We're becoming very trendy, you know, in in the media that
people were digesting the movies that people were watching the
kinds of social media content that they were engaging in that
they thought was was was you know, just because they thought
that it was intriguing or appealing and you know, we we
understood. Okay.
Well for some reason in the world, it's getting kind of
fashionable to utilize like 80s retro wave sort of synth wave
marketing, right? It was it was, it was just
something that we noticed. So we started using a lot of
that to our advantage, and creating a bit of brand of
differentiation for Young Americans for Liberty.
With the graphics that we were creating everyday memes videos,
even like the marketing for the organization's events, all of
that, great kind of stuff. So, I think that, in terms of
marketing, the ideas, effectively, we have to look at
what at what is working outside of the world of politics because
the overwhelming majority of marketing that is done in this
world. Is not in the world of politics.
And that means that the overwhelming majority of
innovation in the world of marketing and public relations.
That's happening very, very independent of the world of
politics. And the world of politics is
really just catching up on the sorts of theories that people in
the private sector are are innovating every single day,
right? So, yeah, I would say, you know,
like you're going back and reading public relations or
Propaganda or other works by Edward Bernays.
That was a really really good starting point, you know, for
us. And it actually encouraged us to
reach out a little bit more and try to understand the world
outside of politics. But in addition to that, I spent
a lot of time studying studying George Orwell because George
Orwell. As, as prolific, as he was in
mean, it's no surprise that he wrote Things like politics in
the English language his essay that was published right after
World War Two in which he describes.
So many of the mistakes that are made in political communication
and exactly how communication and politics works whenever it
is done successfully and why it does.
So successfully, you know, Common tropes that you want to
avoid whenever you're communicating politically.
I think that You know, it is accurate to say that that
marketing. The ideas of Liberty is kind of
a new frontier. I believe.
I believe that but marketing political ideas is not right.
I mean propaganda is not a new profession, right?
It's not a new discipline and we owe it to ourselves to
understand what what our enemies have been doing.
Right? How we can learn from that, so
that we can properly. We wage war against the state
and I were enemies in the state who terrorized us every day.
So yeah, you know, I love the idea of looking at successful
marketing operations outside of the political realm.
So if I'm trying to think of a specific Super Bowl commercial
that I like the Larry, David one was hilarious, The Sopranos one
I loved but just the general idea of a group of friends,
sitting around smiling laughing hug.
Each other and then drinking Michelob Ultra, so it's not like
they show you. The, can they list the costs and
benefits of drinking it. They list how much it is that
they're not going off the facts in the specifics there.
Just associating your brain. Something happy something and
you want a desire friendship, belonging acceptance happiness,
and their Associated that with Michelob Ultra, so maybe we just
need someone to walk around to LP conventions.
Because and Catch people smiling and holding copies of anatomy of
the state or something as as, as a marketing Ploy because I got
to tell you, I had so much fun. I was so, I sort of went there,
reluctantly to the one in Arizona because I didn't know
much about the lp. I had never been to a single
meeting before and we had an absolute blast.
So, yeah, that is definitely one by one.
Every go we can copy. I love the concept of meeting.
Where they're at. Hans, Harbour wrote.
A article. The libertarian quest for Grant
historical narrative, and he talks about the ten
commandments. There's like, what a billion or
two Christians on the planet Catholics Christians, and he
takes the 10 commandments and says anyone who takes this
seriously has to come down with the libertarian concept of Thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not murder.
These are private property, natural law.
Concepts that really only the libertarian accepts because any
philosophy that has a state, especially an interventionist
one. Clearly violates Thou shalt not
murder in practice. And in theory, all of them
violate the vow shall not steal or bear false witness.
So, I love meeting people where they're at, or telling a
progressive. I just support the equality
among people to engage in all capitalist acts between
consenting adults at that. They go.
I just spent ten years. Arguing that gay marriage is
legitimate because it's a voluntary agreement between two,
consenting adults. It's rough.
That it's not like that converts them, but it gives them a little
bit of insecurity about arguing against it because they're
arguing. Okay, so I'm against the
voluntary cooperation. All right.
Well, I'm a little less confident than I was leaving the
Bernie rally, but I'm not quite there.
Excellent. Proportions on the marketing
before we get into the second section of this.
Is there a meme that you are especially proud of during your
time as the VP for communications at Yale.
I mean for a post or comment. Hmm.
Probably all of them, had to be honest, but I would, I would
just have to say that everything that was produced throughout my
team. That's what, my time.
There was a team effort. I don't I wouldn't feel
completely comfortable just co-opting anything.
That was done in saying, that's what I feel most proud of,
right? Because it takes more than one
person, you know, to really make the kinds of things that were
talking about happen. There's one thing.
You just said that, I think we would be remiss if I didn't
acknowledge here. Send that I would come and we
impart to the people who are working for me, was that we
don't communicate information, right?
That's a common. That's a common misconception
when it comes to propaganda. Right?
Which Idol. I obviously, don't mean in any
nefarious term. Whenever you think of yourself
as a Libertarian propagandist? It can, it can help provide at
least in my experience a little bit of clarity, about exactly
what it is, you're doing, right. So like what whenever you're
creating like libertarian propaganda.
Call it that for for fun purposes, you're not
communicating information. You're communicating emotion.
That was a very common sort of very common sort of lesson that
I would give and I would ask. What emotion do you want to
convey? What emotion do you want to
evoke in the viewer with this particular me more this video or
this press release that you're going to put out there?
Is it happiness like in the case of the Misha logo, Michelob
whatever Michelob? That you were describing a
minute ago. It could be, could it be hope
perhaps optimism or is it anger? Frustration, maybe, maybe
resentment, maybe you're trying to tap into resentment at
something horrible that the government has done, whatever
that may be, right? So maybe understanding the
emotion that you want to convey in the story that you're trying
to tell, right? Maybe.
Maybe that's a very good starting point for for a
creating a piece of of content that you hope will educate
people and bring them in Mass numbers to the calls.
There is a section and I know I'm moving ahead here where
rothbard says those the historians Lauren Stone.
Stresses as a requirement for radical change.
A decay in the will of the ruling Elite.
The elite may lose its manipulative skill or its
military superiority, or its self-confidence or its cohesion.
It may become estranged from the non-elite or overwhelmed by a
financial. Crisis, it may be incompetent or
weak or brutal. So when so let's take one of the
ones the CEO was unhappy with the mean was more or less find
someone who laughs at your jokes the way Kamala Harris.
Laughs at a question. She doesn't know the answer to
when you have something like that, you are totally
delegitimizing, the elite in such a way that it's not like,
well, people have to understand Austrian business cycle Theory.
It's like, don't you think it's funny.
The second in charge, you know, when we think of the hierarchy,
of course, she's not calling any shots, but president vice
president. That's how you think.
That's how the average person someone that high up is a moron.
And when she's asked about inflation, gives the most.
I just wish that she'd say, I haven't looked into that.
I'm going to talk to my experts and have a well-thought-out
answer for you in 48 hours. Follow me on Twitter if she said
that I would be blown away at the amount.
Amount of humility, but of course not they have no humility
and no intellect. So when you're doing memes like
that, it's not just funny blowing off steam.
You're actually delegitimizing. These people in a way that can
communicate with the common man. So when the moron does not
appreciate that, it just shocks me to no end.
So I thought so much of the work you guys did to be honest.
I didn't know that I wasn't aware of you specifically until
I heard you on my Peak Winona's to show, but I'd always follow
the gal account and loved it. So, yeah, great, great stuff
there. Any ideas on the decaying will
of the ruling Elite on the decaying will of the Rolling
Elite. Well, well, that was, that was a
long excerpts that you gave there.
But I think that I could make a few broad observations both
about that. And and a little bit that you've
shared about Kamala Harris here. And that is that we should never
underestimate the power of ridicule.
Right? Yeah, because because ridicule
at the it was I think I believe it was Saul Alinsky who wrote
about this in rules radicals. Never, ever underestimate the
power that ridicule can have on your opponent, right?
So that you can Play the swords of vulnerabilities that I
believe the passage you pointed out was that was making clear
there. Right?
So, you know, I'm a firm believer in the power of
ridicule. I don't think that mocking
people who are committing mass murder is, is off limits.
I'm just, I'm just being honest. I think that if they're
committing, if they're, if they're drawn striking people,
which in my opinion, is probably the most unethical thing, you
can do to it that you can do to another human being.
Or if they're extending forgiveness, to people who have
drones tricking people, then why is mocking them and ridiculing
them and belittle and belittling them off limits.
It absolutely shouldn't be ranked.
And so, we didn't talk about this when we were talking about
emotions that we would want to convey through our work on tent,
whether their happiness, or optimism or anger, or sadness,
but comedy. I mean, comedy can be an
incredibly powerful. Tool for freedom of speech.
Look at that. There's one human being who
right now might actually be doing more for Liberty from
Liberty than anybody else in this country.
And he happens to be a stand-up comedian, and I think we both
know we're talking about. I'm talking about Joe Rogan,
right? A person who's obviously used
comedy and just this massive platform, but comedy can be such
an incredibly powerful tool. It should never ever be
underestimated. Exactly.
What What can be done by mocking ridiculing, belittling, whatever
it may be. And I think that whenever we're
looking at the sort of Arsenal of propaganda that we can have
at our disposal. Right?
The different kinds of are the different kinds of weapons that
we can keep on our hip. So to speak in our war against
the state. I think comedy is one that
comedy is one dead that we might want to rely on a bit more than
we initially think. There was a Libertarian
comedian. That was just here in Chandler
and he goes, you know, Joe Biden's a really good guy.
You know, I mean, he's more or less provoking a war with Russia
nuclear power and we might have to risk, you know, send them
guys over there them dying. Getting PTSD getting their limbs
blown off, but that's the sacrifice.
Joe is willing to make and he and I didn't say it as well as
he did, but the punch line is so nice.
He's willing to risk, everyone else's safety knowing that
Hunter Biden is going to be fine.
Jill Biden's gonna be. And it was just so funny because
it was it wasn't even a Libertarian topic.
This was just a random, like everyone gets five minutes on
the stage kind of thing. I went up to him and shook his
hand and, and we had a good talk after, but the point is, is
like, isn't that hilarious that he could just bring that up and
the room? It killed absolutely killed.
Granted. It was like 18.
Am and a lot of people were drunk at the time.
The point is, is that with just like a 30-second introduction
into the mind of what it's probably like to be a politician
of, you know, they're spending other people's resources and
don't face accountability. You know that you advocating for
more war or more welfare has nothing to do with compassion.
It lacks compassion because you're advocating theft and
murder that is just, so powerful took me Decades of reading to
learn what this guy, you know, told 8:30, second jokes, while
of the comedy aspect of things, one final thing in the first
part of a strategy for Liberty. He says a flourishing movement
with a sense of community and espirit de corps is the best
antidote for giving up Liberty as hopeless or an impractical.
Cause what do you think? Are some of the best ways that
people in the Liberty Movement can find a sense of community?
Well, I think that this goes back to this two-part,
definition, that rothbard gave of Education, right?
So he talks about education. He defines it in sort of your
chest as having two components of one is theory and the other
is movement, right? I want to break this down a
little bit because this is going to get to another point that I
think it's going to really address, you know, the heart of
your question, but I got to give a little bit of backstory for
your audience first. So he says that that you have to
have Theory and In order to have a proper efforts to educate the
public, right? So, the theory, I think that's
pretty self-explanatory. You have to have a, you have a
movement with a deep and, and reliable understanding of what
this new libertarianism is about of what of what the rothbart.
Ian philosophy is about, right? And, but, without Theory,
without that strong, understanding of the philosophy
and what makes us different, and you might have a lot of Outreach
you. Might have some really
successful engagement efforts, if I have some really great
memes, you know, you might have you might even have some really
successful fundraising efforts that allow you to host large
events or spearhead these strong student activism campaigns or
you might even capture a lot of media along the way for yourself
or for an organization or whatever else.
But do you even know what you're promoting?
If you have no Theory, but you have a lot of movement or you
have a tenuous grasp on the theory, but a lot of movement.
In this case, I think it can be Illustrated as it's like having
a movement that's 1,000 miles wide.
But only an inch deep, right? We contrast this with, with
this, this scenario, in which we have a movement with a lot of
theory, but no movement, right? So, you can have a group of
people with the deepest understanding, as to the
philosophy of libertarianism bright.
You can have people who are all. Let's say you have.
You have 100 people In your group or let's say, 50 people in
your group and they're all phds and various things from Austrian
economics to Sociology to history, to whatever it may be,
right? Yeah, you can have that.
But if you don't have movement, if you don't have those people
or people around them who are true, Grassroots operatives
engaging, the media engaging communities engage in college
campuses because rothbard does make mention of student activism
in this in this chapter as well. Then you're Going to have,
you're just gonna have an echo chamber.
In this case, to contrast this from the, from the previous
scenario. You have a movement.
That is a thousand miles deep yet.
Only one inch wide right? Neither.
One of these are really are really ideal.
So in order to have a movement that is sufficiently deep and
sufficiently wide, you have to have both Theory and movement
simultaneously or as rothbart himself, puts it Theory and it
become both sterile and futile without each other.
But this the think this addresses, the heart of your
question and I had to give a little bit of background before
I could jump into. It rothbart also emphasizes the
importance of continual, self-education, right?
You have to keep the ranks healthy as far as their
understanding of the philosophy so that they can be always ready
to advance the movement and whatever way may be necessary.
So you have to literally Foster a culture You have to cultivate
an understanding of the philosophy of Liberty within our
very own ranks because if they don't have that they're an
absolutely no position to educate anyone else on it.
Obviously, you have to understand something before.
You can educate someone on it. Go figure.
So you have to, you have to cultivate that you have to build
a culture of people who want to know more about Liberty, Who
challenged one another's, ideas on the philosophy of Bertie and
aren't afraid to engage in a little bit of a Socratic wisdom.
That is to say some humility and acknowledge maybe parts of the
philosophy. They don't yet understand and
you have to have a culture of people who trust each other
enough to do that. So you just you have to invest
in each other's grasp on the philosophy of Liberty and a way
that is done in good faith and with a very sober understanding
as to as to Seriousness of the movement.
Next section in the a strategy for Liberty portion.
He says, are we utopians? He says we therefore should not
frighten people off by being too radical are rather.
He's saying that this is a common objection of the
gradualist saying we should not frighten people by coming off as
too radical. He says in the field of
strategic thinking, it behooves Libertarians to heed the lessons
of marxist because they have been thinking about Strategy for
radical social change longer than any other group.
Now, this is so vitally important.
I mean Marx writes, the manifesto in 1848 and today 29
percent of college students are identifying with Marxist
ideologies, 17% percent of professors in the social
scientists identify explicitly as Marxist.
It's been tried and multiple continents on the planet.
So he's totally right here. Thus the Marxist.
He's to critically important strategic fallacies that deviate
from the proper path. One.
They call left-wing sectarianism the other and opposing deviation
right wing opportunism. He says that the major problem
with the opportunist is that by confining themselves, strictly
to gradual and practical programs programs, that stand a
good chance of immediate adoption.
They were in grave danger of completely losing sight of the
ultimate objective. He goes on to quote.
One of the great attractions of socialism has always been the
continuing stress on its ideal goal and idea that permeates
informs and guides the actions of all those striving to attain
it. I guess you pretty much answered
all of that in your previous answer.
Okay, here's one final thing. He says, Hayek's reason for
stressing the ultimate goal, the excitement and enthusiasm, that
a logically consistent system can inspire Look at the left
today. Medicare-for-all Unapologetic
things, my body, my choice. We're here.
We're queer. Get used to it, education's or
right? Racism is inherently bad.
These are all blanket Unapologetic statements that
have given them so much power and influence any concept or any
comment on the. We are you are we utopian
section? Oh, you just did a fantastic job
of summarizing it and if I may say so myself.
If you ever thought about giving a class on this.
Keith, yes, that would be nice. Maybe Tom Woods school for Life.
What will hire me? This is my application.
Well, I still think there's a lot of commentary to be had on
this nonetheless. So I think that he's right to
point to the marxists. First off.
I think that that's something that most reasonable people
listening to this podcast would agree with if they don't, then
I'm happy to hear them out. But does anyone questioned the
success of the Marxist over the last century and a half of
propagating their ideology to the absolute fullest extent?
If they don't? Then I would love to hear their
argument as to how but he talks about, he talks about, you know,
the the people who want to delude the ideas by engaging and
the sort of right-wing opportunism.
I believe if is how he refers to it here, right?
And he has a quote that it stands out to me in particular
and that is he who advocates for a 2% tax reduction helps to bury
the goal of abolishing taxes altogether, right?
That this sort of Fabian approach as rothbard describes,
it throughout this section of the book.
It's not just a, it's not just destructive, you know, to the
end goals, right? To the ultimate objective of
Liberty, which is to abolish the state completely.
Right. It's also it leads to mass
numbers of defection. Right?
Because who wants to stick around at a movement, dedicated
to cutting taxes 2%, Like how many people are going to be
genuinely excited about the these Theses 1, mm or 2.
Mm wins. Right?
Who like who is excited about mediocre, right?
Who is excited about the idea of being a part of the center,
right? Is this is just as the very
brilliant, jeopardized always says, nothing.
Interesting happens in the center.
Everything, interesting, always happens at the peripheries.
That always happens at the margins, right?
So rothbard talks about this, but 49 years ago.
He talks about, you know, whenever the movement is
moderate, or milk toast or or it engages in various trade-offs,
for opportunistic reasons, or maybe because it wants to be a
more Medic sort of movement, right?
It you cannot possibly maintain the ranks that way.
You can't possibly you might you might recruit a lot of people,
sure. But you're never going to ever
retain those people, right? So, I think that rothbart is
talking about something that we can point to with a couple of
with a couple of of organizations in particular, you
know, there's the Cato Institute, for example.
They're widely pointed to as an organization that when underwent
a very serious shift over the last decade.
And a lot of people like to point out that they've also lost
their influence, that their Twitter page.
There's nothing even close to what it should be to what it
should be getting, for example, right?
It's just whenever you allow yourself or your organization to
be absorbed into this greater Beltway libertarianism or you
allow it to be compromised. As we see, is the case with a
lot of libertarian, organizations.
I'm afraid, you know, you lose what?
Makes Liberty and exciting prospect in the first place,
right? And to to the average, worker in
the industrial amidst, the Industrial Revolution, whether
they were an impoverished worker, you know, working in the
factories of Great Britain or whether they were here in the
United States, right? The prospect of of a class war,
right? At the prospect of overthrowing
the, the bourgeoisie was a very exciting one to the people at
the time. It was a very exciting
narrative, you know, something that people would want to be a
part of. So we have to find a way to
properly craft the story of of everyday people, having long
been victimized by the state and its many apparatus.
I finally getting sick of it and casting off the Yoke of State
tyranny, right? We have to find a way to tell
that story in. In a very compelling sort of
way. And I don't think that's quite
as difficult as we might make it out to be right, but I think
that we're gonna have to find a way to properly.
Tell that story in a way that makes the very people were
trying to reach want to be a part of the movement that we're
advancing. Right?
And you can't who wants to be a part of a boring story, right?
Who want. I mean, like, I mean, have you
ever like had to sit through a real?
I think of the most boring book? Book that you had to read in
school. Okay, whether you were in
private school or whether you were in one of these government
indoctrination camps, that we comfortably call public school
that we you from eyes as our Public Schools, right?
Think about the most boring piece of literature that your
teacher made, you read. And, and and, and and then try
and think about, okay, what did what if the libertarian
philosophy was was just as boring to people as that book,
right? What it be a philosophy that you
would want to be responsible at least in part for helping
promote. Probably not, right.
Nobody wants to be a part of a boring story.
So we have to make sure that the story that were telling right
which is not a fictional story. It's a very real story with very
real implications for very real people is one that is exciting
and compelling and invites people to be a part of it.
I love that you used the word story.
That makes me think of how narratives or prevailing
interpretations of past events are really would grab people's
attention. Because you should hear the way
people tell me the story of well, you know, there was
deregulation by glass-steagall. And then what happened was the
financial crisis, not realizing that the major companies that
failed had nothing to do with the glass-steagall, repeal,
like, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Another words.
This is so, obviously not Close to being true, but people feel
so comfortable. Aligning themselves with that
story. Well, we had child labor, then
child labor laws. Now.
We don't have child labor. Well, they work for free in
government schools, which is worse than getting on-the-job
experience. But even that kids had worked
since the beginning of time yet because of that story because of
that narrative, they pin child labor on the voluntary sector
since even though kids have been working on farms.
Since you know, let's call it the days of Adam and Eve sinned.
Whenever so, look at how stories are really where people get
their information from, it's not statistics or anything.
So thank you for using the word story.
I love rothbard shot at the Buckley's of the world and Page.
381. It is the conservative, lazy
fairest, the main who puts all the guns and all the decision
making power into the hands of the central government.
And then says, limit yourself. It is, he who is truly the
Impractical utopian? It seemed out of place.
So I go that has to be a shot at the National Review Guys or
something. But so okay.
So very often we talk about. Well, should we support Rand
Paul? Thomas?
Massie, these people, they're so good.
I mean, when it comes to like something, like, should we have
a no-fly zone over Syria? And Rand, Paul is the only one
talking sense. Yes.
We should support Rand, Paul and Tulsi gabbard.
So, how do we know when we should support people?
Who don't totally agree with us. He says, Then can we know
whether any halfway measure, or transitional demand should be
hailed as a step forward or condemned as an opportunistic
betrayal. There are two vitally important
criteria for answering this crucial question, one that
whatever the transitional demands, the ultimate end of
Liberty. Be always held Aloft as the
desired goal. And to know, steps are means
ever explicitly or implicitly, contradict the ultimate goal,
any ideas. Has on how we can know whether
or not we're selling out when we try to make friends with
conservatives progressives, men, artists, Etc.
I think that this is probably where part 2 becomes a little
bit more useful right as we're trying to, so to speak, separate
the wheat from the chaff, right? I'm you so understanding whether
or not the end goal of a policy is ultimately is to achieve a
liberty. Right?
Well, I think that we can understand that there are
certain policies that are that cannot be.
Certified in any sort of libertarian, since meaning, that
there is no way a person can go through enough mental gymnastics
to convince themselves or any other person.
That said policy as something that can possibly produce
Liberty, and our lifetime. Some examples.
If a person supports drone strikes or engaging in war, with
a foreign power, over some Alliance or over some Speck of
land. However, significant or
insignificant Don't, you know, it's impossible to say that
that, that the dead. That such such an idea can
advance Liberty in any way. You cannot have Liberty without
life, right? And war is the health of the
state. So if a person supports War, for
example, right? For any, any reason other than
self-defense, okay, then it just Seems there is no way you can
justify that in any sort of libertarian sort of sense.
And that's one example, the Federal Reserve is another
bright. So and I'll be frank.
The reason why I completely disavow The Chicago School and
the monetarists is because their goal is not to end the Federal
Reserve, right? They want to keep the Federal
Reserve around but in a more limited and crippled form with,
you know, they want they want to keep a lower they want.
Lower interest rates, but their goal is ultimately not to end
this. This Central Bank that we have
here in the United States, founded in the very dark year of
1913 that that has doomed us to lifetimes of financial slavery.
Right, that has absolutely corrupted.
Did the social Fabric and the culture of the United States.
This is why I say that the Austrian School Is the only
valid and logically consistent method of actually applying the
principles of Liberty to economics.
Right? So, if the goal is not to
completely eliminate War. So, you know, to bring the world
to, to a condition where war is, is a, is a virtual impossibility
or to completely eliminate Central Banking completely.
Then then we can say, there is no place for Them inside of our
movement. There just isn't right.
So there are there are certain issue areas that maybe we have
to identify issue-by-issue right where we can say.
Okay. Well the end goal of this cannot
possibly produce Liberty and that is clearly not the
objective of the people espousing.
This particular policy is best that we keep them out of our
ranks. And the good thing is we have as
far as your point on the Federal Reserve.
Ted Cruz came out yesterday and he was talking about how
important Bitcoin is as an option for people to use and he
says, Elizabeth Warren hates it because they can't control it.
When it comes to your foreign policy Point, Trump brags about
how he was the first president and however long to not start
any new Wars. So we do have a lot of people
that, we, it's not just that. Well, this is us.
People can either love us or leave us that people are
constantly coming over. Did have you heard Walter block
say that he asked rothbard in 1963?
How many Libertarians they were and rothbard girls, um, probably
15 and then that was in 1964. So so that's discouraging as
things are I mean people are seeing through the nonsense of
of statism. Rothbard goes on next section is
education. Enough.
Our hope is to convert the mass of people who are being
victimized by state power. Not those who are gaining by it
any comment on that? Well, yes, it's I guess it's
difficult to think about, you know, where to begin with it
because there are so many to so many different directions in
which we can take it. Right.
We have to make sure that people understand and this is actually
going to bring us back to the very beginning of our
conversation. Nation where we were talking
about meeting people where they're at right?
Where we were talking about reaching people through comedy
or through happiness or through angst and resentment whatever
different you method that we have.
We have to make it clear to people exactly what it is.
Exactly how it is that their lives are affected every single
day. There's a term.
I like to throw around which is bread and butter issues, right?
I don't see anything wrong with With, with advancing, the ideas
of Liberty and doing so, through bread-and-butter issues that
people care about and during the, during the era of covid.
Tyranny. When people are seeing that the
state now, has the power to lock them in their homes or force
them to get a vaccine or take their jobs away or whatever it
whatever. Other horrible thing.
It may be right. I think that that we absolutely
should be talking about exactly how this affects Everyday
People, right? And this brings us to the
Foreign policy point I have observed in this is this is
purely anecdotal, by the way, but I have observed that it is
difficult to to Really convince people that you know that what
the what happened in December or what looked like it was going to
happen in December and January with the whole Russia and
Ukraine business that it has direct implications for them.
That this is a very very bad thing for our Republic that they
should really care about. And here's how you have to the
challenge is on us. To take Z the sort of an
esoteric issues that happen amongst the political Elite and
communicate them to the people. We are trying to educate to the
people that were trying to convert in ways that explain to
them that Here are the implications for you.
Here is how it affects you. That's you know, those taxes
that come out of your paycheck. Right?
We have to we have to connect the dots between that and the
war or that and inflation. Right?
I mean it does seem like like inflation is at the top.
It's at the highest point in the news cycle that I've ever seen
it in my lifetime in my 28 years on this Earth.
I mean, Enzo it is becoming more and more clear.
In a very sort of organic way. What kind of implications the
state's actions have on everyday people?
But we do have to use good bread and butter issues to communicate
to people the kinds of emotions that we wish to communicate,
right? So I don't see any problem.
Even in a strategic perspective. We with forging temporary like
one issue coalition's right based based on single issues.
I don't necessarily see a problem.
I'm with that, right? If there's something that the
conservatives or progressives are really upset about and it
happens to align with us. Right.
Let's employ, the Horton rule. Let's, let's criticize the right
from the right that's criticized the left from the left.
Let's build those single-issue coalition's.
There's nothing wrong with that. That's not a mortal sin.
Right? That's, that's this thing.
That we like to call politics, right?
That's just how it works. So, focusing on bread and butter
issues actually communicating to people.
All how their daily lives are impacted by the state, you know,
there's nothing wrong with any of this and we have to
understand it there in under the control of the American
super-state, right? If you exist, you inside of
these 50 states, There Is No Escape From the impact of the
state. You can be the most reclusive
and withdrawn person within the boundaries of this country, and
you still will not Escape, you know, the influence and the
grasp of the super-state, right? That we live under.
So I think that we just we have to make people understand.
No, there's no Force other than perhaps gravity that impacts
your life more than government. Right?
And it's going to have serious implications on you whether you
like it or not. We'll look at all of the cries
about how if there's anything that needs to be done to get
food stamps. Like, filling out papers.
Katie. Gosh, I forget her name.
Could Congress woman was holding up, six pages and says, look at
all these things. People have to fill out for food
stamps. This is ridiculous.
People don't have time for this. People are starving.
Look. I tried running a business seven
or eight years ago. I would have killed. 46 pages of
Regulation and things that I need to fill out.
Do you know how many people are stopped from achieving their
ends? Whether it's food stamps, or
which need to be pushed to the voluntary sector, but how much
Innovation is stopped? Because of a lot more than six
pages of Regulation. Half the states in America have
certificate of need laws where hospitals can't be built unless
they get the permission from competing hospitals to get
built. You think that restrict Supply
at all. Do you think the Restriction of
supply has any effect on the price?
Whether there's one hospital or 50,000 you think that has a
difference on what the price is occupational.
Licensing? Of course, and these monopolies
standards. We're always told that the free
market might produce monopolies and they explicitly Advocate
monopolies. When it comes to standards.
Just give me competing standards with voluntary agencies.
So the reason I'm so pissed, I had to renew my health plan the
other day. Pissed off about it non-stop,
because I know that the price of cars, cell, phones, microphones,
computers close, all these, things come down because of the
because of aspects of the voluntary sector competition and
freedom to disassociate. And when I see the cost of
Health Care, I mean it's killing people.
It is just, it's just terrible. So we need to take the
healthcare Banner away from the Bernese of the world because
he's the one making it more expensive.
So rothbard lists a few groups. He says, Which groups should we
be looking at campus youth? He says, one of them, they'll be
interested in abolition of the draft ending, the Cold War,
civil liberties drugs and victimless crimes.
He says Middle America, he mentions taxation inflation
crime, welfare scandals, police monopolizing, you know, stopping
crime is a terrible way to approach crime that exists,
small businessman, their individual talents and energies
can at last Full room to expand and to provide improved
technology and increase productivity for them.
And all of us there are potential customers.
He then says, what we might be looking for is a crisis
situation, a breakdown of the existing system which calls for
a general search for alternative Solutions.
Any comments on the section which groups, well, each it's
just fascinating that as we've gone through this.
Part of a for New Liberty. We've actually talked about each
one of those books before each one of those groups.
Sorry before even arriving at this part time, this particular
section, right? It was student groups, Middle
America, and small business owners, right?
I don't think that it's a coincidence that Murray rothbard
was writing about the necessity of really appealing to those
groups, 49 years ago. And and it really seems like
whatever I study, what the Put the Liberty Coalition is so to
speak, right? Because I want to give it.
I'll give you just a little bit of an historical parallel.
Like there was this the sort of New Deal coalition that was
built, you know at the height of at the Roosevelt regime ride,
the FDR regime, the second Roosevelt regime, write this
sort of New Deal coalition as it was as it was criticized, you
know, as sorry as it was as it was described commonly whenever
I try to, Oh, imagine the same thing but for our Liberty,
right? It does seem like it's sort of
a, it's an admixture of of college students.
Just like, you know, that the kind of college student that I
was when I was first getting involved with Young, Americans
for Liberty, back at Baylor University, and 2014.
And 2015. It's good hard-working, you
know, middle Americans, you know, Blue Collar people in the
Heartland who are, who are, you know, really shouldering?
So much of the brunt of this, this Leviathan super-state that
were that we're living under and see.
It's and it's also small business owners who are either
having their dreams, completely crushed by burdensome
regulations, which are nothing new or there, or they're having
their business has completely taken away from their having the
American dream snatched right, at rather than right out of
their hand, in a right off of their dinner plate because of
because of covid tyranny, right? Because of mandates and
lockdowns and all these other horrible sorts of things, right?
So whenever I imagine what I think you know, this is sort of
Liberty Coalition could look like, you know, they could
really make the 21st century a century about Liberty.
It's not something that looks too awfully dissimilar from what
Mary Rothwell from what Murray rothbard was describing, 49
years ago. Hans Harper once said that
without local enforcement of federal edicts, the laws are
more or less hot air. So another words focusing on
local politics is pretty good. I mean the same reason we never
got arrested for underage drinking or drug use is because
none of our friends. Recognized the legitimacy of
cops to arrest us. So none of us reported it to the
cops. So when it comes to something
like this, what have you seen work?
As far as local politics and local issues, being a step in
the right direction is, is it down things like door-to-door
activities? Is it city council?
Is it just going to these places and speaking?
What what have you found to be positive move in the right
direction? Well, there are several
examples. I think one, one that I could
point to would be my friend, Eric Breaky in the state of
Maine. He was a, former state senator
up their longtime activist. To inside of the Ron Paul
Revolution and because of his work within the main State
Senate, they were actually able to nullify the federal
government in several different ways.
One of, which included a right to try legislation, right?
I think that, you know, that was absolutely huge being able to
use being able to use a state government in this case.
But all, you know, yeah, it's a state government technically.
It's nullification on the state level, but every single member
of that of that state, Legislature both in the state
senate, and the state house. They're elected by their
neighbors, their elected by their immediate communities,
right? And those are the people who
comprise that state government. So I think that that's one great
example, being able to nullify the FDA on the state level.
That's not a small achievement, and that's something that we
should be paying a lot more attention to once again,
especially in the height of covid.
Tyranny. We also see the example of a
Knox County mayor, Glenn, Jacobs.
In Knox County, Tennessee, right?
Standing up to the federal government and and vowing that
he's not going to issue any new covid restrictions on the people
of Knox County. I do think that see I'm a little
bit of a I don't think this is a word but I'm going to use it.
Anyway, I'm a nullification is and I think that that's going to
begin on the local level and the state level.
I'm also an advocate of radical decentralization.
I believe that. That's a very sort of natural
process. That is going to occur
regardless, but I don't see anything wrong with Libertarians
being active and helping expedite that process by, you
know, by engaging in the very kinds of theory and movement
that rothbard discussed. But doing so on a local level
within their City Halls within their County goverment's, you
know, approaching Sheriff's and Mayors.
Yeah, and I, you know, I don't see that.
There's anything anything that tells us that we shouldn't be
focusing. Assessing on using the powers of
local and state power. And, you know, using the powers
of local and state governments to nullify the edicts of the
federal or the central government.
I think that that's an incredibly valid way of
advancing Liberty and our lifetime.
So, I'm a nullification assist, and I'm a radical
decentralization. Missed both of them.
So it, excellent points. Anyone who disagrees with that?
Just, they might not even understand.
The state is they're attempting to centralize and monopolize
violence among hundreds of millions of people.
So the step in the opposite direction would be to
decentralize and have competing Realms of authority whether it's
parents church the country clubs by book clubs organizations.
So excellent points there. I've got two more questions for
you. Mr. Cooley.
Thank you so much for your time. Finally.
We have toward a free America, the final section.
Ian only we provide the really sharp and genuine break with the
encroaching statism of the 20th century only.
We offer technology without technocracy growth without
pollution Liberty, without payoffs Law, Without.
Tyranny, the defense of property rights in one's person and it
ones material possessions, the enormous success of Karl, Marx
and Marxism has been do not to the validity of his ideas.
All of which indeed are fallacious, but to the fact that
he Here to weave socialist Theory into a mighty system,
Liberty cannot succeed without an equivalent and contrasting
systematic Theory and until the last few years, despite our
great heritage of Economic and political thought and practice,
we have not had a fully integrated and consistent theory
of Liberty final thoughts on toward a free America.
Well, it's worth pointing out the The first two words of that
excerpt, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they only we,
he uses absolute language there and that is worth emphasizing
for a couple of reasons. And we could go back to chapter
one to reflect on that just a little bit.
He talks about how, you know, there's the there's the
right-wing opportunism, right? There's the that the stupidity
and the inconsistency of the political right in in granting
to the state all of its weapons. Right, but saying, okay, maybe
we can keep this restrained. Maybe maybe if we empower the
state where the Monopoly on violence and we give it the
largest military ever assembled. It won't come back on us one
day, right? So that that's just utter
stupidity. But of course, he doesn't
Reserve this sort of this sort of incendiary criticism for just
the right. Whee-hee-hee-hee.
Gives a very good synopsis of the left, right?
And how the left really outgrew as we Understand it a day, or
liberalism, as it was known before before around the new
deal, period rewarded, you know that the top of the 20th century
became co-opted with this, with this love for imperialism and
militarism and and these other hideous forms of statism, right?
It seems as you know, rothbard describes it as though the left
has a very they claim to have a very strong emphasis on human
rights, but they completely forget All the other kinds of
rights such as the most important like property rights.
The left has so much respect. They claim to have so much
respect for human rights, but they neglect and shun property
rights altogether. So, with both the, you know, the
conventional right? And and the conventional left,
you have a neglect of at least one very serious component of
Liberty, right? And so, yes, I don't think that
it's in a accurate to say that it really is only libertarianism
that can provide the kinds of conditions that he went on to
elaborate on further in the quote.
You just provided things like like Law Without tyranny, for
example, yes, so I you know, I think that, you know, he really
does a great job of taking that particular excerpt and tying
that back to a lot of observations that he makes at
different points throughout part one such as the one we're That I
just elaborated on where he talks about where, you know, why
libertarianism is rooted originally, and not opposition
to the left. But in opposition to the right
and explaining exactly how the left became bastardized and and
sort of morphed, sort of devolved and into into, what we,
what we see and what we deal with today.
My final question is, what is the most important thing?
You learned during your time working at Young Americans for
Liberty? Wow, so I was a young Americans
for liberty for a long time. I got active with them and in
2018, seriously, after after really being involved with them
on college campuses you before that, the single most important
thing that I learned there thinking in terms of the
superlative. I think that we need to
understand. Exactly why organizations lose
sight of the mission? I think that we need to
understand exactly what it takes to build an organization that
will be, that will be foolproof from these sorts of things.
And I think that that's where that's where it does.
Get back to Murray rothbard, right?
I think that that Murray rothbard can in a strategy for
Liberty and part three of four, New Liberty.
He provides us with, with something very close to a
Playbook. Or a blueprint as to how exactly
we can build a foolproof kind of institution or a kind of
movement where the kinds of problems plaguing.
Other institutions that are originally built for the purpose
of advancing Liberty, but lose sight of that.
Over time. I think that I think that, you
know, the most profound thing that we can reflect on both in
terms of my history with Yael and and what Has happened to the
organization as of late, as how exactly do we prevent
organizations that are once-great from losing their
way? Now years after their
established. Thank you to everyone for
watching Keith Knight. Don't tread on anyone in the
libertarian Institute. Mr. Cooley.
Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.