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.