DEATH IS EASY by Russell Madden

FREEDOM,  As If It Mattered by Russell Madden

The Guardian Project by Russell Madden

RaNdoM by Russell Madden

 

Though I always considered myself an advocate of freedom, my understanding of what liberty entails suffered from enduring a government-run education. Aspects of what I believed sometimes conflicted with each other. For example, while I did not favor heavy income taxes, I thought that taxation for state-run welfare could pass moral muster.

None of my high school or college requirements introduced me to free-market economics or demonstrated the need for and possibility of an objective ethical system. Not until my early thirties did I happen across Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in a book store. Unemployed at the time, I sought out long books to help me fill out the days. Few novels sported the thickness of this book.

While I had run across Rand's name when reading books by Robert Ringer (such as Looking Out for Number One), I had no real idea who Rand was or precisely what she believed. My vague sense of her as a supporter of freedom tipped the scale for my decision to dip into my dwindling resources to purchase her work.

Despite mental and emotional resistance on my part, by the time I had read sixty or so pages, I realized that this novel and the ideas -- the world -- it explored placed it in a realm all its own. Half my worldview ended in the trash heap during those hot August days. Eventually Rand's arguments from basic foundational axioms persuaded me to fully join the liberty camp in a way that other, less thorough explanations had not.

Convincing people of the true meaning of liberty can be difficult. Many individuals say they believe in freedom yet continue to call for restrictions on what people can or cannot do. Some of these people are merely misguided. They may have a general sympathy to the notions of individual responsibility and autonomy but may never have been exposed to the truth of what freedom actually entails. Such individuals may respond quite favorably to ideas and arguments correcting their misperceptions.

Others may have vested interests in maintaining their beliefs. They may benefit personally from limitations on others' freedoms. Perhaps they have a job which might be eliminated should liberty become prevalent. Or they may enjoy the power or prestige of making and enforcing decisions for other people. They may even truly believe others are incapable of functioning without guidance from a higher authority.

A common approach freedom advocates use to convince others is a utilitarian or practical/pragmatic approach. If liberty truly is the best way to arrange human society, then following the principles of freedom should, in fact, result in the best outcomes. Results are important. Who, after all, would want to live in a "free" world where everyone was more miserable than in an "unfree" culture?

In this type of discussion, it is important to be aware of the facts, statistics, and history of the particular topic you are arguing. If you seek to convince someone that laissez faire capitalism is the best economic system, you need to be able to present information on such things as comparative lifestyles, productivity, technological innovation, and wealth creation. You should be conversant not only with the present situation but be able to place it within a wider historical context. For example, how did the Industrial Revolution come about? What were its results? How did it change social and cultural conditions? What kinds of problems did it create?

In addition to presenting the positive case for your beliefs, you also need to be conversant with objections opponents may raise. The more you engage in argumentation, the more you will learn what points will likely be brought against you. If others claim the Industrial Revolution led to the exploitation of children, you need to be aware that capitalism inherited massive poverty. In comparison to what came before, factory jobs -- though hard, grueling, and unpleasant by today's standards -- led to increases in life spans, better health, and more luxuries for the common people.

As a defender of freedom, you will be confronted with innumerable fallacies. Whether dealing with the Industrial Revolution, the Nineteenth Century "Robber Barons," the causes of the Great Depression, the role of gold in society, gun control, environmental protection, crime prevention, drugs and cigarettes, health care, free speech, the Constitution, welfare, taxes, or dozens of other issues, those who seek to limit freedom will offer any number of points to try to refute your beliefs.

If the other person merely lacks certain facts or holds to a false interpretation, you need to have the background knowledge necessary to provide the first and correct the second. If your opponent is trying to hide the truth about collectivism or statism, then your best defense against their distortions, falsehoods, or willful omissions is your ability to point out errors and to establish your own positions.

Unfortunately, there will be occasions when you discover the other person is not interested in the truth. In such cases, more communication is fruitless. If in a personal situation, you might be advised merely to change the subject or simply to leave. In a more formal environment such as a classroom or debate, the most you can do is not leave your opponents errors unchallenged. Even if you have little to no chance of changing that person's mind, you may help other, more open and active minds to move in the direction of freedom.

In addition to the practical approach as a way to convince others, an even more important avenue to your goal is understanding and practicing the moral principles underpinning the ideals of liberty. Since most individuals want to be moral and act in accordance with their morality, a utilitarian presentation of freedom's benefits will usually be beaten by a moral argument. Even if a person might be practically better off under a capitalistic system, he will be unlikely to defend it should he believe it is "immoral." Indeed, some of the worst "defenders" of freedom have been those who say it provides the most material goods for consumers but who are unable to answer the charges of collectivists or statists who say capitalism violates basic precepts of morality.

If an opponent is arguing for some strict cost-benefit approach to welfare or economic policy, rather than endlessly debating whether one reform is better than another, you can be much more effective by dealing with the fundamental issues involved. Rather than arguing how deeply government should be involved in, for instance, regulating discrimination in the private realm, you can ask instead, should the government be involved, at all? What is the morally permissible role of government in society? By what moral right should the State be able to dictate how adults engage in voluntary, non-coercive interactions? What is the moral principle permitting individuals to institutionalize private vices and legally engage in theft and robbery (as happens with taxation and income redistribution)?

Free-market economists who seek to make their theories "value free" are doomed to ultimate failure. Those who engage in interminable discussions with opponents on statistics or academic studies are engaged in a losing battle.

Morality trumps utility.

As a free individual, I don't begin my arguments on, for example, gun control laws by defending the idea that they do not reduce crime. I begin with the fact that I have the moral right to defend myself and that morality demands that my autonomy in this area not be breached. As the Founding Fathers realized and attempted to enshrine in the Constitution, the moral failings of others do not justify the curtailment of my own liberties or ethical actions.

The works of Ayn Rand showed me how to combine the ethical with the practical and to think and argue from basic principles. The explorations I made of books by Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and other pro-liberty writers provided me the details of history, economics, and politics to answer those who disagreed with or did not understand my positions. Those first few years as a proponent of human independence swept by as a stunning series of doors and windows opening into a new vision of reality.

One of the great things about becoming a serious advocate for and defender of freedom is that you will expand your horizons into a myriad of fields: economics, history, philosophy, science, and current affairs. Beyond the benefits this knowledge provides in arguing your case, however, is the very real practical benefit of living a happier and more fulfilling life. Not everyone may seek freedom, but the best among us do.