Give Me Liberty
Volume 1/Issue No. 2 March 2003
______________________________________________________________________
In This Issue:
Welcome
“Dr. Bergland’s Two-Point Communications Checklist” by David Bergland
“Government – Are They Qualified to Help The Poor?” by Bob Burg
Referring This Ezine
______________________________________________________________________
Welcome to Give Me Liberty! We are thrilled to have you reading our
liberty-oriented news ezine that hopefully will become one of your
favorite monthly reads. For this issue, we are pleased to welcome one
of the pioneers in the Libertarian Party, Dr. David Bergland! Also Bob
Burg returns with another thought provoking article.
I want to especially thank Robin Slovacek for helping to spread the word
about our new ezine. She took the time to contact many of the State
Chairpersons of the Party about our new publication. Several responded
and have told their members about it.
We are especially interested in having your input and feedback since
this is YOUR ezine. We want to know what you want to see in future
issues. We are going to working on a web site in the future at
www.givemelibertynow.com and at that time we will be moving the ezine
from Topica.
Finally we ask you to spread the word about Give Me Liberty! If each of
you would invite just five others to subscribe then we could begin to
grow this ezine into the thousands very rapidly. Just ask them to send
an email to givemelibert-@topica.com !
______________________________________________________________________
Dr. Bergland’s Two-Point Communications Checklist
By David Bergland
Effective communication is tough.
Libertarians are especially challenged. Our message contradicts what
most people “learned” in public schools and from the media. Underlying
that misinformation is the premise that government should solve all
social and economic problems and, further, that government intervention
can actually improve things. That’s “the fallacy of legislative
omni-competence.” Libertarians know government doesn’t work, but just
saying so won’t persuade anyone that ending familiar government programs
would help them.
Beginning in the 1970s, I’ve had many opportunities to communicate the
libertarian message. I soon learned that audiences weren’t very
receptive to my message (libertarian philosophy) or my delivery. So, I
went to the ridiculous extreme of training in communication in order to
become a better messenger for liberty. I haven’t stopped that study and
training; I never will. Anyone can improve as a communicator, no matter
how experienced.
What I call the “two-point communications checklist” appeared to me
during my 1984 Libertarian Presidential campaign. I was scheduled to be
on Crossfire with hosts Pat Buchanan and Tom Braden. Conservative
Buchanan and liberal Braden typically had liberal or conservative
guests, so one of them would side with the guest while the other
attacked. As a Libertarian, I was in for tough treatment from both.
While waiting to go on, several different staff members warned me to
expect vigorous attacks from both hosts, all in the interest of a
lively, interesting show. After the fourth or fifth such warning, I
thought: “What the Hell am I doing here?” Then (AHA!), I realized that
was exactly the right question.
My job was to decide what I could accomplish on that half-hour TV show
to advance the libertarian cause. Thinking further, I realized that,
with both hosts attacking and interrupting, I wouldn’t be able to
discuss libertarian principles, lay out the Libertarian Party Platform
positions, nor explain them. What I could do was represent the Party by
being firm, sticking to my guns, and not letting the hosts bully me or
misrepresent Party positions. My objective was for the audience (who I
assumed were mostly political
junkies) to take away a positive impression of the young Libertarian
Party, simply by observing that it had a competent professional as its
leader. I wanted the audience to see the LP presidential candidate as a
guy who could stand up to tough treatment and come out ahead. I’ve been
told that I pulled it off pretty well.
From that experience, I developed the two-point communications
checklist:
1. Know your audience.
2. Know your objective.
Knowing your objective may be the easier of the two, so we’ll start
there. First, you must consider the context. You could be a political
candidate in a formal interview on radio, TV or a newspaper. You could
be speaking to a service club, or in a Q&A after the talk. You could be
in a one-on-one conversation with a co-worker or neighbor. It might be
a discussion in a college class. You might be calling in to a radio
talk show, or writing a
letter to the editor. In every situation, you must decide what you
might accomplish to advance liberty.
Select your objective realistically. A candidate could choose from
several objectives: vote for me, contribute to the campaign, check the
Party website, etc. It could be something as simple as making a good
impression as a libertarian, countering common misconceptions (Aren’t
libertarians hippie, doper peaceniks? No, No. They’re right wing gun
nuts.) Simply by being a reasonable, responsible and thoughtful member
of the community, who happens to be libertarian, you promote liberty.
Selecting objectives realistically often means taking baby steps. It’s
unlikely you’ll persuade any audience on all of libertarianism. Nor are
you likely to bring them to the unalloyed libertarian position on a
single issue. For example: government should get out of the education
business completely and immediately. A sound libertarian position, but
few newcomers would accept it as stated.
When dealing with the “education question” it’s better to begin by
seeking agreement that we all want children to have the greatest
opportunities to get the best possible education. That’s a baby step
objective. Then perhaps you can seek agreement that the government
schools are doing a poor job at high cost, compared to private schools
and home schooling. Then perhaps move on to bringing competition into
education (vouchers, tax credits), causing government schools to
improve. Step by step you help your audience understand that there are
alternatives to government schools and
that libertarians are serious about improving education “for the
children.”
The objective(s) you select are also affected by the nature of the
audience.
“Know your audience” is deceptively simple advice. But what does it
mean?
What if you had four speaking engagements on successive nights? The
four groups are, respectively: accountants; construction workers;
engineers; and screenwriters. Intuitively you understand they are
different from each other. The others won’t receive what you say to one
group the same way. Why?
People have different basic needs and values. Those differences are the
core of what psychologist David Keirsey calls “temperament.” Since
Hippocrates in ancient Greece first observed it, scientists and
philosophers have seen that there are four fundamentally different kinds
of people. In the twentieth century, Dr. Keirsey has developed the
model. Think of four systems of personality organization, four
temperaments: Guardians, Artisans, Rationals and Idealists. Each
temperament is a coherent pattern of basic needs, values, intelligence,
talents, ways of learning, communicating and interacting. Every one of
us truly unique individuals functions most effectively and comfortably
according to one of the four temperaments. (I’m a Rational, as are many
libertarians, although Rationals make up only 6-7% of the total
population.)
People tend to choose work and careers where their needs are met, their
values are supported, and their talents appreciated. So, based on what
my study of temperament and personality tells me, I expect that each of
the four groups described above would be made up largely of people of
the same temperament: accountants mostly Guardians; construction workers
mostly Artisans; engineers mostly Rationals; and poets mostly Idealists.
Knowing this, I can tailor the libertarian message for maximum appeal
to each group.
How?
The primary ingredient of effective communication is respect and support
for audience values. Based on an educated guess as to audience
temperament, I know their values. I then speak, showing respect for
their values and that my proposals will support those values. For
instance, Idealists highly value empathic relationships and the
uniqueness of each individual. In discussing education reform with an
Idealist, I would emphasize my desire that every teacher and student
have the greatest opportunity to develop a nurturing relationship that
will enhance learning so that the student can flourish and become the
unique individual he or she is entitled to be. (Yes, I do believe
that.) From there we can discuss whether those values are best
supported in government schools or through private alternatives.
To “know your audience” means to know their needs and values. Knowledge
of temperament theory is the key to this crucial element of effective
communication.
David Bergland was the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate in
1976, Presidential candidate 1984 and LP National Chair 1977-81 and
1998-2000. Author of Libertarianism In One Lesson (now in its 8th
Edition). An attorney since 1969. Founder of Cornucopia Consulting, a
firm specializing in self-discovery and communications workshops and
individual consultations. See: www.CornucopiaConsulting.com.
Government – Are They Qualified To Help The Poor?
By Bob Burg
The term, “Libertarian” (whether with a small or capital “L”) should
never be confused with “uncharitable”, even though that’s what many
people who don’t know better tend to think. Why is that?
Because Libertarians don’t believe in the welfare state. We don’t
believe that government has the right (the fact that government has
never in our over 200 year history ever had any rights – only powers
“granted” – not unconditionally given – by its citizens to protect them
from force or fraud is a whole other article) to forcibly pick the
pocket of one person in order to give to another, regardless of how
noble the intention might be.
And yes, without anger, I do use the term “pick the pocket” just to make
the point that whether or not one calls it “theft” or “taxation”, the
result are the same. As the saying goes, “You can call an elephant a
piano, but it still retains all the characteristics of an elephant.”
“But Bob” the well-intended person will ask, often with incredulity that
a person they know to otherwise be so charitable would feel so strongly
about this, “if there is no taxation for welfare, what would happen to
the poor person who cannot care for himself or herself?”
And that, dear reader, is the crux of it. The reason and excuse for the
multi-generational, hurtful, and anti-minority welfare state we have
today.
The well-intentioned person who asked the question is worried about the
poor, and this means two things:
#1 This person is in fact a well-intentioned, caring human being who is
disturbed by the fact that any of his or her brother or sister human
beings ever have to suffer from poverty. Hopefully, we as Libertarians
also feel that same sympathy and empathy. It should distress us all
that others have to suffer. Anyone who doesn’t feel that way I’d have
to be concerned for, as one sign of humanity is the caring about the
situation of others and not just ourselves.
Suggestion: in becoming a “freedom-persuader”, it is wise and good to
express to this person that you also feel the same way he or she does.
Example: It distresses me also, and I want to live in a country where no
one ever has to worry about where to sleep or where their next meal is
coming from.”
#2 This person is basing his solution (government forced/taxpayer
funded/bureaucracy imposed) on an extremely false and dangerous premise.
And I’m not talking here of their premise that even says it’s
Constitutional for government to do this. It totally is not. The
problem with that argument, however, is that this person doesn’t care.
Those in Washington who swear to uphold it, at this point, have
basically discarded our Constitution, anyway. And, even if not, to a
kind, caring compassion-minded person such as our friend, the end
(helping the poor) would more than justify the means anyway. So, let’s
not even go with the “Constitution Argument.”
Instead, let’s discuss the false premise that . . .
Government is in any way, shape or form qualified to handle helping the
truly needy.
Here’s part of a recent discussion I had with a person who is disgusted
with government and believes they should totally get out of our business
except.
. .
Darlene (not her real name): Bob, don’t you agree though, that there
should be a safety net for the poor who cannot help themselves?
Me: Of course. I totally believe that.
Darlene: Then . . .?
Me: What I don’t believe, however, is that a bloated, wasteful and
otherwise incompetent (which she agreed with earlier) government is
qualified to be the one to administer this “safety net.” After all,
they’ve been doing it for over 40 years now and all that’s been
accomplished is (and I listed all the results of our government
sponsored and applied welfare system including the fact that we see more
homeless and starving people now than we ever have before. That the
separation between the halves and the have-nots is more pronounced then
ever. That we’ve created a society of entitlement and robbed the
welfare-dependent of any type of self-esteem they may ever have had,
thereby keeping them down, not to mention the people who have “played”
the system illegally).
She agreed this was so. I didn’t even mention how much this costs the
taxpayer due to the fact that about 70 percent of every forced tax
dollar goes to pay the middle-class bureaucrats (see Dr. Mary Ruwart’s
book, “Healing Our World”) who actually have a vested interest in
keeping the system going. They want to protect their jobs.
Darlene: But, if the government didn’t do it, who would?
Okay, finally, we have the right question. And, still, the fact that it
even has to be asked in the first place makes me sad. It reminds me
that the people of this nation have forgotten how it was before
government stepped in to replace a system that had worked much more
effectively (not perfectly, but much, much better) than their own broken
system.
I explained that, in the days before government welfare, “people” took
care of those less fortunate than they. This was done in a variety of
ways. Churches and Synagogues, local charitable funds within the
municipalities where the poor lived, private contributions to various
private charities, civic clubs and organizations whose major role was to
seek out those who were helpless and give them the financial lift they
needed was just the tip of the ice-berg of the help offered the truly
poor person and their families. (Point of fact: while government-run
programs typically see 70 percent of the funds go administration and
salaries and 30 percent to intended recipients, privately-run charities
have the numbers reversed).
Even during “The Depression” (caused by Government Intervention in our
money system, but that’s another article) there were networks stretching
across the nation that supplied needed funds, food and other artifacts
to the needy.
I’m also a big proponent of “for profit” charitable organizations.
These are ventures that would be founded and run by entrepreneurs. They
would solicit funds from individuals and companies in order to support
one or more types of poor. The big differences between these
organizations and the government-run ones would basically be:
#1 The private, for-profit charity would be more accountable to their
clients (donors), having to show them exact figures as to where the
money would go, how it is spent, and how much they got to keep for their
efforts. And, if they cheated and were caught, they’d be held
accountable and perhaps face prison time, as opposed to the huge
government bureaucracy backed by the full force (literally) and support
of the government.
#2 Because this private charity would be run by a business person with a
profit motive it would be run more efficiently. The fact is, private
organizations run by someone who has a vested financial interest in its
success runs their company much more efficiently than do bureaucrats who
will make the same amount of money for not making changes and “messing
up the works.”
#3 Since private taxpayers, by not having to pay into the present
wasteful welfare system, will save thousands of dollars per year;
they’ll have more to donate to these private, more efficient charities.
#4. Those who are “playing the system” will have no source of “suckers”
willing to give them money for free.
#5. Those who truly are needy will see more charitable dollars and
genuine loving-caring assistance than they ever have before. They will
also be empowered and encouraged to help themselves to get off this
privately provided welfare and gain back their self-esteem; self-esteem
they can now pass on to their descendants.
Is a safety net right? I believe so, absolutely. But remember, people
help people; governments don’t help. They hurt. And, even if their
intentions are good (far fewer than can be imagined), the results are
not. And good intentions plus negative results, does not equal positive
results.
Bob Burg (www.burg.com) is an internationally-known speaker, and author
of the highly-acclaimed books, “Endless Referrals” (McGraw-Hill) and
“Winning Without Intimidation: How to Master the Art of Positive
Persuasion” (Samark). You can subscribe to his free weekly ezine
newsletter by visiting
REF=”http://www.burg.com/newsletter.html”>http://www.burg.com/newsletter.html
As you might imagine, Bob also enjoys speaking on the topics of Liberty
and Freedom. You may contact him at his Web site.
______________________________________________________________________
Referring This Ezine – YES, by all means we encourage you to pass on
this newsletter to as many people as possible! We would only ask that
you make no changes to its content without written permission.
Cort McCadden
Managing Editor