Liz Warren Eats Puppies - Appeal for Messaging
Sorry about the title, just wanted attention...
Appeal for Objectivist & Libertarian Messaging
Gentlepeople,
A majority of Gulchers share many common objectives: freedom, smaller government, government fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. Daily we post messages inspiring variously: applause, boos, reactions, thought and argument. I personally enjoy argument. It helps forge the right position in a crucible of a diversity of opinions, and Gulchers are an intelligent bunch.
However, unless we convince others, we are just drinking our own bathwater. We’ll be condemned to complaining about the slick media and celebrities convincing the mainstream lemmings progressivism is “nice”, must be further instituted in Government and {corporations, guns, freedoms not employed by artists, personal responsibility} must be severely chained.
This is an appeal for messages to compel others to think about the difficult seven-moves-ahead game of chess the world plays, rather than the three-move-ahead progressive promise (e.g. He has less. You have more. You should give him some. He needs it). Our (capitalist) system works, even better uninhibited. However, it is difficult for many people to understand something as simple as least means squared optimization in a monotonic, even multivariable, system (always finds the maxima). Clearly, those that enjoy being on the take, will never comply. We need messages to compel those willing to think and understand.
We have an enormous, well-educated resource here. This has to be a priority, unless we are really going to the Gulch, abandoning the US, or considering a revolution. The following is a start at messages by the various perspectives existing out there.
Mainstream Progressives – Perhaps these people are unreachable. I am not so sure. We have common ground in social freedom. In addition, these people consider themselves intelligent, and with this self-evaluation comes some degree of arrogance. They can be compelled to engage, thinking they will defeat foolish, neanderthal capitalists. This engagement is an opening to be exploited, either to convince them, of discredit them in front of others who can then be convinced.
Mainstream Conservatives – These people should be easy, except for their pet government institution, social security, defense, or legislation to take away “scary” social rights. In my mind these people need to be convinced the first fight is individual responsibility and small government, and that the social issues they are so afraid of are either irrelevant or for later… I mean you don’t want a gay guy taking away your gun, so why take away his partner. How cool would “Gays for Guns” be?
Moderates – These people are on the fence, and simply need to understand the real process governing the overall economy.
Young People – These people care nothing about social security, and are easily swayed by bambi-themes. I think fairness and equality will appeal to these people greatly. However, fairness must be expanded. A simple message to assert that it must be equality of opportunity, not just equality, should be an easy sell. “Ok, young woman, equality in all things or equality in opportunity? All things? Ok, then why don’t you date this little computer scientist troll here? He’s ugly, like the PC guy in the commercial? Yes, but what about equality? Now, what if he beefed up (choice), cleaned up (choice) and listened (choice)? Ahhh, now its ok. So you individually are interested in his choices, and would offer some degree of equality there, but not unilaterally. You have arrived. Now what about economic, education, discipline choices”…I think this is the most ready group, and such arguments crush the celebrity clowns, who get all their media access from beauty.
Every law is really a social experiment with a problem, hypothesized solution, and expected outcome. I believe part of every law should be an expected, measurable outcome and timing as part of what is voted on. If this outcome is met, the law stands. If it fails, the law is void. It is simple and executable.
What do the Gulchers think about ways to approach non-believers? (shooting them not allowed)
Appeal for Objectivist & Libertarian Messaging
Gentlepeople,
A majority of Gulchers share many common objectives: freedom, smaller government, government fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. Daily we post messages inspiring variously: applause, boos, reactions, thought and argument. I personally enjoy argument. It helps forge the right position in a crucible of a diversity of opinions, and Gulchers are an intelligent bunch.
However, unless we convince others, we are just drinking our own bathwater. We’ll be condemned to complaining about the slick media and celebrities convincing the mainstream lemmings progressivism is “nice”, must be further instituted in Government and {corporations, guns, freedoms not employed by artists, personal responsibility} must be severely chained.
This is an appeal for messages to compel others to think about the difficult seven-moves-ahead game of chess the world plays, rather than the three-move-ahead progressive promise (e.g. He has less. You have more. You should give him some. He needs it). Our (capitalist) system works, even better uninhibited. However, it is difficult for many people to understand something as simple as least means squared optimization in a monotonic, even multivariable, system (always finds the maxima). Clearly, those that enjoy being on the take, will never comply. We need messages to compel those willing to think and understand.
We have an enormous, well-educated resource here. This has to be a priority, unless we are really going to the Gulch, abandoning the US, or considering a revolution. The following is a start at messages by the various perspectives existing out there.
Mainstream Progressives – Perhaps these people are unreachable. I am not so sure. We have common ground in social freedom. In addition, these people consider themselves intelligent, and with this self-evaluation comes some degree of arrogance. They can be compelled to engage, thinking they will defeat foolish, neanderthal capitalists. This engagement is an opening to be exploited, either to convince them, of discredit them in front of others who can then be convinced.
Mainstream Conservatives – These people should be easy, except for their pet government institution, social security, defense, or legislation to take away “scary” social rights. In my mind these people need to be convinced the first fight is individual responsibility and small government, and that the social issues they are so afraid of are either irrelevant or for later… I mean you don’t want a gay guy taking away your gun, so why take away his partner. How cool would “Gays for Guns” be?
Moderates – These people are on the fence, and simply need to understand the real process governing the overall economy.
Young People – These people care nothing about social security, and are easily swayed by bambi-themes. I think fairness and equality will appeal to these people greatly. However, fairness must be expanded. A simple message to assert that it must be equality of opportunity, not just equality, should be an easy sell. “Ok, young woman, equality in all things or equality in opportunity? All things? Ok, then why don’t you date this little computer scientist troll here? He’s ugly, like the PC guy in the commercial? Yes, but what about equality? Now, what if he beefed up (choice), cleaned up (choice) and listened (choice)? Ahhh, now its ok. So you individually are interested in his choices, and would offer some degree of equality there, but not unilaterally. You have arrived. Now what about economic, education, discipline choices”…I think this is the most ready group, and such arguments crush the celebrity clowns, who get all their media access from beauty.
Every law is really a social experiment with a problem, hypothesized solution, and expected outcome. I believe part of every law should be an expected, measurable outcome and timing as part of what is voted on. If this outcome is met, the law stands. If it fails, the law is void. It is simple and executable.
What do the Gulchers think about ways to approach non-believers? (shooting them not allowed)
Of Mainstream Conservatives, you say: "These people should be easy, except for their pet government institution, social security, defense, or legislation to take away “scary” social rights." I say this is the crux of the problem for *everyone*. Everyone thinks he's for liberty and stopping mooching, with various exceptions: the military, Social Security, their research grants, their public schools, keeping drugs and cigarettes away from their family, paying for their parents' medical treatment. The list is endless.
"why don’t you date this little computer scientist troll here?"
They do prefer computer scientist trolls and odd little men like Frank Lloyd Wright. If they were following forced equality, they'd have to date guys adapted for preindustrial and industrial jobs which are being replaced by machines. So the are argument should go, "why don't you give up interesting computer geeks in favor of an big tall guy selling insurance in the name of equality?"
The last point is tongue-in-cheek, but the truth in it is everyone's better for it all the weirdos of the world are left alone and produce stuff that appeals to a broad base or a handful of people down the Long Tail. Objectivism for me is all about the Long Tail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_T...
In this context, I'm saying lack of equality more than ever does not mean winners and losers b/c now it's so easy to connect to with people who want to trade whatever you have to offer. This makes today's world more conducive to objectivism than a world where you have to get through the editors at the Banner to get the word out.