Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: "Sheeple"?? Lose that attitude, or lose the war  (Read 5386 times)

JayPrimePositive

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • I've got my voting shoes on...
Re:"Sheeple"?? Lose that attitude, or lose the war
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2002, 12:49:09 am »

Diving into the fray with such an elitist attittude is ultimately self-defeating. While principles are nice, results are nice too. The means aren't so terrible in this instance, are they?
Well said.  The means are legal, the ends are just and desired.

What could I accomplish by calling people names?  I suppose I could
drive some away from the movement, or encourage some to work against
its ends.  I think it is more important to attract members and
encourage them to work for our ends.

j'

Logged
This message is copyright 2002 by Jay Prime Positive.  It is infact 'copyleft' and available without notice under the license at http://www.seanet.com/~jpp/mycopyleft.html

freedom's ideologue

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
    • Caleb for Congress
Re: "Sheeple"?? Lose that attitude, or lose the war
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2005, 01:38:23 pm »

I've been thinking a lot about "attitudes" ... and what we must do in order to persuade people to hear what we are saying.

It seems to me that people reflect a broad spectrum, and politics isn't everything to everyone.  Even Rand said that she thought about politics so that she wouldn't have to think about politics one day....

Where I'm going with this is that most people don't want to think about politics.  They have other interests.  That doesn't make them "sheeple" ... it makes them disinterested.  While that may be DANGEROUS it our day and age ... It hardly merits our contempt. 

People do things for one reason, and one reason only:  they believe there is some advantage to them to do it.  If you can show them how it benefits THEM, people will support you. 

You're never going to find a state that has 100% of people who are actively interested in politics.  It isn't going to happen.  Not even close.  If you view those people with contempt, then you won't even get a hearing ear.  When you look at the people who have been effective, they've always sold a positive picture to the public.   That goes for Hitler, sure.  But it also goes for the other side:  people like Ronald Reagan were successful because they sold a positive picture to the people.  He persuaded people that he could make their lives better.  They liked him.  Bill Clinton the same way.  He never convinced ME that he could make my life better ... but he did convince me that he was a charming likable person.  And that gets you far.

We know the way to failure in politics:  break promises ("read my lips ... "), focus on too much detail, "I'm John Kerry ... and I have a 147 point plan for implementing free trade with Uruguay"), be humorless, ("That's Bob Dole's Chair!").  Obviously be unlikable.  But we're not trying to lose.

If we want to win, we should analyze those who win.  Why copy Paul Tsongas or Howard Dean or Pat Buchanan?  Why not copy those who actually win. 

The point of all this boils down to the concept that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  I've converted a lot of people to Libertarianism, but I noticed something:  I haven't converted a single person by showing them how it benefited ME, or by convincing them that they were too stupid, so they should just do what I say.  Every single person that I have converted to Libertarianism has done so for one reason:  they come to believe that it benefits THEM.  The same reason I am a Libertarian, and the same reason YOU are.  We can't change the rules of psychology.  We ought to work with them.

Caleb
Logged
We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done. - Jean Luc Picard

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re: "Sheeple"?? Lose that attitude, or lose the war
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2005, 02:36:12 pm »

[Cross-posted at nhunderground http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=1051.msg14929#msg14929 ]
I think too many people, unjustly complain about the people being "sheeple" as well.

These people, are simply living their lives, they don't CARE about politics -- and that's a good thing. This is a basic problem with government -- the people that get the protection get a high rewards, but the people that are hurt are a disorganized mass -- all living their own dreams.  It costs a whole lot more for them to oppose or repeal an existing regulation or protectionist polocy, because it's so much less cost per person, then the small group lobbying for the protection -- it's spread out over a far smaller number of people.

They're not being "sheeple" They're simply being self interested. They have more imporatn things to to then attack a specific regulation that pushes their price as a consumer up 2 or 3 dollars for that product -- when they could be making much more by simply working. Meanwhile, the protected industries have a whole lot to benifit by something having a higher price because the benifit is spread over a much smaller group.

These "sheeple" are the very kind of people we want in a free society. Self interested people, going about their daily lives. They don't have "politicitis" and will be very productive people once a free society is achieved and maintained.

The problem simply lies in the nature of government -- it exists. And as long as it exists their will be interest groups that benifit much more by lobbiing for protectionist polocies, then the individual people that are hurt by them -- on a person per person basis.

But we really shouldn't be disparaging people who don't care about politics -- we should be complimenting them.  I really do think the best way to strive for freedom is through non-political methods. I do have this nagging fear that once -- and if, Libertarians, actually did get into power they'd get corrupted as well. Where as, charity, and social institutions, building businesses, etc. through economic means, will give people the means to get around government so as to hopefully, in the future, simply make it irrelevent. Now, if I could just do that. . . But I'm sick, I can't watch a movie or read about with-out thinking of political implications.

Anyway,

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up