Marketing, Music and Libertarianism

Good marketing is not about everyone having the same message but delivering that message better. To elaborate here is an analogy.

I want there to be many genres of music from abrasive niche styles like grindcore, avant-garde styles like like quirky indie acts, to wholesome accessible mass market genres like country and pop.

Within each of these genres the acts that rise to the top of the charts are the ones who care about the details such as sound quality, musicianship, song structure, etc.

So I want there to be lots of genres of libertarian but I want to empower through marketing and communication a better ability for each to reach their audience more effectively.

Comprende?

Marketing the Liberty Message

When I suggest that people care about how they present and advocate ideas (being a good listener, empathy, positivity, framing to your audiences values), I sometimes get a pushback that basically suggests…

– If people can’t get behind an idea stated in its most abrasive and disruptive form then they somehow must ardently be against the underlying principle and fought against at every turn.

– That someone who doesn’t put ideas forth in their most abrasive/disruptive form must be trying to water down Principle.

– The ideas of Liberty should sell themselves.

*This is not to say that no one has ever knowingly watered down principle but good marketing is not watering down.

I push back against all three of these statements.

– Listening to people and then framing a principled message to their values/context so they can relate plants a seed of its underlying principle which more disruptive thinking can grow from.

– No matter how good nothing sells itself, every entrepreneur/Inventor wants to believe their product is so good that they don’t need to sell. At the end of the day it’s those who sell and sell well who succeed. What Idea is more worthy and vital to sell than the principles of liberty.

Quick Bitcoin FAQ

A quick bitcoin/crypto FAQ?

1. Is bitcoin gold?

No, gold is gold and bitcoin is bitcoin, they are both assets and having a wide array of assets may be a suitable strategy to meet your goals, depends what they are?

2. Is bitcoin speculative?

Yes, I do believe bitcoin and blockchain have a bright future but its current price is heavy part speculation of what that role will be which can bigger and smaller than the price implies, Time will tell.

3. Is it a store of value?

Generally a store of value should have a more stable value and one Day bitcoin may have that but it doesn’t now. It can be used as a medium of exchange quite easily nowadays with coinbase, uphold and bitpay credit cards but its volatile price does prevent someone from using it regularly for now.

4. What about altcoins and ICOs?

If bitcoin is speculative altcoins and ICOs are more so but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have resources allocated to them but you should really do your due diligence and know what your buying cause there are a LOT of scam alts/icos that will rob you blind. But with some moderate due diligence and cautiousness you can avoid 99% of them.

5. Should I own other assets?

No asset is perfect so you should consider being spread out across Stocks, bonds, foreign currencies, metals, real estate, cryptos, etc. but you may want to talk to an expert who can assess your goals and help you allocate in a way to meet your goals best.

6. Where is a good place to learn the basics about bitcoin?

Go to my website BitcoinBlockchainCrypto.com

Politics and Corruption

Politics results in corruption either way.

If big government values are the political flavor of the moment big money interests (big business, big labor, etc.) will agitate for new taxes and regulations that hurt their competition.

If small government values are the political flavor of the moment big money interests will agitate for less taxes and regulations in a careful manner that benefit them and not their competitors.

One side isn’t more or less corrupt than the other, politics is the game of the powerful at the expense of the powerless. As a libertarian I want little as possible to be determined in the realm of politics but it’s not just a matter of rolling back policies.

Libertarian ends means empowering people to be the solution themselves. People need to understand how they can start charities and businesses to solve today’s problems so their demand for government involvement isn’t the avenue for someone else’s corruption. (Special interests will always use your frustration, your anger as the door to get their pet project enacted)

The Role of Regulation

People fear the growing market power of successful economic actors may be used against them so they call for regulation.

Private actors in self defense hire lobbyist to interfere in the rule writing and the process of selecting the enforcers. (Regulatory Capture) The result is often rules with no teeth that impose compliance and record keeping costs which is burden that hurts the smaller firms the worst.

The larger firms realize that the lobbying network they build and paid for might as well be used for not just defense but offense against their competitors and their vendors. Regulations now becomes a room for businesses to impose costs on their competition. (Rent Seeking)

In all of this consumers are not protected but pay the bill through higher costs and a false sense of security that makes them more apt to fall for scams and fraud.

Individuals you fear with market power are just as fearsome if not more so with government power. It’s these powers in tandem that fuel the growth of each other. It’s diminishing of government power than makes accumulated market power weaker to competitive forces keep power in General more well distributed.

The Power of Individual Liberty

Often times the things that hold us back, oppress us, diminish us exist in large part are because we allow them to. We believe they must exist and that they are in the right to wrong us.

My goal as a Libertarian isn’t to give these beasts any more bite by terrifying you with tales of their abuse of power over you but to shine a light that this power has been yours to take back all along.

That bad things in this world often exist from the fact we have yet to claim our individuality and ability to empower ourselves and when we do the beast will turn out to be just a paper tiger in the wind.

So no, I will not engage in the politics of fear, resentment and anger that empower the beast but the politics of hope, optimism and affirmation that empowers you to take back the rights you had all along.

That’s all I offer and what I will always offer. If you find this to be a better path, please join me by my side on the journeys ahead.

Diversity is good because of cooperation and conflict

Diversity is not good because everyone will always get along, but in large part because initially they won’t. (Overtime they will as later generations grow up side by side)

A society with a moderate level of conflict will be less likely to agree on how to use government power on each other and use it less so as they’ll be too busy fighting over how to use it. (My good friend gridlock)

I want people to get along, share ideas and create something new but that won’t always be the case. Markets and society don’t just benefit from our non-violent cooperation but also from our non-violent competition. (Self-Ownership clearly draws the line from which these forces cross the line from productive to destructive)

Libertarianism is Inclusive

Libertarianism doesn’t dictate your personal values on how the world should be, just that your only tool for making it so are your life, body and property and that others shouldn’t take/hurt those tools and you shouldn’t hurt/take their’s.

So yes not all libertarians are going to feel the same way personally about immigration, abortion, multiculturalism etc. (and that’s fine)

Personally I’m very much for simpler more open immigration policies and feel diverse populations enhance markets and moderate conflicts, but it’s totally cool if you disagree with me, doesn’t mean you want to take/hurt my life, body or property.

Although people often conflate their personal views with Libertarianism and denigrate other people who Share very similar anti-force principles making hard to create a solid movement for individual liberty.

Bottom line:

Bad Idea

Focusing your advocacy attacking and demonizing those who don’t share the same personal values you do within the broader libertarian movement. (Worse than speaking to the choir, you are attacking the choir)

Good Idea

Either…

Focusing your advocacy on speaking to people with your values, the audience most likely to be receptive to what you have to say and getting them involved in the ideas of liberty. Treating movement politics as a fun game of capture the flag and that by competing over influence in the movement by numbers drives everyone to grow their numbers and the movement as a whole.

Or

If you’re like myself and like talking to people who disagree as much as people who agree (being challenged is how I test myself, asking questions is how I learn) then adopt marketing principles of targeting and segmentation when you talk and be aware of your audience. Identify where your best path to adovacacy is and take it. Don’t rush to discuss the most alienating thing you can find for that audience. (It’s like visiting your spouses parents for the first time and talking about how good they are in bed)

Let’s give everyone Free Healthcare!!!

Let’s give everyone free healthcare!

Everyone at first: Yay, this is awesome. I pay a little more taxes but it’s offset by not paying that insurance premium.

Doctors: Well you are controlling costs by severely limiting my pay versus my student loans… doesn’t seem financially sensical for new people to become doctors.

Ok… then let’s pay for everyone’s education!

Everyone: Sweet, I am ok with the higher taxes cause it replaced my student loan bill.

Overtime the costs increase so taxes increase…

Everyone: Ok these higher taxes aren’t making this so awesome anymore get these costs under control.

Well one way we can control costs is by only letting people come to the country if they are less likely to need government services. Taxes still increase so the poorest and most ambitious move out to seek opportunity elsewhere, only other well to do people can move in so costs balances out with revenue but you’ve driven out the poor and most ambitious who these programs were for in the first place.

All the statistics look good cause your population appears wealthier, smarter and healthier cause everyone else moved out.

If every country did this the poor would be stuck in their country of origin as no nation would accept the poor and huddled masses to control costs. The rich and well to do would still be free to travel around the world but the poor become geographically frozen from seeking greener pastures allowing generational poverty to develop whose plight is diminished by government services but do to a lack of free movement becomes perpetual.

This may take several generations to play out, but it will play out.

(This doesn’t even consider the effects on innovation and the likely labor protections that would form that would create persistent youth unemployment, but let’s keep it simple)

Older posts
Newer posts