Starting the Conversation

{ Posted on Sep 22 2009 by Pete Eyre }
Categories : Personal Ramblings

LAWRENCE, KS – A few days ago when going through security at the Dallas/Ft. Worth airport to make it back to the northeast I had a couple of conversations I thought worth sharing. While I loathe going through TSA hoops as much as anyone and know of people that will not fly anymore because of them, until I reach that point I am determined to use each pass through as an opportunity to advocate for the voluntary society.

As in most debates, the audience is not those with whom you’re directly talking but those listening from the sidelines. Unless the person you’re having a discussion with is truly intellectually honest and open to modifying or replacing their originally-advocated position if you provide a convincing and compelling argument for your perspective they’ll dig in their heels. Their pride is at stake. Especially when in the presence of others. That’s why the more-important actors are not those actually in the conversation but the audience.

So, while I don’t expect anyone employed by the TSA to quit their job after interacting with me, I do hope I plant a seed in a fellow passenger. A seed that, when watered by more positive interactions and logical arguments, will grow until that individual eventually concludes that they can’t morally continue to support the State and they too proactively spread the seed of liberty to others.

A.J. Nock Our Enemy, the State t-shirt from Mises.org

A.J. Nock "Our Enemy, the State" t-shirt from Mises.org

What happened wasn’t exceptionally by any measure, but as Tyler Cowen states, it’s a marginal revolution. I was wearing one of the shirts (A.J. Nock) we picked up when we visited the Mises Institute a few months ago. First, after putting my backpack, laptop briefcase and sandals (that I got for $2.50 at Wal-Mart!) on the conveyer belt I was asked “Enemy of the State??” by the TSA screener who greeted me as I passed through the metal detector. I replied “Google A.J. Nock” as I continued on. After the x-ray screener called over one and then two colleagues to look at one of my bags, I was asked to “Step aside for further bag inspection.”

As the TSA employee poked through my bag (later identifying the nine volt battery in my shotgun mic as the cause for the concern) he too asked “Enemy of the State??” Since I knew I had more time here I decided to engage him a bit. I told him that Nock is most-well-known for his differentiation between those who acquire wealth through the economic means as opposed to the political means. That those who obtained wealth through engaging in voluntary actions were moral and those who filled their wallet by engaging in coercion were not. He seemed to be generally in agreement.

Then I added to the latter “including people that work for federal agencies like the TSA, who’s salary is paid for by money stolen from people.” His response – “Nock, huh?” in a let’s-end-the-conversation-now tone. But not before I had the opportunity to hopefully plant this seed with others passing through the checkpoint.

If you want to pick-up your own Enemy of the State shirt (I encourage you to buy the six-shirt deal) head over to Mises.org. Other quality pro-liberty swag to start the conversation can be found at Laur Paravati’s Armor for Activists, Liberty Maniacs, Jil Wright’s Politicker Place, Tennyson McCalla’s The Ungovernable and Xaq Fixx’s operation ran through the Freedom Activist Network.

If you know of other pro-liberty outlets please let others know by posting a hyperlink in the comments section below. Thanks!


2 Responses to “Starting the Conversation”

  1. “As in most debates, the audience is not those with whom you’re directly talking but those listening from the sidelines. Unless the person you’re having a discussion with is truly intellectually honest and open to modifying or replacing their originally-advocated position if you provide a convincing and compelling argument for your perspective they’ll dig in their heels. Their pride is at stake. Especially when in the presence of others. That’s why the more-important actors are not those actually in the conversation but the audience.”

    great point !!

  2. Thanks gmoney! It was something I picked up from Tom Palmer when I was an intern at Cato back in the day.

    Another somewhat related point he communicated to us is the diamond method of sitting. Basically if you and a few friends are going to watch a speaker that you know is presenting say, some pro-Statist views and the bulk of the audience is in agreement with those views, you and your friends should not sit together in a small group as any comment/reaction from y’all will easily be dismissed as “those crazy heartless …… ” but instead y’all should spread out. One of you sit up front, one in back and one on each side (you get the idea). That way if your friend asks a pointed question you and your two other friends can clap/show agreement and it’ll look like more foks are supportive of such ideas. That will make it harder for those not-on-board to just dismiss the statement/perspective. They’ll think there may be something to the statement and be more likely to consider it.

Post a Comment