Give Me Liberty

Volume 1/Issue No. 1 February 2003

In This Issue:

• Welcome
• Persuasion For The Cause of Liberty, by Bob Burg
• Speaking In The Libertarian Spirit, by Donnell King
• Referring This Ezine

Welcome to Give Me Liberty! We are thrilled to have you reading our first liberty-oriented news ezine that hopefully will become one of your favorite monthly reads. For the inaugural issue we are honored to have two gentlemen who have been involved in freedom, liberty and Libertarian/libertarian thought for a number of years. Both Bob and Donnell have a passion for sharing this philosophy with not only those of you who have been followers but especially those of you that desire to learn more about reclaiming our country’s heritage of freedom and liberty.

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. In the mean time you can contact Cort McCadden, Managing Editor, at cort009@hotmail.com for your input and feedback.

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 givemeliberty-subscribe@topica.com !

Persuasion For The Cause of Liberty

by Bob Burg

The extreme losses of liberty suffered at the hands of our government over the past 75 years have affected us greatly as both a nation and a people. We've gone from a people proud of our independence to willing wards of a "Nanny State" which has assumed the right to tell us how to best live our lives.

The America we love is based on a Constitution and Bill of Rights that now is virtually ignored by those in political power, be they republican or democrat. This is made clearer to me every time I see one of them swearing, with their right hand raised, to protect and defend said Constitution while about to take office.

Individual liberty and personal responsibility has all but been replaced with collectivism and frivolous lawsuits. Charity has practically been subsumed by government aggression in the form of extreme taxation and endless bureaucracy. A policy of peace and non-intervention has been taken over by a virtual replica of the Roman Empire, with our troops stationed in well over 100 foreign countries, stirring up resentment for those of our great land and putting our brave sons and daughters in danger without just cause (the common defense - see Article 4 - Section 4 of Constitution).

Each of us who considers ourselves to be advocates of a free America; one in which people are free to live their lives as they see fit (not as politicians and bureaucrats see fit), take to heart these changes, and are committed to turning things back around. Yes, we desire an America that is once again free!

The good news is: there is plenty of evidence as to why Americans will prosper more than ever before when this happens. And, more and more people are ready to hear the message.

The bad news is, because we are so emotionally involved in this battle, we can sometimes turn off the very people who are willing to hear our message. To paraphrase former Libertarian Presidential Candidate and founder of the American Liberty Foundation (http://www.americanlibertyfoundation.org), Harry Brown, "We must sell liberty."

In other words, we must be able to persuasively explain our cause, to explain why liberty is always the answer and government aggression and intervention the problem. And, yes, to explain why the "one government program" (outside of its legitimate Constitutional functions) they feel cannot be done away with will in fact serve everyone much better if IS done away with.

And, we have to do this with patience, tact and kindness. There's a big difference between convincing and persuading. Dale Carnegie said, "A person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still." On the other hand, persuade him or her, and you cause them to take action.

With that in mind, I'd like this first article for Give Me Liberty to highlight one of the master persuaders in America's history.

March 1775, the Virginia Convention in Richmond, Virginia, featured a speech so persuasive it would play a key role in the direction of a soon-to-be-nation. Patrick Henry, newly distraught after the death of his beloved wife, Sarah, made a plea that Virginia - at once - be "immediately put into a posture of defense." This, in order to protect itself from the alleged "necessity" of the mother country's standing army, and taxes charged the colonies under that false pretense. After all, it was an unwelcome standing army in the first place. And besides, with the bad feelings and general climate as it was, the commonwealth was, according to Henry, "Too insecure in this time of danger and distress..."

But, as eloquent as that speech may have been, it was not persuasive enough.

Although Patrick Henry was one of the first of the "freedom fighters" to take a leadership role in the quest for independence, what he proclaimed just then would not have the desired effect. Immediately after his motion was seconded, Edmund Pendleton and many others rejected it in attendance. It was suggested that his proposal "went too far" and that, instead, "fortitude would be the best defense."

But, as author David J. Vaughan tells us in his book, "Give Me Liberty" (http://www.toolscart.com), Henry's "fortitude" had run out. He returned to the lectern to defend his motion and, as Vaughan points out, "gave what is now recognized as perhaps the greatest political speech in American History."

His speech would be fiery and passionate, rousing the emotions of the 120 delegates and the couple dozen spectators in attendance. The final paragraph, including the last seven words, would provide the inspiration that would persuade his detractors to make a decision that would change the course of history. But that famous last paragraph does not contain the "positive persuasion" lesson. So why am I writing this?

Because of his "opening" words. They are as follows:

"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as the abilities, of the very honorable gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I should speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery... Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."

Review the above paragraph and look at how Patrick Henry, about to make a speech that would totally and unabashedly contradict his opposers (but whose support he desperately needed) sets up his speech in true "positive persuasion" form.

First, he complimented them abundantly on their patriotism (a high value of everyone in attendance), as well as their abilities, and referred to them as being honorable. He then pointed out that good, honest people can see things differently, and he assured them there was absolutely no disrespect in his disagreement with their views. He asked for "permission" to speak freely. (Internally, they gave him the permission he asked for, which automatically makes them more agreeable to persuasion.) Having successfully received their emotional permission, he used some "chilling" words that would set up his speech of possibly unequalled passion.

Mr. Henry's wonderful set-up of his landmark speech includes many lessons from which we all can benefit, and use anytime we need to persuade others to a beneficial outcome.

Always remember; until (and unless) a person first buys into YOU, they will most likely not buy into your message.

Oh, in case you're wondering, the final paragraph of his historic speech was the following:

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry 'peace, peace', but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty G-d! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

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 "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 bob@burg.com .

Speaking In The Libertarian Spirit

by Donnell King

I grew up in a religiously conservative household. We thought Southern Baptists were liberals! We learned that having sex standing up was wrong because it might lead to dancing.

This has several things to do with Libertarianism.

• Although I'm in a very different place religiously, spirituality continues to be important to me. (The nature of the change is such that I will never, ever say you are hell bound, even if you disagree with me.) Libertarianism has spiritual effects, and seems to me grounded in spiritual principles.
• It's useful to be able to discuss my current beliefs with old friends within the context of the old approach. If I can explain what I believe now in a way that springs from what I used to believe, I am more likely to get the other person to listen.
• Though my former religious group claimed to be based on the Bible alone and (theoretically) allowed each person to decide for himself/herself what the Bible taught (very libertarian, actually), in practice things worked differently. Within this relatively small group that pleaded for Christian unity based on the Bible alone, at least 42 identifiable subgroups existed, many of which did not consider the others to be "true Christians." I sometimes see the same infighting amongst libertarians, who spend time and energy identifying "true libertarians." That energy would be better spent communicating with the "unconverted."

In this column we will focus on two basic aspects of human experience and how they relate to libertarian ideas and ideals: spirituality (not religion) and communication.

SPIRITUALITY? YOU MUST BE KIDDING!

I use the terms "spirituality" and "religion" differently.

"Spirituality" is a universal human need. It doesn't require a belief in a personal god or a unique individual undying soul. Atheists and agnostics address spiritual needs through social action, transpersonal psychology, or any number of avenues outside religion. Equate it with the human need to identify with something larger than your individual self. That "something larger" may be an idea or a philosophy, which the most individualistic of libertarians still need and can embrace.

"Religion" is a system, a set of ideas, and a practice. It is a means to an end, the end being spiritual development. You can be spiritual without being religious, and can also be religious (in the sense of following the system) without being particularly spiritual. Religion is the way that many, if not most, people seek to satisfy their spiritual needs, but there is no necessary relationship between the two.

When libertarians think about human relationships, nonaggression, ethics, and even economics, many or all of them deal with spiritual questions.

I intend no slur on traditional religion. It can be a quite effective tool for spiritual development. But some libertarians view religion as restricting human liberty as much as government. I'm asking them to keep an open mind, since many other libertarians see religion AND spirituality as supportive of liberty.

There is no necessary conflict between traditional religion and libertarianism. One of my close former friends easily combined his very conservative religious ideas (he was a minister in my former fellowship) and libertarian ideals.

For instance, though he believed prostitution immoral, he still believed the government should legalize it. He didn't want people obeying what he saw as God's will simply because a government used its coercive power to enforce it. He wanted it to be the individual's choice (and he would also know to whom to preach).

OK, SO WHAT ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION STUFF?

The connection to libertarian ideas is easy to see. Michael Cloud, after all, has been writing and speaking for years about effective advocacy of libertarian ideas. We won't repeat what he does, but rather approach it from a slightly different angle--one he probably wouldn't quarrel with.

My focus for a long time has been "to help others remember and express who they really are through effective communication" (from my own mission statement at http://www.soapboxorations.com/). That's obviously broader than libertarianism. I would help anyone communicate more effectively. I'm committed to an old-fashioned idea: when we communicate with each other openly, freely, and effectively, the best ideas become obvious. I don't want to "win" an argument just because the other person can't formulate and communicate his ideas. It will be an ineffective and ephemeral win that will soon swing back the other way.

Neither passive nor aggressive communication is effective, except for achieving the goals of placating or dominating the other person. When the goal is genuine persuasion, assertive communication works best. It can't guarantee you will change someone's mind or life--but neither can the other two modes. Even aggressive communication can only bring compliance, not agreement, and then only until the one aggressed upon develops a counterattack.

The best we can hope for is what assertive communication can give us: clear sharing of understanding. When you can make yourself understood, you have the greatest chance of changing minds. Achieving such is a spiritual process of getting outside yourself and seeing things from another viewpoint. "Communicate" has as its root "commune"--not communism or communalism, but finding that place within each of us that we have in common, the place we can meet.

If that sounds too "new agey" for you, consider that it is the core of the "Ransberger Pivot," a persuasion strategy advocated by Dr. Mary Ruwart, Michael Cloud, and others, used to establish common ground with a questioner. (Example: "Like you, I want to see children receive the best education for the real world.") It is verbal aikido, in which you see things from the other's viewpoint without giving up your own. That's as practical as it gets, and it's also very spiritual.

Here's why it matters. A frequent customer of my photo shop (years ago) invited me to address his Lion's Club, the first time anyone had asked me to speak. It was a great opportunity, which I solidly blew. I spent the whole time telling them that when government forcibly collects taxes, it's the same as what a thief does, even if the thief leaves us something "in return." Although I believed that (and still do), I failed to look at it from the listener's viewpoint. They needed warming up first!

The man who invited me was a prominent state senator--a member of the government. Do you think he was able to hear what I had to say? In my naiveté, I offered to speak to the group again. He politely replied, "No, thanks, I think you've done enough." He was embarrassed, frankly, and I don't blame him.

I shouldn't have lied to the group, but I would have been more likely to get them to hear me had I started where they were instead of where I was. That's not deception; that's sensitivity. Probably none of them would have seen the light that very day, but they might have eventually because I got the ball rolling that day. Instead, I just mashed the ball.

This, then, gives us the underpinnings for the innately, fundamentally practical discussion of spirituality, communication, and libertarianism.

Now, go commit an act of communication!

--

Donnell King works with individuals and groups who want to become more effective communicators. He is an associate professor of speech and journalism at Pellissippi State Technical Community College and a recipient of an Excellence Award from the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development. He is available for consulting and training. He has recently co-authored a textbook on communication, and he is getting ready to release his first ebook. You can find out more about his work at http://www.soapboxorations.com, or contact Donnell at 865-983-5974 or by e-mail at daking@soapboxorations.com .

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.

For more information, RLSlovacek@aol.com