I must say - 500 views in 2 days. Not bad :)
Let's see if it can get the snowball effect...
Clayton -
Clayton:@JJ: Well, if I had said "No more printing money. No more public debt. No more wars." etc. these would be construed as a political manifesto by the unsympathetic audience I'm trying to reach. "No more printing money without our permission" doesn't necessarily entail that it would be OK if it was with our permission (though I know that is how the sentence will be taken, so this is a bit weasely). But I actually did think this through.
Yeah I know, I get it. I personally would have ultimately found a way around it or left it out. I may be too much of a stickler, but I don't think so...I can make concessions, but I'm a stickler for doing it in an honest and consistent way. Like I was saying here in this related thread.
I have always been of this opinion, and am glad to have discovered (even if only recently) Rothbard shared my same sentiments. I just came across this for the first time a week or so ago...
It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.
Those final paragraphs are supposed to be a Jujutsu move on "We Are the 99%" to instead convey the essence of Boetie's Politics of Obedience: We outnumber the corrupt rulers of the country 100 to 1 and this shows that a) what they can get away with is really our own fault for permitting them to get away with it and b) the key to changing things is changing our own attitudes... which is why I used the phrase "we need to change our minds about what we will allow... the government... to get away with." It's always difficult to sell a message of self-deficiency to an audience. "You're the problem! But isn't my speech awesome!? Tell all your friends to watch it on YouTube so I can tell them they suck, too!" Carlin somehow managed to pull it off... alas, I am no Carlin.
Those final paragraphs are supposed to be a Jujutsu move on "We Are the 99%" to instead convey the essence of Boetie's Politics of Obedience: We outnumber the corrupt rulers of the country 100 to 1 and this shows that a) what they can get away with is really our own fault for permitting them to get away with it and b) the key to changing things is changing our own attitudes... which is why I used the phrase "we need to change our minds about what we will allow... the government... to get away with."
It's always difficult to sell a message of self-deficiency to an audience. "You're the problem! But isn't my speech awesome!? Tell all your friends to watch it on YouTube so I can tell them they suck, too!" Carlin somehow managed to pull it off... alas, I am no Carlin.
Yeah, I get that too. I actually didn't really have a problem with that, as it is certainly true that it is ultimately through the will of the people that this situation arises (as I was even saying in the last post). But you must acknowledge the contradiction this presents...you're first claiming "we have the power, they only can get away with what we allow", and then you follow it up with "no more of all this stuff unless we say so"...after you just finished essentially telling the audience that the elites can't get away with anything without the say so of the public in the first place.
But on top of that, "no more bailouts unless we say so" implies that there is a validity and justification for bailouts (even if only in certain cases)...which essentially (even in only indirectly) concedes the notion that theft through government force is justifiable. This is something I won't bring myself to do. I'm not a big believer in "ends justify the means". And what's more, I don't even believe the desired end (a more libertarian world) can be achieved using those means, as I think they actually work against it.
Ultimately the more I think about it the more I'm afraid it might actually neutralize all the great work done in the rest of the video, laying out the case for the bullet points that Graham metioned. By saying things to the effect of "we can take back our government" (I don't believe you actually said this, but that's easily the message that will be heard), and closing with all the "unless we say so"'s, it gives me the feeling that the typical OWSer (and not just the protestors, but all their sympathizers) will just simply be left with the very same thing they came in with...a notion that "we need to take back the power"...and that all we need to do then is put "the right people" in charge...
Because even though the video explains there's no such thing, and that it's just a neverended cycle of the same, it also doesn't offer any alternative (just like virtually all leftist arguments). Obviously you're not going to convince someone of the validity and virtues of anarchism right away—certainly not with a single video—but that actually supports my point: the video spends a great deal of time pointing out the inherent flaws in the concept of government, and therefore the flaws in entrusting faith in the State...but if you're not going to persuade anyone that the State should be abolished entirely, you need to at least point them in that direction with guidence on what they can be doing differently. Simply feeding them rhetoric that they are already reciting is not at all useful, it just feeds the fire.
When I spoke of "speaking their language" I was referring to using certain buzzwords and phraseology that will sound familiar to them, but that are used in a different manner and directed at different sources. For example, in the OP video, the guy says "...prices go up! Gas goes up! Bread goes up! [...] Did my wages go up? No! How am I supposed to live?" Sounds pretty familiar, right? That could have easily been said by a typical "forgive my student loan debt and tax the greedy CEOs" protester...but preceeding it and following it the kid gives a very specific reason the prices are going up...not only identifying the cause, but offering an actual body of people who are responsible (it is incredibly helpful when you have someone to blame)...and offering the solution. That is what these people need. They need the reality explained to them and to be guided as to where their anger and energies should be focused...and what they should do differently to change things.
The video basically tells them that voting in different people who simply say the same things won't make a difference, and all but directly says government is completely useless and is nothing but destructive...but it does nothing to help the viewer to know where to go from there. The typical wall street protester is not going to come away with any new ideas about what he should be talking about or doing...because the final plea basically sounds like an appeal to what he's already doing...which is basically just a reinforcment of his current behavior. Sure he might get a skeptical nugget or two about the mystical, all-powerful nature of government, but I'm not sure that's very useful if he comes away feeling like he's doing the right thing.
I realize this may seem all like "criticism after the horses have already left the barn", as the video has been produced and uploaded, but I personally would redo that closing. I would make the current video private, so that any links anyone has created to it will still work, but it won't show up in your listings, and upload a new one and promote that one.
I realize this is more work for Graham as well as on your end, with composing a new script ending, possibly changing some of the visuals, and syncing it to the rest of the video, but in my opinion it's worth it to have it done right. One's it's done, you don't have to do any more work, and it will be around forever, to be seen again and again.
@JJ: We'll just have to disagree on this one. You're absolutely right that this video will not change anyone's mind about the legitimacy of democracy but that was not it's goal or purpose. If you go read Bastiat's original essay, L'Etat, he does not advocate the abolition of government and he cognizes the vote as a potentially legitimate system of organizing society provided that it is not used to create a system of "plunder of all by all." Of course, liberalism has advanced a lot since Bastiat's day and Hoppe has explained how such plunder of all by all is an inevitable consequence of democracy, so much so that democracy may rightly be called "soft communism" (Hoppe's words).
As I noted above, the Occupy Wall Street movement is attracting a wide diversity of people and my hope was that this video could speak to more than just the few Ron Paul minarchists who are bordering on a conversion to full-blown anti-statism. I'm happy with the viewer walking away with his views on democracy unchanged. I just want the viewer to consider the possibility that he attributes god-like attributes to the government (as Bastiat satirizes) and that we (the American public) are responsible for the state of affairs - not our leaders - and, accordingly, we may change the situation merely by changing our minds. "Resolve to serve no more and you are at once freed." (Etienne de la Boetie, Politics of Obedience) I think that message comes through unmistakably without getting mired in the debate over whether a 50.000001% vote can justify the use of aggressive force.
dude in the video from the OP keeps saying fiat money, when half the time he is actually referring to fiduciary media, which of course can be and was a problem under the gold standard as well.
Getting some adversarial comments which is a good sign! We're reaching the unsympathetic audience which is the goal, here.
"There are some good ideas here, but if you still espouse libertarianism, please. Your ideas are childishly awful, and need to die off. If you really think that the government is stealing from you, then please follow your ideas to their natural conclusion and kill yourself, but first write up a will that all of your worldly possessions are to be donated to the benefit of the Native Americans whose land you're squatting on. Everything you own belongs to them. Quit stealing from them, asshole."
LOL, nice.
to act as if the entire north american contient had been homesteaded by the 16th century is a 'childishly awful' idea.
Also, the US gov't was responsible for the super majority of atrocities committed against the native people
Clayton:You're absolutely right that this video will not change anyone's mind about the legitimacy of democracy but that was not it's goal or purpose.
I'm afraid you missed the point of my post. I not only acknowledged that was not the goal of the video, but pointed out that it shouldn't be, and that that is an unachievable goal in the first place.
If you go read Bastiat's original essay, L'Etat, he does not advocate the abolition of government and he cognizes the vote as a potentially legitimate system of organizing society
So what? Who said you have to do that? Again, I'm not quite sure you read my post closely enough. I specifically addressed both of those things...(1) that you do not have to advocate the abolition of government at all times... and (2) that it is preferrable to not acquiesce legitimacy of a state, even if you are not directly advocating abolition of it.
In fact I quoted an entire passage from Rothbard on this...in fact this was the main point of the whole post.
Of course, liberalism has advanced a lot since Bastiat's day and Hoppe has explained how such plunder of all by all is an inevitable consequence of democracy, so much so that democracy may rightly be called "soft communism" (Hoppe's words).
It sounds like you're saying liberalism in Bastiat's day wasn't advanced enough to recognize the fact that the State is necessarily harmful. I call nonsense. Say was born nearly three decades before Bastiat, (in the same country, no less) and had no problem identifying the inhernet destructive nature of government. Rothbard documents this briefly in his conclusion on taxation here.
I'm happy with the viewer walking away with his views on democracy unchanged.
I'm not sure why you would be happy about that. I would hope you just mean that you're okay with it.
I just want the viewer to consider the possibility that he attributes god-like attributes to the government (as Bastiat satirizes) and that we (the American public) are responsible for the state of affairs - not our leaders - and, accordingly, we may change the situation merely by changing our minds.
That was kind of my point. I'm just not so sure that that consideration is taking place if someone comes away thinking he's already doing the right thing. That doesn't seem to make sense.
if someone comes away thinking he's already doing the right thing
There's little point in telling someone in a 10 minute monologue: "You're not doing the right thing!" People never change their minds even when directly involved in protracted, interactive debate. Much less listening to some random YouTube video. The video does not advocate the protests but I did point out that making signs and issuing demands is not the answer (in other words, they might need to rethink what they're doing and why in light of the video's suggestion that, perhaps, they have a fundamental misconception about what government can do).
We've broken 1,000 views!
I'm just worried that the initial boom was only due to /r/Austrian_economics
That was probably some of it. Graham I think linked a bunch of sites to it, as well. Anyway, it's enough to start boosting it in search results and have it appear in related videos which is the key.