I reckon one of the best approaches is to show how libertarian/liberal ideas can help those under the worst circumstances, or at least contrast them with possible bad effects from illiberal policy. As Charlotte’s “quotations” and Geoffrey Payne’s comment show us, it’s important to present the ideas as being acceptable. We can’t just say Liberal = Good, Illiberal = Bad, but explain why liberal policies can sometimes achieve better outcomes, even if they may be in the long-run.

Ideologies perhaps by their nature get taken for granted by their proponents, and will become laden with jargon and other ideas that many people simply hadn’t bothered to look up before. As long as you take a step back and explain what’s actually going on, then showing that some policy may be better than another really is very simple. A decent liberal message ought to be easily understood and agreed with by someone in a pub, or at a school to pass the simplicity test.

I’d say that the public isn’t exactly gagging for it, but liberal ideas can be very easily explained, and people like to be left alone from interference once in a while, whether that’s from a boss, a parent, another individual, or even the state.

This is very interesting, because I have been confidently told at various times in the past by you, Mark Littlewood and Anton Howes that the public was just gagging for a party to come out with a true libertarian message, and they’d all flood after it once it was there. I’ve generally taken the view this was wishful thinking, because if I agree with something, it is a pretty safe bet the majority don’t, and the presence of a critical mass of opinion in a clever corner of the internet tells you as much about wider societal opinion as a butterfly can tell you about earthquakes.

And here you’re dolefully suggesting it’s pretty much certain that the libertarian message won’t work at the ballot box. So which is it? As Geoffrey Payne suggests, you can’t have it both ways.

This is important, because we’ve got to go about advancing a liberal-libertarian agenda in a way which acknowledges realities, including e.g. the existence of Geoffrey Payne. Going purely on ballpark figures of past intellectual/political behavioural change, it will take at least fifteen years for libertarian ideas and debates to penetrate wider society, I reckon – and that’s if we do it right.

http://www.the-latest.com/my-manifesto-for-change

It is early days yet, a lot of idealists are, I believe, going to find themselves weeded about as realpolitik looms

As long as you’ll support the development of Parish Councils……