Leonard Read, the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, said principles are not compromised; they are abandoned. Principles, by their nature, are utilized or they are not.

That is an important reminder for those who believe the maximum role of government should be the protection of life, liberty, and property — which I think, logically construed, means self-government; however, I respect that others disagree. Our time is going to be most wisely spent improving ourselves and building relationships with like-minded liberty people. Even still, while the conventional political process is still dominant, there are ways for principled people to use political tools for their own benefit.

The conventional political dichotomy is a struggle between short-term opportunism and long-term progress. I think there is a simple reconciliation that can be made between the two camps. That is, under no circumstances, never ever, should we ever support an expansion in the role of government or a further restriction on a peaceful person’s liberty. Second, any policy support should be done with the explicit purpose of decreasing the role of government and directly benefiting peaceful individuals.

Any strategy or policy goals that we recommend or follow should be consistent with the purpose of restoring individual liberty and responsibility. I understand the importance of intermediate goals or markers to help fully achieve our ultimate purpose. But our means of achieving that purpose should not be contradictory to that end. For example, a lot of politicians try to justify tax cuts because they believe it will actually increase the total revenues to the government treasury. I believe this is wrong and sends an inconsistent message.

The goal of a tax cut should be to reduce the burden of government. Again, we should not advocate the re-legalization of cannabis on the grounds that it will raise tax revenues, but because prohibition is immoral and counterproductive. Expanding government and further restricting the liberty of others to correct another ill-fated government policy is an abandonment of principle. As Ron Paul said, “Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive.” Reducing the level of coercion in people’s lives is a worthy goal.

Principles in Practice

The goals that we have should be radical — not liberal- or conservative-lite. This serves two purposes. First, it provides cover for not-so-radical views to be considered more mainstream, thus limiting the fear of ostracism people might have for holding these slightly less radical views. It provides an objective guidepost — like a lighthouse — for gauging the success of our efforts during darker times.

I would also like to suggest two methods of communicating these ideas. We should definitely take the time, on an intellectual basis, to refute anti-liberty or collectivist ideas. But we must acknowledge that the people advocating these mistaken ideas are not dimwitted. In fact, many know exactly how they benefit from these policies. They are ripping us off, so we must make direct, populist appeals that reveal that fact.

By its nature, government is crude and unaccountable, so there will be an infinite supply of aggrieved individuals. Ideally, that means that we don’t have to convert individuals fully to the virtue of liberty before taking action together. Over time, I hope that those who are “liberty minus one” or “liberty minus whatever” come to see the error of their ways.

Some Ideas to Bat Around

Sometimes, pick losing issues to get the message out by presenting a pro-liberty analysis. I’m not saying be a stick-in-the-mud. The situation might provide an opportunity to get some free media publicity or lay the groundwork for winning progress on the issue in the future. Liberals have deployed this technique by pushing socialized health insurance and environmental regulations.

Now, I don’t even know how possible this next one is. Those arrested for committing consensual crimes could be high-target prospects for the liberty message. When I’m passing out Fully Informed Jury Association literature on jury nullification, those called for jury duty are naturally receptive to the material I am providing. I’ll usually stay a little past the time when potential jurors are due to report in downtown Fort Worth in order to catch any stranglers. When I do, I just happen to pass out literature to defendants, and they are just as interested in the concept of jury nullification as potential jurors, if not more so. There has got to be a way of contacting those folks by getting ahold of  some public records.

(Image credit: john curley, with Creative Commons license)

Honest to goodness, I intentionally avoid handing literature to government bureaucrats just so that I can avoid the hassle, but they just won’t leave me be.

I was outside the Tarrant County Justice Center this morning for the second round of Fully Informed Jury Association activism when I was confronted by a county officer who asked me to leave. Luckily, I got most of our interaction on video. My friends at the other end of the block later told me that the same officer told them they had to leave county property. They wrote down his name, but I forgot to ask them how to spell it. The same officer confronted me about five minutes after filming the video and asked me for my name and contact information. He said he wanted it in case the footage was made public. I told him I was a private person, so I refused. I almost began filming again when he just walked away as I said “On the job means on the record.”

I also ran into county prosecutor Kevin Rousseau, who starred in the first FIJA event on Aug. 24. He was almost across the intersection when I called out, “Hey, Mr. Rousseau.” He kind of hung his head in disappointment and then asked for a copy of our literature. The bureaucrats seemed more interested in us than before. Another lady who had a government ID asked if I had a permit. I replied, “Yes, it’s called the First Amendment.” Although I don’t believe my rights come from the constitution, at least that right is theoretically protected from violation by the government. I met two men who identified themselves as county judges who asked for a copy. I asked if they would mind being interviewed, but both declined being on camera.

Except for the officer in the video, I think I was friendly to the government people. I feel I was too confrontational with the officer and not informative enough, and that is something I’ll need to get better at. After all, I forgive all of them for what they do to my neighbors and myself, and I always will. I just wished they would stop hurting peaceful people. If I had to do it over again, I would have offered him a hug.

Dave Ridley is an independent journalist who documents the ongoing evolution to a free society in New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. He was interested in the Tarrant County Campaign for Liberty’s Fully Informed Jury Association activism after seeing the YouTube confrontation with a Tarrant County prosecutor. I e-mailed him some information about our local activism, which he was nice enough to include in his report.

I think we’ll be having another FIJA event in the next week or two, when jury trials are being held.

If you’re interested in achieving “Liberty In Our Lifetime,” visit the Free State Project.

A big thanks goes to Raymond for preparing 700 copies of the Fully Informed Jury Association flyer. I really underestimated just how many people wanted the information. One image really stuck in my mind. It was a truly magnificent sight, a line of at least 50 potential jurors reading the FIJA flyer while waiting in line outside the Justice Center.

The process was easy but also rewarding. We found a lot of sympathetic ears, and we let them know how to get involved locally in the Tarrant County Campaign for Liberty. I don’t know if we’ll save someone from an unjust law; however, I know for sure that we reached some other hearts and minds seeking liberty.

I didn’t have any trouble except for this one assistant district attorney. In the accompanying YouTube video I posted, I described the events just prior to the footage.

I was outside the Tarrant County Justice Center in downtown Ft. Worth, passing out Fully Informed Jury Association literature to potential jurors with some other activists, when I was approached by a man who identified himself as a county prosecutor. He repeatedly questioned who I was and who I worked for. I, of course, repeatedly ignored his questions, and that only seemed to upset him more.

I intentionally avoided approaching anyone wearing a suit or an employee ID badge because I was trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. I stood by myself on the northeast corner of the building, while Katy and Raymond were on the southeast corner attending to bus loads of potential jurors. Most people had their jury summons or a big thick book in hand, so they were easy to spot. There must have been 40 officers and security personnel who passed me, and not one threatened me or tried to intimidate me in any way. They were true professionals. One even thanked me for what we were doing. However, Katy later told me about an officer who yanked the flyer away from a woman who he didn’t appear to know. The officer apparently read the first few sentences and scoffed as he walked away.

I’d say that nine out of 10 people took the handout. We dressed sort of business-like, so a lot of people might have assumed we were with the city. I borrowed from a line and would say, “Have you got your juror’s rights information, yet?” or just “Here’s your juror’s rights information” and then hand them the paper.

At about 8:45 or so, we decided to close shop. If we had gone Tuesday through Friday, then we would have waited because the jury summons is 30 minutes later during those days of the week. Parking was also easy. We parked next to the building at a parking meter, and since the hours of operation don’t start until 8:00, it only costs less than a dollar to park.

Ideas to consider

If we plan to make this a regular thing, then we’ll need to find a print shop sympathetic to our message to achieve some costs savings.

I think eight, two at each street corner around the building, is an optimal number of participants for this kind of event.

Any other ideas or suggestions are welcomed.