Det sista kapitlet av sitt mästerverk Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics ägnar George Reisman åt att förklara hur man rent praktiskt kan och bör gå till väga för att inför laissez-faire kapitalismen. Det handlar förstås om sådana saker som att ägna sig åt självstudier av Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, m fl. Det handlar om att få den grundläggande filosofiska förståelsen av kapitalismen och dess sanna natur, likaväl som den nationalekonomiska. Det handlar om att år in och år ut bedriva ett långsiktigt och ihärdigt opinions- och upplysningsarbete. Det handlar om att vara ärlig vad gäller ens verkliga motiv och intentioner. Det handlar om att ta det politiska initiativet, om att leda en opinion, inte bara följa den. Osv. Det är en läsning som många liberaler, och inte minst partipolitiskt engagerade borde göra. Reisman visar inte bara hur detta, steg för steg, område efter område, rent praktiskt kan och bör gå till väga, han förklarar även varför det inte är ett dugg praktiskt att till exempel lura väljarna till att acceptera en liberal politik, eller att försöka kompromissa på viktiga principer för någon kortsiktig politisk seger eller liknande. Tvärtom. Låt mig citera:

… [I]t should scarcely be necessary to say that at no time should the advocacy of sound principles be sacrificed to notions of political expediency, advanced under misguided ideas about what is ”practical.” The only practical course is to name and defend true principles and then seek to win over public opinion to the support of such principles. It is never to accept the untrue principles that guide public opinion at the moment and design and advocate programs that pander to the errors of the public. Such a procedure is to abandon the fight for any fundamental or significant change–namely, a change in people’s ideas–and to reinforce the errors we want to combat.

It is definitely not impractical to explain to people that if they want to live and prosper, they must adopt capitalism. It would not be impractical to do so even if for a very long time most people simply refused to listen and went on supporting policies that are against their interests. In such a case, it would not be the advocates of capitalism who were impractical, for they would be pursuing the only course that is capable of working, namely, explaining to people what they must do if they are in fact to succeed. Rather it would be the mass of people–perhaps, indeed, the entire rest of the society–that would be impractical, pursuing as it did goals which are self-destructive and refusing to hear of constructive alternatives. If, to use an analogy from the world of engineering and business, someone knows how to build an airplane or a tractor that people could afford and greatly benefit from, but is not listened to, such a person is not at all impractical because others refuse to listen to his ideas that would greatly benefit them. Rather it is those others, whatever their number, who are impractical. In the political-economic realm, it is the current state of public opinion that is impractical: it expects that men can live in a modern economic system while destroying the foundations of that system–that, for example, they can have rising prosperity while destroying the incentives and the means of the businessmen and capitalists who are to provide the prosperity. The advocates of capitalism, who tell people that the opposite is true and that the opposite policy is necessary, are not impractical. They are eminently the advocates of practicality–of what is achievable in, and by the nature of, reality.

Läs hela här!