We have the greatest product in human history. Individual liberty has created more prosperity, ended more suffering, and unleashed more potential than any idea ever conceived.
Yet we're getting destroyed by people promising free stuff while delivering famines. 🧵
Think about this historical irony: In the 1800s, we were the revolutionaries. We tore down kings, ended slavery, gave power to the people.
Now we sound like we're defending a broken system instead of offering something better.
What happened?
Here's why we keep losing: We defend the world as it exists instead of selling the world we want to create.
Someone complains about expensive healthcare? We lecture them about Obamacare instead of explaining how the state prevents cheaper, better options from existing.
It's like a waiter lecturing you about poor eating habits when you say you're hungry instead of offering food.
The problem isn't our ideas. It's our salesmanship.
When someone says "capitalism is unfair," we shouldn't defend crony capitalism. We should say: "You're right. That's why we need real free markets that destroy monopolies and give everyone a chance."
Great selling starts with understanding the customer's problem.
Can't afford housing? Zoning reform and free markets build millions of affordable homes.
Healthcare bankrupting families? Real competition slashes costs.
We solve their actual problems. We just forgot how to communicate it.
Every conversation is a chance to win or lose a mind. Every debate is recruiting for their side or ours.
The future of human freedom literally depends on whether we can inspire people instead of lecture them.
This isn't just politics. It's whether the next generation grows up free or enslaved.
Ludwig von Mises saw this coming decades ago. He warned that "everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders." We can't stand aside while bad ideas take over.
"Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle."
We're in that battle right now. And we're losing because we forgot how to fight.
Ready to become a liberty advocate who actually wins minds?
We're looking for student leaders who want to learn how to sell freedom instead of just defending the status quo.
Apply to be a Local Coordinator and join 2,000+ students in 100+ countries building the liberty movement:
Ronald Coase set out to prove that Socialism was superior to the chaos of the market.
So he went to America to see how giant industries were actually managed.
What he found destroyed his worldview. And won him a Nobel Prize.
This is the story of how a young socialist became one of the most important economists of the 20th century by following evidence over ideology. 🧵
London, 1929. A 19-year-old economics student at LSE calls himself a "soft socialist."
The intellectual consensus seemed obvious: markets were chaos, central planning was science.
His professors had a compelling argument: businesses are already mini-planned economies. If planning works inside firms, why not scale it to entire nations?
For young Coase, the logic felt inevitable. Scientific management promised order. The invisible hand looked like randomness.
But in 1931, he won a scholarship that would change everything: a chance to study American industry firsthand.
He went expecting to document techniques for improving socialist planning. He found something that shattered his worldview instead.
Everyone Wants Democratic Transition for Venezuela
But how do you restore democracy in a kleptocratic state captured by criminal elites?
To understand the problem, you need to understand how Venezuela got here. This story is a stark reminder that freedom isn't lost overnight, but slowly dismantled, one piece at a time. 🧵
The Liberation Myth: Venezuela Started With a Promise
In 1811, Simon Bolivar liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule. He dreamed of a unified, free South America built on republican ideals.
But Bolivar's revolution created a nation, not stability. What followed was a century of chaos.
A Century of Strongmen: The 19th Century Belonged to Caudillos
After independence came civil wars, military coups, and regional warlords fighting for control. Venezuela cycled through dozens of governments.
Power didn't come from elections. It came from controlling enough armed men to take Caracas. Whoever seized the capital claimed to speak for the nation.
“I'm against Maduro, but I think what Trump did was wrong.”
This sentence sounds reasonable, balanced, and mature. The kind of thing a serious person would say to avoid seeming radical.
The problem is that this sentence is, morally, one of the worst possible positions on Venezuela. 🧵
Not because it's moderate. But because it's a conscious escape. That "but" isn't prudence. It's a silent plea for moral exoneration.
The attempt to appear sophisticated while avoiding the thing that morality often demands: to hierarchize evil. To say what is worse. To choose.
Let's be clear about what we're "balancing" here.
Under Maduro's "socialism of the 21st century," Venezuela collapsed into hyperinflation exceeding 1,000,000%. Systematic scarcity created mass starvation. Venezuelans resorted to eating dogs and scavenging trash to survive.
These aren't political talking points. These are documented atrocities.
They predicted the Great Depression. Then the 2008 crash. Then 2020's inflation surge.
A group of economists spent 150 years warning about the same pattern.
Nobody in power listened.
And every time, they were proven right.
This is the story of the Austrian School. 🧵
Modern economics had a fatal flaw.
For decades, mainstream economists treated the economy like a machine. Pull this lever, push that button, adjust interest rates here; boom, everything works perfectly.
But economies aren't machines. They're millions of people making billions of decisions every single day.
You can't predict human action with mathematical precision. The Austrian School understood this from day one.
It started in Vienna in 1871 when Carl Menger published Principles of Economics and asked a deceptively simple question: Why do people value things?
His answer shattered centuries of economic thinking.
Value isn't objective. It's subjective, based on individual human needs and desires.
Not labor hours. Not production costs. Human preferences.