“Wha? Nice straw man, but I’ll reiterate what I said, and anyone who is actually interested in being intellectually honest can decide if your characterization is anywhere near accurate.”
It’s little different than what you’re attempting to do to what I’m saying.
“If you honestly believe people mindlessly repeating talking points they don’t even understand and essentially becoming non-thinking drones is the way to liberty, I actually feel kind of bad for you.”
It’s not mindless, and they do understand, their understanding is simply rudimentary and basic, following much more from basic logic, assumptions, and simplification rather than a true deep understanding. If you believe that this is not an accurate description of most of the fine “warriors of liberty” then you’re deluded. The fact is that if you talk to most “internet Austrians” then you can probably pinpoint at least 8 different arguments or chains of reasoning which they will make.
“Where in the world did you get “learned or accepted” from “copy and paste like mindless drones”?”
Sorry that was a typo. It was supposed to read “learned are accepted”, as in if the arguments which the group is propagating are accepted by the masses, then the battle is inevitably won. Even if these arguments are simply copy and pasted.
"If they have a general understanding of what they’re talking about then they should be just fine in formulating their own arguments and defending their positions themselves. "
The average Austrian could scarcely stand against the average neo-classical who actually had a good grasp of what he was talking about. The fact is though that Austrianism has indeed manifested itself with a compelling, somewhat populistic, and indeed inherently anti-statist argument-based ideology, the closest thing which has ever exist to this was Marxism. A much more in depth understanding is necessary for a really suitable formation of an opinion. At any rate, once again the fact is that an understanding of a few arguments and basic concepts is not the same as a real and in-depth understanding. The former is relatively common, the latter, not so much. Basic Austrian theory like the information in Economics in One Lesson could be taught to a child without too much difficulty, the same cannot be said of human action.
“The entire point of the OP was to speak to the notion that there are people who believe in “liberty” apparently, but have no fricking clue why they believe it, or even what it really is, or why and how it works…so they have no way to defend it…so what is needed is for people who actually have taken a little time to read a book or two and learn something to create and build boilerplate arguments for these ignoramuses who blindly follow an ideology for god knows what reason, so that they might have something to put in their facebook comment section when someone trash talks the youtube video they posted.”
Reading a book or two is still not the same as having a thorough understanding… If it was then those liberals who read Chomsky and Klein would be god damn geniuses and our discussion wouldn’t be taking place because I’d be off punching a capitalist somewhere. I am not arguing that people should or do not have any clue what they are talking about, merely that they don’t have much of an in-depth understanding of the matters which they talk about.
“I’m sorry if I don’t find perpetuating and encouraging blind faith and regurgitation of pre-formulated statements to be a very likely recipe for liberty. To me it sounds more like a prescription that Kim Jong-Il would prefer.”
Replace statements for arguments and I think you’ll find that’s in large part what this website has done. It doesn’t matter who would have proposed what, the fact is that if something works then it works. An enslaved mind can still support liberty, though this is not directly what either of us are talking about.
“And tell me…just what makes you think people who are actually opposed to free market positions would even take the time to seriously read these canned arguments (let alone be convinced by them) when the people who supposedly already agree with them don’t have the time to actually learn enough to formulate their own arguments?”
Because the arguments are generally convincing. The moral arguments for free markets, the populist arguments of the government hampering “what we free people can do” or something of the like, are both prime examples of exceedingly effective arguments that are superbly lacking in real justification. As for statists who have actually in some way come to their own conclusions through something other than the usual passive acceptance, then they’re usually out of reach anyway, and they’re the prime cases of people who would find something wrong in these “cut/copy” arguments, which is what the arguments usually come down to, because that basic understanding leads to very similar arguments.
“You’re banking that while the people who supposedly support liberty don’t have a minute to spare to read a single article—or, god forbid, determine why they believe what they do”
Not at all. I’m relying upon a basic understanding based upon reasons which, although still sub-optimal, put the normal way political opinions are formed to absolute shame. Usually this does indeed involve reading articles, or some books. They can usually define quite clearly why they believe what they believe, although it usually wreaks much more thoroughly of a doctrine embraced rather than a conclusion reached. For instance, I remember when I first became a libertarian I watched a good number of relavent youtube videos, read “For a New Liberty” and “Economics for real people”, and read a dozen or so Mises dailies and I thought I was the shit. Years later my conception and support of libertarianism doesn’t even resemble what it originally did and I’m still filling in and expanding my understanding of the relevant subject areas.
“the people who are against such sentiments will not only actually read these pre-packaged statements, but will be active-minded enough to think for themselves and come to new conclusions…offered to them by mindless robots.”
Yea… Not being willing to read several thousand pages and have a huge amount of intellectual rigor is different than being willing to read some basic arguments which make you think or which are effective.
