“I’m not attempting to do anything to what you’re saying. I’m responding to the OP, and for your statements I simply asked if certain things where what you were actually sayng. (And you responded “the answer is more or less, yes”)”
Then correct where I am going wrong in understanding you. Half of our disagreement here has arisen from the fact that we have different conceptions of drone-like or puppet like, mine being much broader than yours. What you are proposing seems drone like to me, in that it is more or less the copying of arguments which other people have made wihout a true understanding of the matter and only a basic understanding seems generally drone like in my book which is one of the first things that I said
“even if they are not drones, definitely have drone-like qualities to them.”
“Again, did I say that? I’m talking about whoever these people are that cannot forumlate any arguments of their own and need entire pre-formulated debates so that they don’t even have to really originate a thought or response of their own, but instead might just might copy and paste what someone else has—as the OP wishes—written for them.”
I’m not. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
“Then obviously “most Interent Austrains” aren’t the people the OP is talking about, are they? Because what you just described sounds like people who can formulate their own arguments. This guy is specifically asking for a “cheat sheet” for “people who support the free market” but “don’t know why it is better”, and evidently would be better off just “copy pasting from Mises and Cato, etc.”…and then offers the Tea Party as an example.”
Agreed.
“I have no idea why you keep saying this. I’ve never even suggested such things were the same.”
Because that’s about what I believe makes someone a truly independent thinker.
"I ask you why people who are actually opposed to free market positions would even take the time to seriously read these canned arguments, and your answer is “Because the arguments are generally convincing.”
Well that clears everything up for me…"
I was specifically responding to why they would be convinced. At any rate, the fact is that if anyone looks into the subject or gets into an argument then it’s convincing no matter who is saying it. Getting into arguments/ showing an interest is why people would be exposed to these arguments
“How is your conception and support different?”
In just about every way. My understanding of the individual and society is infinitely more complex and my conception of morality is unrecognizable from my vague ideas back in the day. I could go through a list, but I see that s unimportant.
“(I left out the last part of your sentence because it’s irrelevant. I never said anything about reading thousands of pages or anything of the sort. My question to you was simply that you’re banking on the idea that people who have no interest in and no support for a free market position will read arguments offered to them by people who supposedly support such positions but don’t even have the time to read said arguments themselves. And your answer was “yea.”)”
Once again the source of dispute comes from the idea of what defines a truly educated and un-robotic opinion. I consider that a huge amount of intellectual rigor is required to really form an independent opinion and not be a mouthpiece for someone’s ideology or beliefs. You obviously do not hold this same criteria. The yea was also entirely rhetorical, I was under the impression that was obvious