The general consensus in society seems to be that we have too much freedom and that the state is our only salvation. I have argued with fellow students, professors, family and friends to no avail. It’s almost like we are moving into the modern day equivalent of the dark ages.
Just as the alliance between the church and the monarchies of Europe kept the population ignorant and dumbed down by threatening and persecuting those who dared challenge the status quo, I see the same thing today but with a different twist. Just as Galileo proclaimed the truth that the Sun was the center of the solar system and not the earth and was imprisoned so I feel the same is happening to those who clearly see and speak out against the abuses of government.
Instead of the Church being the agent of the state today it is academia and the media acting as the agent of the state. Most people, including many educated people think that they are far too enlightened to ever allow the abuses of power to unfold as they did centuries ago, yet it is happening right under their noses and they are often agents of the tyranny as well without even knowing it!
My question is it even worth the effort to argue with these people or should we just dust our hands and feet off and move on to someone willing to listen. Because I swear, every time I move on to someone else I just encounter another idiot!
It ain’t argument, it’s sales. And they’re not all idiots.
Though a good portion seem to be. And it’s the only weakness I see with anarcho capitalism, that so many people are of a mind such that freedom would have to be imposed on them somehow. Bottom line is, people like hurting their neighbors. They draw satisfaction from using the government to force someone to do this or to not do that. They seem overly invested in the idea of a central, final authority that dictates from on high how things shall be, and assume that obedience to those dictates is the sum of human behavior. That’s really the only mindset at base that can support the belief that, for example, one man, Obama, can simply stand up in the whitehouse and spread his arms wide and say, “Let there be Health Care!,” and it would simply happen.
We live in a statist society because that’s what the majority of the people want to have, more or less. The costs of rebelion are not in line with what they’re willing to spend for the degree of freedom they want. For most people. Hence my strategy: fight the state, and when the state wins, enable the state. Stop the bullshit if you can, but if it goes through, do everything you can to bring the system down of its own accord. These systems are unstable and will eventually collpase, the key is to make that happen as quickly as possible. The more victims of government violence there are, the more likely people are to stop using the government to victimize each other. But, as long as they see themselves as net beneficiaries of government action, no change except swings in power.
Most people, including many educated people think that they are far too enlightened to ever allow the abuses of power to unfold as they did centuries ago,
good post, but the above line caught my eye. “centuries ago” . the USSR just collapsed 20 years ago, nazi’s 70 years.. even today all around the world… it can happen here too..
Yes I agree Mike. But every day when I walk onto campus, listen to those in the media, or read a post somewhere on the internet from some statist goon I can’t help but think I have been inserted into the movie Idiocracy.
i hear ya.. but remember (with all due repect) a lot of people think you’re an idiot too… rememboring this keeps my mind right. and I have found that over time you will convince a lot of people the validity of your ideas. it took me a while but i have turned most of my family towards liberty. there was a good post the other day from smeone about the mistakes he has made trying to convince others of liberty. his conclusion was patience - and of course knowing what you are talking about first. good luck
Only you can answer the question of whether or not arguing has value.
About a year ago, I chose to start focusing more on talking to open and like minded people who may not be libertarians, and to revise my expectations downward, to where I don’t expect people to become an voluntarist within a day, week or month of meeting me.
You have to understand that when someone is an “idiot” you’re either dealing with someone who is (1) an ideological fanatic, (2) uninterested or (3) badly educated.
You can do something about 2 and 3, providing you have the rhetorical and social skills to sell your POV by creating interest for the disinterested and re-educating the mis-educated. A lot of libertarians are brilliant theoreticians, and know their dogma inside out, but they really struggle to communicate their ideas in a manner which is attractive to others.
I think Ron Paul is a great example of successful promotion of libertarian ideas. And that is using a positive message and not attacking people or institutions, but instead proposing better ideas than the ones people currently hold. There are very few notable and elite libertarians who have embraced a positive, non-confrontational message and that is why I think that prior to Ron Paul, there was little effectiveness in this “movement”.
Now when I see ancap laymen and legends get hostile when talking about the state, it’s a big turn off. If you go through the libertarian “movement” you see political talk, and complaining about the state. No one seems much interested in promoting the market. But I really think that is the ticket to success.
“If you go through the libertarian “movement” you see political talk, and complaining about the state. No one seems much interested in promoting the market.”
Part of arguing in favor of free markets is explaining why state interventions will only make things worse. It’s also hard to argue for free markets when most people look at the US as the poster child for laissez faire.
Don’t argue. Just engage in as much trade, as freely as you can, and while you are doing it, point out what it is you are doing, and why it is good and successful.
Arguing ideas seems to me to be an enormous waste of time. Put ideas into action.
I also wanted to say, the one exception as far as covering the market, is LvMI. It is a completely different editorial slant than at LRC, and while I would read LRC every single day, now I find myself spending most of my time reading the Mises blog and perusing the daily articles. They are generally less politics and backbiting oriented.
It’s a very good book for negotiation, and on how to avoid arguing. The main thesis, and the best point I get from it is this: Don’t argue positions, but take a look at the values of the different members of the negotiation, and focus on maximizing that.
As crazy as it is, that is the basis of all communication which is in itself, a form of exchange. Some folks really think that you can just yell louder and be more insulting and eventually the target audience will “get it” but that isn’t how the market works, so I cannot fathom why they think that would work in the marketplace of ideas.
I don’t know about you but I almost never argue with idiots. I use their faulty reasoning and mock them. I only argue my position with someone I can see has the intuitive and curious nature inside him. I really can’t make my case when discussing with anarcho-communists, muslim-socialists, liberal multiculturalists and the ‘new left!’ bullshit machines because they’re smug, boring and regularly quote Naomi Klein.
