It sounds like you’re making several points there James.
- People will not believe that better outcomes are achieved when more freedom is involved.
This is one thing in economics that can largely be shown through emprical evidence. Yes, it’s not perfect, but it’s enough to appeal to the average person. (There are many instances where evidence doesn’t even need to be the forefront, as simple economic and mathematical laws can be used…for example the notion that minimum wage laws cause unemployment.)
- People will ask why government hasn’t abolished itself if things are so much better without it.
If there’s one thing statists understand it’s greed and corruption. “Politician” is already a dirty word and it has been for centuries. There is a reason for this and it does not take much to help people realize why someone in power would not be inclined to give up that power.
- People will think you are suggesting that you are smarter than Paul Krugman.
It doesn’t matter what people think you are suggesting or implying, so long as they see the facts. Again this is not supposed to be convincing in itself. It is a manner of doing the convincing. It is an approach; it is an aspect of the persuasion process; it is something that will shake people up and get them to begin to consider things from a different perspective and ask questions they would not have otherwise considered…or at the very least, hear support for arguments and ideas they have probably never heard before. Like in this situation.
- You need to appeal to morality because if you don’t, you seem crazy.
As I pointed out earlier, for many people, the exact opposite is true. You appeal to morality, it seems like you’re appealing to religion, and someone considers you crazy (aka “religious nut”).
- If you don’t appeal to morality you are implying that the human species is retarded.
I could say something similar: “I worry that if one doesn’t make a logical argument of some kind, they seem crazy or disingenuous, because it implies that the species as a whole is evil and corrupt, and the government, with all of our money spent on welfare and aid, hadn’t actually been trying to help anyone, otherwise, people wouldn’t be starving anymore by now.”