I find that when any discussion of political nature comes up, I have a hard time articulating my stance.
Say for instance, some issue (e.g., gun control, taxation, business regulation, etc.) comes up, I have a hard time trying to defend my position. I find it hard to bring up the philosophy of no government or if nothing else, why government is not the solution to any given problem (or more specifically, the problem that is being discussed).
How do you guys overcome this obstacle?
First of all: Why do you want to discuss those things with people?
It’s really difficult, because most people tend to want to debate you instead of having a discussion. People are mimicking political debates. And in political debates, you can never say you’re wrong. Also, people don’t understand your position. Especially in Europe, where most people never heard of something like libertarianism or a free market (except as a straw men). I just tend to avoid political discussions. Most people I know are students, and they all seem to be the same technocrat social engineers. They all think they’re philosopher kings.
Last month, we had elections in the Netherlands for the senate. A lot of people asked me what I’ve voted. Whenever I say I don’t vote people immediately say I’m self-centered, stupid or the most stupid one: “well you can’t complain now”. They don’t even ask me what my motives were.
Reading How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World really helped me. Instead of trying to convert other people I think it’s best now to just avoid those discussions, and if I want something I’m going to work for it instead of sign a petition to get it through the government.
Is there such a thing as an ‘average person’? Economic arguments won’t work against people who are economically illiterate. Skeptical arguments won’t work against those who are superstitious. Anti-authoritarian arguments won’t work against those who consistently embrace authoritarian relationships. Intellectual prejudice is pervasive yet diverse.
Perhaps one’s best bet is to use a moral or ethical argument. If you can force someone off the moral high ground, they have no business arguing with you with regards to prescriptive policy matters for human society.
Start with a basic principle. There is such a thing as right and wrong. If this is disputed, then there is no need for law, and hence government is a meaningless concept. One cannot argue that a particular government should exist if one does not believe that any state of human affairs is preferential to any other.
The law exists exclusively to enforce ethical principles. A rule which does not exist to enforce an underlying ethical principle is not a law, by definition.
The question, then, is simple. Does the state create ethics and the law necessitated by it, or does the state putatively exist to enforce pre-existing ethics by developing and practically implementing the law? Is it the master or servant of justice? If the former, then ethics are the arbitrary whim of the state, which implies that law is simply the arbitrary whim of those most adept at siezing political power. Right and wrong don’t exist as real abstract concepts: might makes right. The argument that government should exist is defeated.
If the latter, then justice predated the inception of the state. If justice predated the inception of the state, and the state was positively instituted by people to enforce justice, then justice itself cannot possibly provide for special categorical exemption for the state, or its agents, from ethical norms applicable to all other persons. Hence, it cannot be claimed that the state, or its agents, are absolved of robbery by proclaiming that it is ‘taxation’. This special categorical exemption is impossible. It cannot be claimed that the state has a special categorical right over the control of private property that no one else has.
The only thing practically seperating taxation, conscription and war from robbery, slavery and murder respectively is the scale at which these crimes are committed. You don’t change a real thing simply by calling it something else.
I don’t talk about an-cap it very much. IF I talk with someone about politics(not very often) I just say that I’m for free markets. If guy is total wacko I’m not wasting my time and argue only for moderate positions, if guy is quite rational I argue for minarchism etc. There isn’t one strategy for everyone. But basicly I think it’s just waste of time trying to get “average” person to undestand teachings of Economics in One Lesson in some dinner talk.
Try something different, Form a band and sing about Mises lol
We need more libertarians like you.
Instead of trying to articulate your stance, which frankly, no one really cares about, try addressing the stance of the person you are talking to. People don’t want to be lectured to. No one really cares what you think. What they do care about is what they think.
Find a way to comment on what they care about which furthers what you’re trying to communicate. Relate to the person you are communicating with.
Here is the type of discussion I try to have.
Person: The government won’t end these damn wars.
Me: Yeah, and they promised to. These are the longest wars ever.
Person: And the money could be used for a high speed train or something else!
Me: For sure, but when does government ever handle money or lives with any responsibility?
or
Person: This Obamacare is horrible, Obama and his marxist agenda! Argh! I watch Glen Beck you know.
Me: For sure Obama is a socialist just like Bush. Remember Bush’s crazy prescription drug care plan that laid the groundwork for Obamacare?
Person: I don’t mind big government if it is a big military and it keeps the gays from getting married.
Me: Oh absolutely, I agree. Everyone loves a big government that does what they want. The USSR had a massive military.
LS,
both of those examples start with a (slightly) anti-government statement. I find it a lot harder to debate with the people who start off with a pro-state position:
Person: “Thank god our military is overseas protecting our liberty”
Me: “HAHAHAHA!”
or
Person: “Handguns are only made to kill people, therefore they should be ilegal”
Me: “Oh god…”
I guess I just don’t have the energy to try and convince someone whose belief system is so deeply tied in with the concept of the state as protector. Whenever I do have those debates, it ends up just getting people really angry and trying to ridicule my position. I guess that’s a win though!
I think it’s good to speak of libertarianism in layman’s terms. Keep everything as simple as possible, and be very friendly. Choose your battles well, don’t just argue anything. Everyone looks at politics differently, before discussing see what your average person uses to deduct their political ideas off. You may think that one argument should make sense to everyone, but that isn’t the case. One can make all kinds of arguments for liberty.
Please don’t talk like elitists. It’s so self defeating and pointless. There are many battles for liberty that even the least libertarian person may see eye to eye with (like the democrats and republicans). For example, conservatives love gun rights, talk about that and extend the arguments found for that position. Same with liberals and drug use/abortion. Such common sense ideology as liberty can work well with many folks considering they probably use libertarian arguments SOMEWHERE.
J.R.M., I’ve run into people that hold beliefs/positions that seem so ridiculous to me that I actually have to hold back my laughter. I usually try to maintain my composure and just address their position from a purely logical standpoint.
The first statement I would probably just go after their premise that the military is protecting our liberty. I know that the military isn’t protecting my liberty. You can teach them about blowback and why it is immoral to simply invade and occupy another country because a small group of people within that country has committed crimes.
As for the guns kill people argument, cars kill more people than guns in the United States (and most Western countries I believe), so if they advocate the prohibition of firearms on the basis of how dangerous they are and the people they kill, then, given that line of reasoning (argument form), cars and anything else that cause the deaths of human beings (cigarettes, alcohol, sugar, etc.) should also be made illegal.
Lastly, if someone actually does get angry during a discussion, I would probably just try to end the discussion. Once a discussion gets too emotional, there is very little hope of being able to succesfully appeal to their sense of logic.
It seems any time that I try to counter the “guns kill people” argument with “cars kill people” argument, they go to a “well cars are for transportation; guns are for hurting/killing people” or “WHAT ARE YOU? NUTS? WE NEED CARS!” or even still the “Yeah, I agree with you, we should also have stricter government regulations on getting a driver’s license.”
Maybe I just live in a “more statist than usual” city?
No one is 100% happy with government. Find the source of their particular dissatisfaction, and discuss that.
Give yourself a chance. Try to talk to people who are remotely intelligent. Contrary to belief, not all people are equal in their intelligence or capacity to be intelligent. Many people are drones and want nothing more from life.
I always say, targeting people who are very statist is more about our ego than about spreading ideas. There are tons of people out there who are not mindless screaming morons, and by focusing on the latter, we don’t spend the time talking to the people who are easiest to convince and reach.
The problem is that in these kinds of debates the other side never states it’s argument outright, but only implies it indirectly. The way to debate them is to know the secret argument of an issue and respond to that. In the case of gun control they are saying “if there were no guns, nobody would ever get killed”. The rebuttal is that such a situation is unachievable, the state will always have guns. And if only the state has guns, vastly more people get shot than if everyone has guns. In the US, there are about 20.000 gun deaths each year. That amounts to two million in a century. In gun controlled Europe more than ten times that many were shot in the last century, maybe twenty. It’s the same in every other gun controlled place on earth. All evil totalitarian regimes enacted gun control (it’s a conservative policy), without it the atrocities of the 20th century wouldn’t have been possible.
You’re not going to be able to convince everyone. Just put your ideas out there.
EDIT: I agree with guy above me as well. Prohibition only stops the innocent, law-abiding citizens. It won’t stop criminals.
Also remember, talking to someone about libertarian ideas in a short period of time has very little loss or opportunity cost. You can only lose so much by having a small conversation. Don’t be afraid to do so.
Don’t start out talking about a stateless society. No matter how right you are, you will be discredited as a nut and waste your time. People have to be transitioned into Libertarianism I think.
I’ve been taking the wrong approach then.
Thing is people always try to avoid the moral issue and start talking about the effects. Taxation is theft… b-b-b-b-but what about the roads??? I like Stefan Molyneux podcasts on this. Check out the Philosophy category http://freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx
Something i like to use a lot with a good tone and empathy it doesn’t go down that bad. Something like:
“I totally respect your choice to have a government and don’t wish you any harm for that choice. Even you want 100% of your wages going to it to supply you with everything you need thats fine by me. However, I don’t want a government and I don’t want to pay taxes. Do you grant me the same respect or do you wish to force your preference of having a government on me?”
It could piss them off thoug or it could make them realise that they are supporting a coercive monopoly.
What about those who support a more moderate position? Using the gun control example, instead of supporting outright ban of all firearms, they support registrations, regulations, restricted carry, and bans on only some weapons.
How do you guys argue those points?
Thanks for all the replies so far 
I would again bring up the point that only law-abiding citizens would follow those regulations. Criminals wouldn’t follow those regulations, so all they’re doing is restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and making it easier for criminals to take advantage of law-abiding citizens. I personally have no qualms about breaking unjust laws, especially if I feel the benefit of breaking said law outweighs the costs of getting caught.
Another similar contention to this is that only the police should have guns. Again, this leaves those people who follow the law at a severe disadvantage to any criminal who has access to firearms. Police aren’t required by law to protect you and the police aren’t even around most of the time to stop aggression.