I can tell you this, don’t start with “taxes are stealing” or “welfare is evil.” Most people will just think you’re loony. Attack the things they didnt even think about. Most people have thought about the morality of taxes and welfare.
In most cases yes, but there is some people who are curious about radical solutions. But its hard to recognise(or even found) a person who wouldn’t be negative about straight anarcho-capitalist arguments…
A real life experience would do the trick. Show an example to them and tell, that it wasn’t massacre. After this it’s easy to start to make them value that is government control over some minor things important at all, because those will lead into tyranny/more growing government. USA is good example here.
Hi Matthew.
In my humble opinion, I doubt the problem lies with your articulation, or with your ability to form a logical argument. The problem is twofold:
-
People aren’t usually swayed by logical arguments. We tend to think we are; but most people’s beliefs have an emotional basis. There are two major drivers for human beliefs & behaviors. The first is gain of a positive. (I.e. the desire to ban guns as a step toward a peaceful society.) The second is avoidance of a negative. (I.e. the desire to ban guns as a way to avoid the fear of potential gun attack.) The first one is relatively easy to converse with, by focusing on the ways voluntaryism makes things peaceful and better. The second one, in my experience, is a losing battle. You cannot fix someone else’s fears for them. They have to do that themselves. Best to figure out which motivator (gain or loss avoidance) the person you’re discussing with has, and figure out a plan of action from there.
-
Most people have been brainwashed from birth to be statists. You can’t undo 20+ years of brainwashing in a 30-minute conversation about voluntaryism, or anything else. Be patient. Plant lots of small seeds over time.
LS made a good point. Telling someone how welfare is actually bad is far easier than convincing them that we should abolish the state.
James, when I first became a libertarian, I tried using only moral arguments and people demanded utitlitarian ones. they simply accept your principles and them call you naive.
This seemed like the appropriate thread…
What do guys think of government “infrastructure” spending, research and development, stuff like that? I read Scientific American and Pop Science sometimes and they are just slathered with reasons for the government to fund science research (It would be tempting to hit up that easy money if I were a scientist, no lie.) You can’t deny that important things have been created under government funding, just seems like a hard spot for libertarians.
This ties in with building codes and such as well any Mises.org reading on these subjects? Couldn’t find any infrastructure-related articles in the search.
I would probably say that if the people considered those things truly important, they could be and would be funded without institutionalized theft. What people want & value, they find a way to obtain (even if they have to break the law to do so).
Government funding is a case of ‘that which is seen, and that which is not seen.’ One dollar taken out of the market and put toward a centrally planned venture is a dollar unable to fund the next great breakthrough via human innovation and creativity.
I am going through this thread and studying it and want to make sure I get all the information I can out of it. Thank you all so much for your contributions thusfar and I hope to hear more!
@James, in the interest of not assuming I know what you mean and running with it, could you elaborate on this?
“Start with a basic principle. There is such a thing as right and wrong.”
I am assuming that The moral (if they agree that there is a right and wrong) is that as individual humans, we have rights? If so, could you elaborate on how you would go about explaining this to someone who hasn’t been assimilated into voluntaryism?
@Libertyandlife, could you be a bit more specific with this?
“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.”
I get basically where you are going with it, but sometimes I have a hard time getting from A to B in conversations. Taking one (or all) of the examples you listed earlier, how would you go from stance on Issue A to broader philosophy?
@EmperorNero, is there a way that you normally go about finding what their “secret argument” is? Is there a science to it or is it more just trial and error and/or knowing the person’s beliefs pretty well already?
@Steph, how do you figure out that motivator, is there any science to it?
@All, in general, how do you eventually transition from one issue to the broader idea of voluntaryism?
Another question, what is a good practical argument for water, electricity, trash collection, etc? People always seem to argue about only having a road going from their house to other places or that only one company can provide them clean water, etc. Obviously, to us, it is no justification for government, but how does one get around this problem when speaking to others?
Another question on my mind lately, is how does one bring charges against another without initiating force? For example, someone runs into my car but then refuses to meet with me in some sort of mediation. How does one (if at all) get compensation for the damages?
Matthew, check out Marc Stevens. He has some very good arguments for voluntarism.
@ Matthew, my point was conservatives and progressives use libertarian arguments, but not on every issue and sort of follow a libertarian philosophy (though there is a lot of double think). Ask a random average person if they think force is bad, and whether they would like to be left alone. Live and let live. Describe the government without saying the government. You’ll probably get more agreement then you think. Libertarianism is pretty much common sense, not in popularity but in it’s morals, it’s easy to understand.
@liberty student, thanks. Will do some digging there.
@Libertyandlife, yeah, I get that. I am just wondering how you go from Issue X to .