How EASY it is to be a statist. If I may present a flawless impersonation:
K. I am not asking for a line by line critique. That would be easy. I’m asking for the very fastest, most efficient, jarring, soulshattering way to derail their anesthetized self flattering fantasy.
The major problem is that they synthesize so many fallacies at once. They don’t accept ANY BOPs, or define their terms. This is why it is so easy to be a statist, because you can just rattle off the mythology like Rachael Maddow taught you.
I don’t have a good answer as to the best way to approach someone like this without getting bogged down. They make 1000 little claims, and its a pita to make 1000 counterclaims.
I know the main problem is incentives. But that is even hard to argue because if you ask “why would governments play nice?” They can just say “well governments do play nice look at country X.” So theory is utterly lost on them. I have had mixed success getting statists to accept their BOP. They just sit around nitpicking the market.
So thoughts are appreciated. Just so y’all know, I’ve been fighting the good fight at debate.org (forums mostly), and I’ll publish a few of my debates at some point for education/edification. But it would really help if we could get some snap answers to people like this.
Perhaps: “So, you have no problem with SWAT teams shooting me down for selling lemonade, or anyone else for buying it from my stand? Would you advocate this, yes or no?”
Molineux is right, I STILL can’t get any statist to answer that one.
I think Scineram is saying that they don’t send swat teams in right away, you would have to defend yourself from less well trained assailants before being introduced to the back end baddies.
I’m not arguing against that. Here we know how the state functions, but most statist don’t, and rely on this idealized model of the paternal state. Trying to have him burst his own bubble might be worth a shot.
Use a reductio. No need for any private sector. Everything must be provided by the state. Get them to adopt perfect communism. Then ask them why they need a democracy if the government is always right.
Reductios are kickass, because you can undermine any casual black/white position unless the person is truly committed to extremes.
Reductio and socratic method = definition of terms and backpedaling
Point out the “gun in the room” inherent in any government action:
The point is to show that government action necessarily requires SWAT teams arresting and killing people who don’t agree with the state. Pointing this out may get the statist (and certainly bystanders) to question the moralist of what the statist is advocating.
GooPC, thanks for the post. That’s an excellent analysis. That’s a very enriching method of understanding the libertarian ideology (ie the logic of freedom).
I disagree. I used to think the gun in the room argument was good, however it is just an emotional argument, and not conducive to a continuing debate or enhanced understanding.
I think it is possible to appeal to someone’s sense of humanity, assuming they have one, but you can only do it by showing the errors in their position, not by trying to end the discussion for cheap points. But that’s just my opinion.
If you like that, I urge you to go listen to some more of Stefan Molyneux’s work (the man who came up with the gun-in-the-room strategy that GooPC quoted) at his youtube channel Stefbot. Find that or just type in Freedomain Radio. Stef is certainly a genius philosopher and I’m quite a fan myself.
Maybe I’m doing something wrong, but I have never found the “gun in the room” argument to be effective. It sounds like such a simple point, but it is extraordinary the extent to which people will go to deny this seemingly obvious truth. You end up getting bogged down in a million different sophistries and sounding crazy to boot.
As for Sieben’s original point, I’ve experienced this problem as well. A statist can merely assert something and have it constitute an argument. It takes so long to refute every one-liner. However, judging by some of Sieben’s “debates” on debate.org (I lurk occasionally), I would say that maybe the most crucial element of success is finding someone with whom an intelligent and productive conversation can be had. If you cannot simply point out that you actually have to substantiate a claim in order to have an argument, then you’re probably talking to someone who isn’t worth talking to. Point out the requirements of a real coversation, and if they refuse to meet them, then don’t bother with them.
I agree with Coase. “Gun in the room” rarely matters. I either have people go to ridiculous lengths in denying any sort of coercion is occurring or they flat out admit that coercion is justified because people are bad. The second case is rare, Anyway, I think it’'s pointless to argue economics if you and the opposing party start off with wildly different ethical and moral considerations.
The gun in the room argument is ineffective because these people have no morals. I’ve tried running (narrower versions of) argumentation ethics, but then people just say they care more about stealing than avoiding performative contradictions.
I think a reductio is good at exposing faulty theory. It can certainly be used to throw another BOP at them to develop a philosophy of freedom/control. I’m afraid they’ll just pull the empirical card and say that middle-of-the-road crap works the best, like Switzerland.
Actually I tried a different reductio recently: "So prices are always being driven lower by competition, and the charitable class is always getting richer. Between the two, the poor will perpetually be helped under capitalism. But its not enough for you. Its NEVER enough for you. You’ll always make up some little human right that isn’t met perfectly by the market and then flip out and justify solving it by any means necessary.
It didn’t work so well. People just avoid the issue.
I guess I’m looking for some perfect argument that people can’t ignore, and pokes a giant hole in their statist theory. Maybe it doesn’t exist.
Oh, sometimes I ask people what a government is. They usually reply that it makes rules or something. I always reply “So is pizza hut a government? Pizza hut does that”… but they’re so sure they know what a government is that they can’t see past it.
(my working definition of government is simply “an aggressive monopoly”. I don’t choose to specify geographical or an arbitration component, because institutions which didn’t have or do either would still behave exactly like govs)
If they say middle of the road crap works best, then they undermine their own argument.
You’ve got to respect taking an statist from full blown lunacy to somewhat sympathetic to private society as a victory of sorts.
There is no silver bullet argument. You can’t centrally plan this stuff. All you can do is split test arguments, and learn to identify demographics, or perhaps listen better to the person you are debating. Understand what is important to them, and then appeal to it.
