Sieben, I understand your frustration. Sometimes, it’s like talking to a brick wall. Well crafted economic arguments are ignored. Moral arguments are ridiculed. Have you considered trying to sell yourself as an oppressed put-upon minority?It’s true enough and I think it’s safe to say that the people who frequent this forum don’t really have a voice in this country.
Sieben, I understand your frustration. Sometimes, it’s like talking to a brick wall. Well crafted economic arguments are ignored. Moral arguments are ridiculed. Have you considered trying to sell yourself as an oppressed put-upon minority?It’s true enough and I think it’s safe to say that the people who frequent this forum don’t really have a voice in this country.
This sometimes works if talking to a leftist - it at least gets them to think. When they advocate state solutions to social problems simply say, “The state?You mean the institution that is responsible for more death and destruction in history than any other?”
I believe Sobron once pointed out something similiar in a video. He observed that we’re supposed to fear entrepreneurs who’ve never killed anyone and respect the state, the great instigator of war and mass murder.
Actually, one time a guy asked me if I had ever been in any intense physical pain. I told him that I had 2 disk bulges in my low back, a subluxation in my C5, a congenitally curved bone in both of my shoulders that causes them to become subluxed too, causes chronic upper back pain. He just said “oh well you’d have free medicine in my system”.
I find that reductios don’t work for people that are convinced of anti-extremism and think that extreme capitalism is the exact same thing as extreme communism (except for the fact that they are opposites). They are dogmatic in their belief that “there are NO absolutes” And they don’t even get it, when I point out that their statement is self contradictory.
Maybe the best strategy with these folks is to middle of the road them in the right direction as opposed to the wrong direction, and show how just a little more freedom will improve things just a little bit, and then once you get them that far, nudge them a little further.
Statists also love to start their stories in the middle, and only think of short term results. "what are you going to do about poor old people; I want to know specifically how you can help my grandma. Obviously, they have an easy answer, gov’t pays for the medicine or to see the doctor or whatever. They don’t have to imagine the further consequences outside the one act.
I had a thread about this earlier. how statists always back away from that crap saying “oh no, I don’t advocate THAT kind of government”, to which I always reply “well I don’t advocate the bad kind of free market either. I only advocate the good kind where people are good and it works.”
Even though I am clearly mirroring them, they never see their own reflection. I think (traditional) statism is a brain disease.
I think its odd that we get labeled the idealist types. THEY are the ones whose theories are based on a benevolent acting government.
They’re already there 
They think iPods and wristwatches should be made by the market cus it works already. But they always think there’s something special about each and every government industry that stops the same market forces from being able to effectively supply it. Kind of makes the 1000 argument conversation inevitable >< Their theory is so… ornate.
Sieben,
Ambassadors for liberty can be a hell of a lot pickier than that. I’m impressed that you can even understand some of the people you engage on those forums. It just doesn’t seem worth it. Most of them aren’t interested in learning.
Instead, the government should provide services because it can focus on providing goods to PEOPLE instead of pursuing profits. Governments can ensure a minimum standard of living for all, while regulating the market to avoid economic catastrophes like the great depression. All the most successful countries in the world have strong central governments to plan their economies, like Finland and Norway.
Well, I think one of the better examples of a government providing services is North Korea. North Korea has a constitution, Article 25 of which reads:
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regards the steady improvement of the material and cultural standards of the people as the supreme principle of its activities. The increasing material wealth of society in our country, where taxes have been abolished, is used entirely to promote the well-being of the working people. The State shall provide all working people with every condition for obtaining food, clothing and housing.
A quick Google search will reveal North Korea’s indisputably poor track record for providing the stated conditions. So you can conclude, at least, that having government provide all this stuff is not a sufficient condition for ensuring prosperity. You can then talk about the other things that are necessary for prosperity, i.e., the proper incentives, the proper “plan”, etc. If you are dealing with even a minimally reasonable person, then that should get your foot in the door. Unfortunately, many people simply do not reason.
Another avenue is to point out that, when you take the magic out of it, a “government” is simply a group of people, much like any other group of people. People in government have moral foibles just like everyone else. There is no magic screen that allows only the most righteous into the halls of government. You should challenge that notion governments are more likely to have the people’s interests at heart. Hold them to their burden of proof on that point.
The fastest way to derail someone is to ask them to define their terms. Watch people crumble before your very eyes as they try to define ‘market failure’ ‘public goods’ and even such terms as ‘profit’ ‘exploitation’ ‘tax’… and so on.
If you’re talking to a statist leftist;
“public orginazations and the rule of law do not require, and in fact are hampered by the dangerous notion of a monopoly on force. The powerful people of a society, not matter how fair the distribution of wealth is will always leverage this monopoly in t heir favor. Consider the EPA under George II and programs like “the Healthy Forest program” which was aboslutely horrible for forests, but great for foresters.”
"For every FDR there are 10 Reagan’s. Populism is only as strong as you make it, not what some benevolent dictator can hope to bring you. "
“People built the pyramids, people created republicanism and democracy. People engaged in arts and science. No government created anything, ever. People make better regulators of the economy and law than any monolithic super-orginazation ever has.
What, because some guy used people to conquer other people 5000 years ago we have to recognize the borders of Iraq, China, or even the United States?”
I know I can’t convert anyone, especially on the spot. I just want people to look back and remember that some libertarian had good answers to their “philosophy”.
Hmm that would get my foot in the door. Thanks.
Its worse than that. Government is a group of men with a monopoly on violence and theft. They make the laws and no one is allowed to fight them. But no, they never accept this BOP. I started a thread about Caplan’s critique of democracy and everyone avoided the issue (except the other anarchists… even the other libertarians believe in democracy)
Yes they have no definitions. This would be the academically strongest place to start, but it sets you up for a tedious discussion. I’ve had some good results with this though. Even if they ignore it I can always just tack on “you still haven’t answered what a government is, so your political philosophy must just be rhetoric” to the end of my posts.
Hmm I haven’t run the elitist-takeover argument in a while.
I need to bring up the slaughter of native americans when I talk about the illegitimacy of the USG.
Most statists are obsessed with anachronism.