You and I are in agreement Noose…
Nothing but a series of arrogantly posted college term papers.
Amazing.
Aquila,
The process of de-Hannitization can be accomplished with the approach you have taken on that thread. Think about it, Hannity has millions in his audience. Imagine the profound impact if even 100,000 of them found Mises.org.
I think this is a productive way to “educate the masses”. Walk in their forum door along with Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard, etc. The key is to make sound arguments. Some of them will think “who are these guys” and they will do a little reading…and they will never be the same.
I like your position on trolling, that focus should remain instead on sound argumentation. Trolling will not de-Hannitize anyone.
Carry on.
I feel like some of these people may be too intellectually shallow, if you really want to convince them, you have to think like them, and talk about their interests.
“Any ideas for a new thread?”
Start a thread about how “we” are not the state. Link them to anatomy of the state, it’s what changed my life.
Start a thread about how “we” are not the state. Link them to anatomy of the state, it’s what changed my life.
That’s at least a few grades above their reading level and a few times too long for their attention span.
“Any ideas for a new thread?”
“Start a thread about how “we” are not the state. Link them to anatomy of the state, it’s what changed my life”
I say no. Let’s stick with something either economical or a specific issue. We must use their own rhetoric of free market, anti government, and freedom against them. Republicans are suckers for nationalism, even more so than most statists, to attack their god too soon is folly. Stick with either economic issues or matters of foreign policy. I like economics more because theyre supposed to be the free market people.
“Is Limited Government Possible?”
@chloe: I definitely agree with that topic. For me, back when I was a minarchist, doubts about the feasability of sustained minarchism would always launch me into depressive states (I didn’t really know about the alternate, true answer of anarcho-capitalism). My fellow minarchist friends would try to talk me down about it (and say things like “Even if it doesn’t stay minarchist, a reprieve from tyranny is better than letting tyranny go unabated.”) That little seed of doubt, though, continued in the back of my mind and eventually drove me to ancap.
Also, I made a profile for the Hannity forum (I’m “Naevius” there too). I may jump in at some point, but for now I’m content letting better men and/or women than I handle things.
TLAR - " to attack their god too soon is folly. Stick with economic issues…"
“Would the Stimulus Work if It Was Properly Targeted?” [EDIT - obviously the answer is no. That’s what I’m hoping the get them to understand. They think stimulus is fine if the Republicans are doing it.]
I think nationalism is the root of their ignorance which is why I think it should be attacked first. Until they get out of that statist mindset and start thinking like an individual, then they will probably continue to refute anything you say. At least that’s what I think. I would start a thread on there, but I’m not as well knowledged as you guys and I still have a lot to learn. I honestly don’t think I have the patience to argue with those people anyway. It’s like a forum full of blooms.
You know, when they started harping on about how it was illegal immigration they didn’t like, I thought the same thing.
Directed at Aquila (Fix the “Qoute” Button please):
There was no offense taken actually. I probably should have made myself a bit more clear there. But, anyway I hear the “money is the root of all evil” saying from way too many fellow Christians these days. I’m pretty sure most of them repeat this saying to have a “spook” effect around the children because I can assure you the vast majority have conveniently the historical context surrounding it.
I have met a good number of Christians who believe that the free-market is the only way to go, so that’s comforting as well.
I happen to be one of them, actually.
Also: my, this has got to be a record for number of posts in a single topic. I’m usually such a lurker. I’m probably so interested in this because I used to be a “Hannitized” neoconservative myself.
I think that if anyone is going to make the new thread it should be Aquila.
The thing is that we won’t get anywhere starting with nationalism. You don’t start out by trying to smash someone’s nearest and dearest fallacies, you point out to them flaws and inconsistencies, and then go for the throat.
Why not? Hit em where it hurts the most. There’s plenty of flaws and inconsistencies with being a statist/nationalist.
To barg into their little world, to attack everything they know, to shout and scream at them about what they are so passionate about is nothing more than a lie, that convinces no one, they will resist you tooth and claw. I don’t know how you were brought to the ideology that you now hold, but I was interested in arguments for free market which were then expanded upon slowly and then when I got to the point where I was a fairly radical minarchist my beliefs were more or less assaulted full front and I was brought towards anarchism. We can’t go sraight to the ore, the center of their fallacies, we must first make an opening for them, a crack, if you understand me.
I’ve had conversations with people where I’m in full libertarian thinking mode, and they are simply statist. IT DOES NOT WORK, THERE IS SERIOUSLY A GAP IN THE WAY THAT PEOPLE THINK. There is no way to go around this problem except to adopt their rhetoric and slowly bring them to your perspective at which point you can finally bring them over totally. You can’t simply warp from a certian way of thinking to another, you need to be led there fairly slowly.
Let’s make an opening for ourselves, let’s focus only upon some of their economic contradictions, then let us expand these to all of their economic contradictions, and then let’s move to foreign and social policy, and finally we strike at the heart after we have layed out a strong argument against all of their fallacies and put the fear of god in them.
“Do Low Interest Rates Help the Economy?”
“Is war good for the economy?”
“Do tariffs help protect American business?”
“The War on drugs protects Americans”
“Should the state define marriage?”
Neo-Cons and Paleo-Cons aren’t very good at fighting Libertarians. They get extremely confused when they have to argue with fellow right-wingers.
Most upper echelon paleocons are, if anything, more intellectual than most libertarians.