The vast majority of humanity currently endorses large scale theft, so, would you disagree?
In their defense one might say that taxation is generally not being recognized as theft, and war not as murder etc. State indoctrination in every field of society sure shows some effect.
I would agree with your other points.
You all seem like some pretty smart guys. Why don’t you write your ideas in the wiki I started?
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/wikis/debate/myths-about-market-anarchy.aspx
I’m starting to think I botched it (like I sound like some kind of violent conspiracy wacko, which I’m not). Rewrite the whole thing, if you want. And be sure to address the popular myths (government keeps the peace, democracy tames government, property could not exist without government.)
It is neither a fallacy nor does a large portion of mankind act irrational.
Rational action is not what one likes to call rational by himself, but what the individual decides to do, given the options the individual thinks he has.
If we replace what we think is right, with the term rational, than we are doing just the same the collectivist do, trying to press our “rationality” onto others.
Acting rational simply means to decide what action to take to get into a more satisfying state, nothing more. For someone who fears to be beaten or is threatened by a gang of thugs like the state, it is totally rational to bow and live, instead of fighting and face harm.
I know it sounds simplistic, yet, the only way I found to convince others is to help them understand, that they are the only ones that can make themselves act, i.e. to help them grasp the concept of self-ownership and accept it as a natural law.
All the rest follows from that. You do’t have to argue about state, poor people, social welfare etc. They can, and will, come to grips with it by themselves as they compare it to their new found idea that they own themsleves.
It is here where we should focus. All those high level discussions won’t lead anywhere, unless you agree on the fundamentals.
CShirk: WOW! Really found your [albeit long] reply enlightening!
Thanks you really taught me a lot with just that one post!
Hmm… I like the way you said that. It also gave me an idea;
Theft of life?
“Taking someone’s life with force or the threat of force is killing.”
Eh? [:O]
^Wow!
Thanks to that idea[l], I can finally understand it better myself, (what you said about self-ownership being natural law and what someone else used in the argument about self-ownership in relation to theft of life).
I’m glad that this forum actually has some smart things on it. As a very smart author (who has written a few articles here and there… including here at mises, and wrote a book) who I know very well told me only stupid people go on forums [including when I specifically mentioned this one], well I’ll direct him to this topic, as some of the replies have truly enlightened me, and helped me understand… well everything!
So thanks!
Please continue to express your ideas and feeling by writing them down!
Thanks a million, keep up the great replies!
Panarchy
PS: Thanks to everyone else for your replies, sorry for not quoting each and every reply, but well, you know!!! Short and sweet [Y]
I dont know about you, but I dont know anyone who can argue with freedom.
Start there. With liberty.Everything else will follow.
Complex arguments are great but often muddle and mask the real issue.
When debating someone, make sure you start out by understanding their view of the world - do they believe that having freedom is the only thing that allows people to act virtuously?
If they don’t then admittedly it will be a long discussion. But if they do, then any challenge that arises can be socratically met with the question: but does it maximize freedom?
Even the worst dullard and errant fascist can agree on liberty.
Until you actually get into debates with people who have read the texts (Marx, Hegel, Smith, Mises et al..) in my experience, it is best to keep it simple. I would start your reading right away though.
I agree this is a good approach. Try to find out if your partner can agree that Liberty is the basic principle from which all has to emenate, or if he believes that society is the basis.
If he goes for liberty, he is an individualist at heart and you will be able to convince him eventually. In the second case, things get rough as you need to change his believe about collectivism being somehow more important than individual freedom. Changing such an belief is very difficult as one has to change a lot of long trained basic beliefs that are almost hidden to him conciously.
And always use the KISS (Keep It Stupid and Simple) approach, no arguments on a scholar level unless you are sure you dicuss with someone who can follow you on this - a Ph.D. is no evidence he can, trust me 
Hmm… yes, however, what do I say when the argument gets to the point where I need to inform the arguer, about the Natural Law, and how Society doesn’t make Morals, but Morals or inbuilt.
How do I convince them of that?
As far as I remember the topic was about strategies to convince others. Given that most people do not fancy scholarly discussions, the questions is how to put forth arguments that are strong, convincing and easy to grasp.
My answer wasn’t meant to enlighten someone in the forums here, but to agree to the statement made that keeping it simple is the way to go. You don’t start math with calculus but with 1 and 1 is 2.
If someone agrees on the argument that only individuals can act, and I go beyond the misesian view that action is concious behavior only, than it follows that a group can not. If a group can not act because it is a category, it can not have morals at all. A category is a convenient way to group items and can therefor never act. For a single being to increase the chance of survival acting non-aggressive increases the chance not getting hurt in a fight in the first place. That means to favor peaceful settlement of conflicts is a natural way to increase the possibility of survival for the individual. This is where morals evolve from as well as the idea of the division of labor. Cooperation tends to increase chances to survive, confrontation tends to decrease them.