It was a definite misstatement. Nice try.
Oh, I think you do, no matter how long it may take.
Tell me something I don’t already know. I consider you to deserve hostility from me in spades.
Suuuuure you were. Tell that to someone who might actually believe you.
I have no problem hardening mine at least as much in return. Do you understand?
I’m not going anywhere. Try again, buddy.
Autokylos, let’s have a return to the Picard facepalm. Wonka is a little too…intimidating.
My caption for Wonka is, “Tell me more.”
you start out by pointing out how the state has made her poorer, how before you could literally work a shitty a job at a factory and afford a house and send your kids to college, explain how the standard of living has gone down while keeping it on a personal level so she can relate, explain how what the government is doing is in fact just going to make her poorer
Yes, not many parents would want their children to live under fascism.
It doesn’t even need to be fascism. Minimum wage laws, state “education”, the war on drugs, the welfare culture etc. all harm the child’s opportunities for gainful employment. The hypothetical woman in question also is disadvantaged in many ways by the state, and it is in large part why she’s reliant on it.
Yeah. Leftists want the state to step in and help people…who have been hurt by the state.
Speaking of which, I always feel a little odd about saying “leftist,” and I see a lot of libertarians getting called “right-wing” for their views.
It’s literally a meaningless term.
Why do you say that?
I mean, normally a lot of people see the center-left as being the home of liberals/progressives, and the center-right being the home of conservatives and cultural nationalists. The far-left has communists and socialists, and the far-right has Nazis and Fascists.
But then, I’ve heard stuff about how Nazism should be on the far-left being that it’s National Socialism, and many people state that Fascism should be far-left aswell, so…it just gets confusing as hell from there for me.
Where would you position libertarianism?
El Dorado, for obvious reasons.
Very funny, ha-ha.
Why do you say that?
Because it is so divorced from its origins that it’s lost all real meaning. IIRC, It originally referred to which side of the French assembly its members arrayed themselves, with those on the left being for free trade and those on the right for protectionism. So that is basically the polar opposite of what the term now refers to. It’s further confused by how it can allude to anything from Nazism to anarcho-capitalism. These two ideologies have nothing in common. Even the addition of “authoritarian” and “libertarian” poles doesn’t change much because of the confused manner in which the terms “right” and “left” are used.
In many respects anarcho-capitalists and other market anarchists are “left-wing”, more so than the supposed authoritarian “champions” of the left. I think the terms spawn a lot of confusion and waste people’s time. It is more important to try come to grips with the fundamental implications of each ideology than where it sits on some ill-conceived political spectrum.
Wasn’t classical liberalism historically the left-wing approach? Being that it advocates for individual liberty as opposed to a monarchy in which the country is one big support structure for the king?
It’s funny to me because, socialism being an “all-is-state” kind of idea, seems to be the utter right wing in my way of thinking.
Yes, it was. The right wing has always characterised European style conservatism, and with all the permutations it has gone through, American conservatism. But it also subsumes fascism and could arguably integrate all forms of collectivist thinking. I don’t think the terms help a lot. Framing things in terms of voluntaryism vs authoritarianism is a bit less murky, because ultimately those are the meaningful alternatives.
Yuck. I wouldn’t speak to a poor person.
There’s a few things that need be said in response:
The pattern of single mothers in government housing is aided by minimum wage laws and the drug war, which keeps people out of the employment circuit by imprisonment or involuntary unemployment. But also, there are more single mothers today because there is welfare available, meaning that if welfare weren’t available she probably wouldn’t have had the child in the first place. It’s not fair to the rest of the populace to be held hostage by single-mothers who treat themselves and their promiscuous lifestyles to the public coffer.
Then there are all the standard answers which would help anyone who isn’t a state-privileged corporation in the free market, not just a particular demographic: lower inflation, better banking services, more employment, cheaper healthcare, lower barrier to entry thus greater market competition, no more patent trolls, no more wasted tax dollars on killing people you don’t know, no more wasted tax dollars on bureaucracies. Sure maybe that single mother isn’t paying taxes, but with the investment spurred on by that money if it hadn’t been spent on bureaucracy, the economy would be better, delivering cheaper goods and providing more employment.
I think the basest implication of your question however, is that poor people can’t have ideals. You’re saying that because this woman works hard and lives in government housing, it is impossible for her to think beyond her own immediate personal benefit. Who’s the poor-hater now?
Libertarianism doesn’t offer anything to blacks, mexicans, chinese, whites, single mothers, families, unioinists, corporations, conservatives, liberals, etc. It doesn’t seek to dole out favors here and there according to lobbyists and loud voices. All it offers is peace, liberty and prosperity. If you want those things, then support Libertarianism.
How do you know she isn’t a libertarian? Stereotype?
Anyway, assuming she is a moral person, the easiest way would be to demonstrate that she already possesses libertarian ethics and values. From there, it is up to her if she wishes to vote for governance that contradics her own values.
Tell her that things will be cheaper without the government.
+1 Kevin. While I find the initial responses to this thread bizarre, the argument is extremely easy to make. In fact, poor people ought to be the very easiest people to convince, because they have the most to gain. They are hit hardest by the machinations of the state.
AJ, it’s sort of a seen vs unseen effect, tho. Welfare checks are obvious gains to their income. The claim that prices would be lower if only the market would be free can sound speculative and risky in comparison to that concrete check. If you have time to spare and have examples of government interference screwing with things directly related to their life, then it’s probably very effective.
Basically, I agree that it’s an effective argument, I’m just not sure if it’s necessarily easy.