If he is a statist, it’s not an insult. We’re talking about a man who loves the state more than his own son. And thinks Rush Limbaugh is more pleasant to here from than his own flesh and blood. He will wear “statist” as a badge of honor.
The Aristocrats was funny. And Limbaugh disgusts me.
Well, I see how Bill Hicks’ scatology might appear funny to someone who liked The Aristocrats. Still, most people are going to be disgusted, especially those who support the person being insulted in that idiotic rant, so the OP would not be accomplishing anything other than annoying his father. Apparently, he can do that by less ridiculous and more relevant* means already.
- The OP is trying to discuss the fallacies of statism with his father, not how Limbaugh supposedly likes to drink Reagan’s piss.
The fact that something is meant as an insult makes it an insult, not its relation to the truth. I’m now wondering whether your posts in this thread are at all serious; if they’re meant to be funny, then I really don’t see how.
Yea, totally. If you’re gay, being called a fag is totally not an insult either.
Alright guys, let’s relax here. I think everyone got a bit excited her in jumping in on Rush Limbaugh. But, thanks for the advice.
This is my strategy. My dad is exactly like the OP’s dad, that is, he’s willfully let himself be brainwashed by the neocons. He has no idea that the ideals of the neocons are only sustainable by a statist system that is headed for collapse. Nowadays I just concentrate on helping him get his mindset ready for the next depression, not only out of concern that my family is as ready as possible when TSHTF, but also to use as a springboard of persuasion when the time actually comes. When it turns out that I (aka Austrian Economics) was right these last months/years, I almost guarantee that my dad will be eating the ideas of liberty straight out of my hands. That’s the theory, anyway. I’m trying to become my dad’s own personal Peter Schiff.
In the meantime, I avoid subjects we disagree on and flesh out the subjects we already agree.
Yep, I say allow the proof to be in the pudding.
I actually agree with this. Most likely, his opinions won’t change. That’s o.k., focus on people who can.
Hmm. It would seem his father does not refrain from accusations. So I think that is out the window at this point.
His dad is calling his idea Area 51 type stuff. Which you could take personally, or defend yourself with a bit of ribbing and humor. Which is underrated as a rhetorical device, as far as I’m concerned. Especially among “the guys”, so to speak. Which could be you and co-workers or you and the old man once you are a bit older. If the OP is very young and going to get kicked out of the house, maybe he should use more tact. But if he’s just having a discussion, I say guys will be guys.
For one, I’d think juvenile humor – if what I posted was – would be appreciated by fans of shock jocks.
Goodness, and I worry that my daughter is just a bit too interested in anarchism too early in life.
How can it be too soon to start evaluating your economic and social relationships?
Because isn’t that all that anarchy is?
The Economics of Conformity - Stefan Molyneux (In other words, know what you’re asking people to give up) starts to warm up 5 min in
I actually thought I was a bit late to the game…But, to be honest with you, I generally don’t reveal myself if at all.
I usually say that the Articles of Confederation is much better than the Constitution and that’s where should be headed. Then all hell breaks loose!
You should take a more scholarly approach - I also run into resistance with my parents whenever my views on politics and economics come up (I like to talk about these subjects a lot, so they often do come up). People naturally look to recognized leaders to judge issues on which they are not personally expert. You do it, too, just on other subjects than economics, in which you have an amateur interest (like myself). Your Dad mistakenly looks to conservatives talk radio hosts, as I did just a couple years back, as a source of “alternative” news. Unfortunately, it turns out that the alternative news is not much of an alternative. This is not your Dad’s fault - the radio spectrum deregulation of the 90’s was sold as some kind of revolutionary expansion of the freedom of speech, which always puzzled me even before I turned to Austrian economics. Now that I better understand how to think critically about the government and other individuals and organizations within society, I see through more of the charades than I used to.
If he is a mainstream conservative, he is likely to be hostile to criticisms of the warfare state. So, I recommend that you stick to bolstering his abilities to argue against the welfare state by giving him good, solid arguments from the Austrian school that show the root of aggression that underlies all redistribution. Most conservatives are stuck on the efficiency argument, “the free market is more efficient!” not understanding that the public will reject efficiency in favor of morality every time. It’s not good enough for the market to be more efficient… if it is not more moral (than statism), then it will be abandoned by the public. Most economists and conservative commentators don’t understand this. Read Rothbard’s essay on this subject to understand where I’m coming from. Talk to your Dad about the welfare state… it’s worked for me with my Dad. Over time, my Dad has actually become less rah-rah than he used to be for the warfare state, as well. So, putting the wedge in the door on one side can transmute over to the other side, as well.
Clayton -
I’m pretty impressed by the sound advice on this thread