There’s a great response. Find out the opponent’s political standing, and then start talking about how great X politician, who is on the opposite end of the spectrum, is. They cannot raise an argument against you without contradicting the “love it or leave it” platform.
I have never heard that argument. Ever.
You shouldn’t.
No, I don’t.
And their silence has stopped the taxing?
“I have never heard that argument. Ever.”
That’s surprising to me.
“No, I don’t.”
Why not?
“And their silence has stopped the taxing?”
Their silence stopped further justifications for it. Maybe if the individuals silenced were those who were part of the state, it’d be different - but some how - I think their self interest would over rule that option. lol
You have to recognize where the violence comes from.
But after you made the argument, they dropped all consent for the state because they saw it as illegitimate, right?
Of course it is. But not all standards of legitimacy are created equal. In the case of “capitalists exploit workers”, any standard of legitimacy that makes this statement true will lead to contradiction.
As you probably know, this was Etienne La Boetie’s insight. I think it’s more complicated than this, though.
For one thing, I think people instinctively resist cognitive dissonance - at least on a mental level. One example of cognitive dissonance is “Do this because I said so.” Many a child, I imagine, has replied “But why?” upon hearing that “reason”. (I know I did.) The child doesn’t understand - rightly, in my opinion - how a command creates an obligation out of thin air. And this is because the child doesn’t understand that his parent presumes to have authority over him.
Now, if the child rejects the “explanation” given above, the parent might then threaten the child with physical violence. “If you don’t do as I say, I’ll hit you.” The child does understand this. He certainly doesn’t want to be hit. But he still doesn’t understand why he must do as he’s told - why it’s okay for him to be hit if he doesn’t do it. So his cognitive dissonance doesn’t go away. Rather, it becomes persistent.
I would argue that this state of persistent cognitive dissonance is known in psychology by a different name - “learned helplessness”.
That’s astute autolykos, and I think it also has a lot to do with people’s core belief systems. I mentioned in another thread that people are biased to protect themselves psychologically from remorse and accountability for error. Some of you who may have relatives or friends who run to the church to look for absolution of sins which they cannot muster the courage or honesty to ask from the person they hurt, is a good example of this. Many people will reinvent themselves before taking responsibility for their actions.
The state provides this cover, whether it is the church acting in a statist capacity or some government. The state is an agent we can sin through without direct and complete consequences. It is our agent and permission to do the things we know we ought not to do.
Yes. The way I see it is that many people, today and historically, look for ways to be absolved of things that they’ve done to others but that they would not want done to themselves. Apparently it’s too psychologically painful for them to admit to themselves that they did those things simply because they were able and (more importantly) willing to do them. Cognitive dissonance cuts both ways.
“You have to recognize where the violence comes from.”
Aye? Isn’t that what I said - i.e pointing that out, in the right direction?
“But after you made the argument, they dropped all consent for the state because they saw it as illegitimate, right?”
Essentially it looked as if most of the whole room had an attack of anxiety. No-one had a response or answer, I had responded to the entire panels ‘rebuttals’. They knew deep down their position was wrong & untenable. You could see most people begin to get uncomfortable - it was the fear of the unknown imo. This created the anxiety - they needed an answer or something to fill that void for them. So far my responses had been entirely reasonable, they had not been able to pigeon hole or dismiss the argument. Not many can handle not knowing.
I had not advocated a position at all up until this point. I was just pointing out the logical conclusions of their own… (I had started of with asking questions - slavery had come up and I asked them to please define “slavery”, then ok - imagine a society with a 100% income tax. Is that not the same thing? Well isn’t a 50% income tax not partial slavery? Simply a difference in degree not kind? and it had proceeded on from there to love it or leave it)
Anyway, they reached the point of not being able to defend their own position (so far so good) - so then they turned to me (to find out my position & what I “believed”) - this was awhile ago & hard to remember, but it was phrased more like - so you’re an anarchist then? Or it was - so you don’t accept any role for government?
I wasn’t at all prepared for this - this being my first time attending / speaking up at a conference / seminar - I made the mistake of saying “yes, that’s right”… and accepting his terms / phraseology.
In hindsight, the better response was: “I am against monopolies” or something similar. After that mistake though you could instantly sense the room had regained their “comfort.” They didn’t even follow anything up, it was as if there nothing else to even discuss, haha. I had been mentally filed into the “kook” category for the majority of those there, lol. And that’s all that mattered to them. I must say, I don’t think I’ll ever forget it - pretty amazing / instructive stuff.
Afterwords though several members came to speak to me about voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism (they knew about it & agreed), but hadn’t come out about it. Others were curious and I suggested they check out mises.org. And the rest seemed happy to go about what they were previously doing - either working within the young liberal (Republican) and young labor (democratic) party organisations, or being paid to staff & work for a “right wing” think tank.
So in this instance - no not all. But that’s because I screwed up, not because the method is invalid. I felt if I was to be in the same position again, adding in more humor - kind of stefbot / Rothbard style with the ability to actually present the alternative position in more than a few sentences (you know actually present on the issue) it’d be fairly different.
“if you don’t love it, leave! let this sonnng that i’m singing, be a waarnning! if you’re running down my country, man, you’re walking on the fighting side of me!!!”
don’t agree with the sentiment but i love the song.
No. I am talking about observation, not proselytizing. You can’t begin to address an issue until you can identify it.
People know not to steal, they still do it. People know not to be mean, they still do it. People know not to cheat on their spouse but they still do it.
People know that the consequence of not paying taxes is violence. It’s why they choose not to do something about it that is important.