Most Successful Conversion Strategies

Miscellaneous General
1

Anyone stumble upon a great way to convince people of anarcho-capitalism (or similar libertarian ideal)?

I’ve gotten five people really interested in it in the past week, just through casual conversations. Given the inevitable endless flood of objections, it’s clear that you have to tread carefully and introduce more open-ended questions and less statements and declarations.

What has worked for me so far is ask curiously something like, “Do you know what happens when two companies from different countries have a dispute?” Of course most people don’t, so I explain neutrally how corporations often use private arbitration and such. Then if they don’t ask, I ask them what they think happens if one company doesn’t agree with the arbitration. Then I tell them about the mechanisms of reputations and other things that made marine law and the lex mercatoria work. I point out that there is no monopoly on the law internationally.

Then I ask why monopolies are bad, then I ask if all monopolies are bad? They always say, “Yes,” so then I counter by saying, “Well, the police are a monopoly. You or I can’t start our own private police company.” So then they think I am arguing that some monopolies are good, and it gets them to consider the other side. I think that’s the key. People will naturally try to be consistent, so at this point they are already looking for ways to say that maybe police shouldn’t be a monopoly. Of course, it is too weird for them so most will take pause here.

At this point, as long as you haven’t indicated any position or like you’re trying to convince them of anything, there will be gears turning and they will usually be interested and somewhat open to new answers. Then I usually throw out a few more “Think about this: …” to get them even more in that puzzled and amenable state. It’s critical that you don’t get their argumentative ego into it, unless it’s having them argue against what they may momentarily perceive as your pro-monopoly position (which was really just devil’s advocate). If they are interested in politics and such, they’ll often be fascinated. No one has ever talked to them about monopoly before. Then I give them some links or book recommendations, or whatever they seem most apt to look at. Every step of the way you have to let them lead you, or else it feels like your pushing it on them.

Anyway, that’s my method. It comes really easily out of casual conversation, and it can be started from myriad different conversational paths. I can turn any discussion into one of curious musing about monopoly. And I can show anyone why a monopoly is bad for their pet issue. It keeps the conversation very apolitical, which keeps their argumentative side from coming out. If they express a political position, I agree with whatever their final aims are, and point out how a monopoly is hindering those aims.

The state is so obviously a cancer when phrased in terms of monopoly, that it’s really easy to get people doubting. Mostly it’s just planting seeds, but I had no idea it would be this easy! These convos are literally about 5-10 minutes.

Anyone have success with another way?

2

This.

I like debating as much as the next guy, but it ain’t very persuasive.

3

Instead of attacking statist economics in general (for example taxes, regulations, etc), I inform moderate people on the left of the folly of Keynesianism in particular. Once you tell them about Keynes’ coal mine quote, they’re pretty much right away on your side. I think anti-Keynesianism might be a good gateway to a road toward anti-economic-statism in general. On the other hand, moderate leftists don’t really respond well to criticisms of Marx: it’s too “conservative” sounding.

Also moderate left folk usually know virtually nothing about the Fed, and thus have no opinion of it. Having an Austrian as their first exposure to its workings and its effects can be very formative.

In general, stay away from current hot button issues (health care, education, etc) about which they probably already have a fixed opinion, unless they are already minarchists. The most gradual and effective progression for moderate leftists is the one I followed in my political evolution:

new issues I’d never considered —> issues in which the libertarian case is most obvious (the Economist got me to this point) → more controversial issues → butchering leftist sacred cows (the Kochtopus got me this far) → the state is entirely ineffective and destructive (Austrian economics convinced me of this)–> the state is evil (Rothbard and my own reflections on Humean philosophy).

4

I think your tactics are great! However, I wonder if these people go on their way and quit thinking about it.

I don’t think it really matters how it is presented, if someone is really interested. I also do not think it matters how it is presented if someone is not really interested. I could be wrong.

5

The good old socratic method, it never fails.

6

Not using the ancap term, but I have had success ‘converting’ minarchist conservatives by asking them to show me an example of a limited government remaining limited.

7

Just don’t make others have to have sex with old hairy Greek men. Please. X_X

8

what about going straight to “taxation is theft” and threat of murder

9

Yeah, that’s pretty much a drawbridge-closer.

10

I think it’d be cool to make some kind of essay-wiki for each of the major types of political positions. Or a set of tactics that work. For instance, I’ve heard for leftists and bleeding heart liberals that reading Bastiat’s The Law can be quite a revelation. For conservatives, I’d say Tom Woods and Lysander Spooner. For contrarians, maybe Block - haha. For conspiracy folks, G. Edward Griffin will get them to minarchism, then Spooner and the rest of Sage’s 10 articles. For environmentalists…seems the literature is pretty weak there?

11

I also invite everyone to post their own paths they took to get here. Mine was:

Apolitical → Ron Paul → goldseek.com → Federal Reserve / conspiracies → Ron Paul minarchy with G. Edward Griffin elaboration on conspiratorial aspects → Tom Woods → mises.org → Sage’s list of articles on minarchy to anarchy (Spooner, Rothbard, Hoppe, etc.) → personal reflection and reading posts here → almost totally sure that anarchy is best (so back to apolitical)

12

Ha! Nice.

13

I find the most effective way, is figuring out whats important to the person you are appealing to, and what perspective they are coming from, whether its an adhoc morality and political understanding, or something classifiable (utilitarian, socialist, conservative, etc.)

like recently, I found out my interlocutor had written a book on politics ! (and had become dissullusioned with the government he had previously advocated for, left-wing)

so right away I want to know about his morality, I have found that few ‘lefties’ are moral nihilists and so are amenable to political arguments stemming from morality. (which is a valuable tool!)

So this fella I teased out from him that he would not describe himself as believing in any overarching moral theory , so i pegged him as an adhoc morality type. And i told him as much. he also indicated a penchant for moral relativism.

Therfore, I asked him if he didnt feel there was a conflict between the very notion of morality, and acts being right and wrong, versus, morality being culturally dependant, and I had him agree that there was something to the ‘meaning’ of moral language, that is implicitly universalizing.

so then I asked him to think about (all the time doing thinking for the two of us) if there was a common thread to the moral concepts that he strongly felt,
and we got to talking about the golden rule, (Jesus Style)

so then I suggested that Jesus’ formulation was inferior to Rabbi Hillel, ’ do unto others as you would have them do to you ’ versus ‘do not do unto others as you would not have them do to you’

so there we were at the NAP, and then I motivated private property by saying that Initiating Aggresion could not be comprehensible without a concept of property rights. (to determine theif from rightful owner)

I’m not saying all conversations can go like that, just that at least one did. (yesterday)

14

I’m going to put my own 2 cents on this subject. I worked in sales in the past, and one of the most important lessons I learned was that “people hate to be sold to, but love to buy.”

Hence when you come across as a peddler(albeit an ideological one), people will not respond well, most likely because you’re being one. I learned the most important thing is to be yourself, convey your product and why you are passionate about, it, but just like any other human conversation you relate with the other person.

In fact I think it’s probably better not to go out thinking “I’m going to convert these people to my point of view”, the main thing people are interested in are you and why you are passionate about what you are. I’m sure many people feel strongly enough about the things they are for that people can see and feel this geniuneness when they interact with you.

I also with what people have said about relating on common points, it’s amazing how many we have with people, whatever pint of view or path of life.

15

Now I’m going to imagine hearing all of your posts with a Scottish accent. [:P]

16

lol[:D]

17

Eh…I know Walter Block did a series of interviews on free market environmentalism.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo