My liberal friends love Walter Block

Miscellaneous General
1

Just a little explanation of how I spread the word you may like.

The whole purpose of debating politics in a dorm/post party/post dinner/classroom/lunchroom atmosphere seems to be to allow everyone a chance to have their socialist-utopian ideas validated by the group rather than anyone really trying to be open-minded about anything. It seems a little dumb, but for as rabid an anarchist I am, I spent a lot of time playing devil’s advocate and otherwise trying to keep politics out of things. It’s just a topic that will always end in tears. Strategically, its better to sew the seed of doubt than to push an agenda, but even doubt sewing is a little anti-social most times.

But.. in the rare instance when I know someone open minded who is starting to really try to inform themselves about an issue, and we talk about it, I say “listen, if you’re trying to make a good decision about X issue, you really shouldn’t waste your time with the idea that the right wing is any kind of opposition. As far as their politics go, they believe in the overarching state as much as any liberal they just flip the ‘morals’ they want to push on everyone with horrible results: abortion is wrong even if it’s socially beneficial, but needless killing overseas is supposed to be moral so the same reason etc. - there’s no consistency. Listen to/read this radical libertarian article/speech, and I guarantee you’ll get a broader idea of the issues and have a better understanding of your own ideas, even if you disagree with every word”

And 9/10 times, what I give them is a mises institute speech by Block on the issue, and it works wonderfully. For one thing, nothing about Block seems to say “belligerent neocon” the first reaction is usually, “alright, he’s talking about market, but there’s something different about this”. Most liberals find him - even if misguided - a concerned, wise and good-natured person. Even if they think he’s full of it, there’s nothing offensive there to make them turn it off.

Audio is great too because its an ultra-passive experience. To read a book explaining the same thing is a chore for most people who aren’t already into the ideas, and so the speeches really increase the probability of the ideas getting across. The responses that I get from people regarding Block’s speeches actually match his own observations about his conversations: that people’s reaction usually is that they totally agree with the logic of his ideas, but that they don’t like the implications of them. It’s a good start.

His speech on abortion was something that was really well received by the way. I think he may be surprised that he’s solved a few people’s inner conflicts on the matter, all of them pretty steadfast socialists/communists/liberals etc.

Anyway, the point is that I’ve found Block to be very appealing to the sort of doughy centrist middleground that most people my age reside in, including myself at one point.

I’m going to sort though his stuff and try to come up with a “best of” I think

2

I usually send people like that a copy of “The Drive for a World Central Bank” by Hans Hoppe. (I am kidding.)

3

That’s a good observation.

They are the ones who are being anti-social though. They support the anti-social institution and violence. And shutdown, get emotional when merely a discussion arises. We’re not anti-social, they are.

That is well done. Get them on your side first by attacking the alternate ‘wing’. I don’t think I do this enough, mainly because I don’t essentially deal with openly “left” wing folks.

Haha, yeah - it’s so telling.

I recently sent this to an acquaintance who is a pro-lifer activist, but he is pretty much an anarchist as well. He has the killing is wrong down pact, but not the fact that the mother owns the womb.

He’s going to listen to it, and report back.

4

I disagree with this, but I think you’ll get my point if I go a little further into detail of the situations I’m talking about. If I decide to argue properly in a social setting, like I used to do, basically what happens is it becomes 8 against 1, and even if a “win” I lose, because there I am Mr. Libertarian basically challenging everyone’s sense of self-worth by casting doubt on their proud political beliefs and otherwise being a bummer in a situation where everyone is just trying to have fun. Now, say I was a senate witness or something, I wouldn’t hold back in the slightest just in case the stenographer might be insulted… I have no trouble being “anti-social” in that sense. In the wrong setting, all you really accomplish by arguing is to leave people with the impression that libertarians are tactless jerks.

Also, there aren’t any libertarians to hang out with where I live either, even the guy out in the country who hangs out at the gas station in camo coveralls thinks healthcare is a basic human right.

The liberals I’m surrounded by don’t really believe what they believe because they’ve arrived at it by rational and careful thought process either.. I can’t really “reprogram” them by re-tracing, following and revising the path of reasoning they took in the first place and changing their minds that way because they didn’t go at it that way. Early on in their lives they picked up the belief that the status quo was usually right and then made that their sole criterion for deciding what to believe in. The easiest way to sniff out these people is to do something like, for example, convince them that the social contract doesn’t exist, and then quiz them on an implication of that, “so with this in mind, is healthcare still a right?” if they say “yes” you’re dealing with a consensus-driven, binary mind. Every concept and moral declaration exists independent from all others!

And this is why I think mises though that the change to liberalism wouldn’t happen until the intellectual class embraced it first. Too many “average” people just take what the opinion of the institutions for granted. These “satellite minds” are what I’m dealing with usually, and simply put, I don’t have the tools to change their minds in a lot of cases, and so I’m better of just being their friends with them, and leaving politics out of it.

5

No, I understand. I was merely offering a larger perspective, that we’re not the ones who are being anti-social.

Within the statist context, I wasn’t recommending altering your current strategy / methods or behavior.

The issue I honed in on was we’re not at fault. We’re not the ones advocating the initiation of violence. And as such, I’d reject the label of being anti-social.

How would I characterize the “anti-social” [of Libertarians etc] approach then? It would be ‘debating with solutions’ and ‘positive prescriptions’. Tactless is also good.

Instead of using the Socratic method, devil’s advocate and debating without solutions.

6

I really don’t understand people. There’s the idea that it is somehow anti-social and isolationist to oppose institutionalized violence - but the term anti-social was invented to refer to the use of violence rather than reason in society. There’s a meme going around about “violent” libertarians - but the government does nothing but behave violently, at all times, is premised on violence, and libertarianism is opposition to violence. But it works.

7

I think some people operate under different premises with regards to government and its purpose. So they don’t see the government as a violent institution, but instead as an institution that protects them from violence. It’s easy to see why they might think this. Especially the ones who get subsidized by the government. It would be like if a father was a violent man but killed people and stole their things in order to feed his family. The family wouldn’t see him as violent but instead as a protector.

8

But you support the violent enforcement of private property, by private institutions.

9

If they’re reasonable, they’d see him as both. It is impossible to say that they would not see him as violent, unless they are stupid or blind.

10

Anti-social refers to the use of violence rather than reason in society, but does not apply to defense. We apply reason to the reasonable. You cannot argue with a bear, and at the moment of assault, the assaulter has shown me no evidence of being reasonable.

11

Let’s suppose they do see him as violent, might they also see his violence as acceptable because it benefits them?

12

Sure. But it would be be inconsistent to then go around screaming that his enemies were bad because they were violent, even if they were violent. It would be even worse if his enemies were opposed to violence, and that was why they disliked him.

13

I suppose it would be inconsistent. But people, based on my personal experience, are rarely consistent.