Reading/Education/Document/Debate Tree

[filc]

Hi guys,

A few recent posts has prompted me to request this. Has someone, or is someone, willing, to create a learning path tree for Austrian Economics/Libertarianism? This would be a tool to help make recommendations to people who come from different political and philosophical backgrounds.

The concept is that reading material recommendations will change based on the audiance’s prespectives and preferences and where their beliefs are coming from.

This tree would be used as a tool for us who want to propagate reading material out to our various flavored statist friends. The idea is to start at a basic level for each ideological viewpoint and build on top of it. Eventually as they work up the tree they can start adopting reading preferences that they wouldn’t have otherwise when they started the venture into reading about freedom. The tree may look something like this.

(DOn’t make fun, I made this in snagit in like 5 minutes…)

The advanced section will eventually cut off and it’s assumed that at this point the person either accepts austrian economics/libertarianism or does not.

Things like Anarchism vs Minarchism should be higher up on the tree. It should be safely assumed that most non-volunteerists will beleive in the existence of the state. The begginer sections should focus on flaws of the state that those individuals can relate to, then use economics, logic, and reason to reveal why the flaws exist. The begging section should not focus on offending the reader but definatley be thought provoking.

The whole Basic, Medium, Advanced idea in the broad scheme of things is merely an introduction to AE and Libertarianism. Many people on this forum would far exceed advanced. This tree isn’t somtehing that should take someone 10 years to complete. It needs to be designed for effiency using the most well acknowledged titles to match peoples interests.

Books which discuss the extreme details of philosophy and economics would be placed above advanced and be beyond the scope of this exercise. It will be assumed that at that point the reader can choose for himself where to bring his next level of reading to.

At any rate I think you guys get the gist of what I am asking. Is anyone aware of anything like this?

EDIT:

Here is another example of how the paths could look

Also, I realized there may be more tree’s besides “Conservative”, “liberal” or right and left. A tree could be made from any viewpoint really. Even a religious one. Using one’s religious concepts and beliefs and curb them back to the understandings of freedom. A tree could be made for any ideological viewpoint.

[Conza]

@filc

Also, I realized there may be more tree’s besides “Conservative”, “liberal” or right and left. A tree could be made from any viewpoint really. Even a religious one. Using one’s religious concepts and beliefs and curb them back to the understandings of freedom. A tree could be made for any ideological viewpoint.

Very nice. One was previously made: From Minarchism to Anarchism in 10 Easy Steps: A guide for Constitutionalists

I suggested we do one for Environmentalists, Conservatives, Social Democrats etc. as there are works that are better geared towards converting others.

I think a person has to first become interested in these topics, before they are obviously going to take them up. There are ways to do that, i.e see Ron Paul and become interested etc.

Alternatively, books from Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged are great at sparking that interest or moral outrage so to speak. From there, they can then flow into one of the trees. I’d suggest that this could be for the “apathetic” bunch. It’s a story or novel.

For “economists”, obviously it would be a focus on praxeology and methodology. If they can’t get that right, then I don’t think they’ll follow on to the conclusions. Although, there may be a better path. When you tell someone you reject the scientific method and explain it to them, they don’t exactly take to it easily… lol

For social democrats, you could use Mary Rewurts book. Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature, is probably too confronting… lol

[Sage]

Excellent post.

I think another worthwhile project would be to gather all of the premises from which libertarianism follows and represent them in an argument tree/flow chart. This would be a great heuristic device, because it would show exactly how libertarian conclusions follow from our premises. This would help in debating other positions (e.g. Keynesians, Marxists, social democrats, minarchists) by focusing the debate to the disputes premise(s) that are the true source of the disagreement. Also, it could be adapted for educational purposes to reach out to different ideologies, as the OP proposes.

[filc]

From Minarchism to Anarchy in 10 steps would more likely fit at the middle section of my model. Are there any other more introductory texts which would be better for introductions? For example it’s not likely that a minarchist will go read “The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts - Murray Rothbard” as their first book and if you recomended that to a minarchist they will probably just roll their eyes and pretend to be interested. I need more introductory texts which can win the interests of minarchists first.

MY goal really is to swindle them into the anarchist mindset slowly over various texts. Each text should strike their interest into the next.

The general problem I come across however is which books to recommend for each tree. I think I can attempt this project but I need people to speak up explaining where they original came from and what path they took to discover freedom.

[EternalSanction]

@Sage

I think another worthwhile project would be to gather all of the premises from which libertarianism follows and represent them in an argument tree/flow chart. This would be a great heuristic device, because it would show exactly how libertarian conclusions follow from our premises. This would help in debating other positions (e.g. Keynesians, Marxists, social democrats, minarchists) by focusing the debate to the disputes premise(s) that are the true source of the disagreement. Also, it could be adapted for educational purposes to reach out to different ideologies, as the OP proposes.

Man, if someone could pull this off, it would be amazing. It’d be like Human Action got condensed into a graphic organizer.

[EternalSanction]

@filc

The general problem I come across however is which books to recommend for each tree. I think I can attempt this project but I need people to speak up explaining where they original came from and what path they took to discover freedom.

I first really became an individualist when I read The Satanic Bible—definitely a book that requires you to be an atheist beforehand, though. It wasn’t until a friend of mine lent me an Ayn Rand novel that I really saw the economic side of things. Of course, Ayn Rand’s refusal to even consider an opposing viewpoint became kind of a turn-off (not to the point where I dislike her, but enough for me to seek out alternative sources), and I stumbled across Human Action somehow and was hooked. Posts on this forum converted me from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism, although I can honestly say that I wanted to be convinced… I just had to hear the reasons.

[Conza]

@filc

I need more introductory texts which can win the interests of minarchists first.

MY goal really is to swindle them into the anarchist mindset slowly over various texts. Each text should strike their interest into the next.

Mises Institute

[Laughing_Man]

Tell me how to make those charts and I will construct one.

I still think that Sage’s Minarchism to Anarchism is the definitive list for those individuals who believe in minarchism. However I can do the Left and Right since I have been on both sides.

[filc]

We can do them however you like. I used a crappy image editor. I have visio though and could make a better flow chart. If you can actually create the tree in text for me I could go back into visio and create a visual representation. Or if you like feel free to go at it. If there are any photoshop guru’s out there they may be able to do even better!

[nirgrahamUK]

this might help, i just google search found it http://www.lucidchart.com/

[filc]

@Sage

I think another worthwhile project would be to gather all of the premises from which libertarianism follows and represent them in an argument tree/flow chart.

Yes I agree. This would be a nice asset

[Sage]

@filc

Are there any other more introductory texts which would be better for introductions? For example it’s not likely that a minarchist will go read “The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts - Murray Rothbard” as their first book and if you recomended that to a minarchist they will probably just roll their eyes and pretend to be interested. I need more introductory texts which can win the interests of minarchists first.

Exactly. In order to have a discussion with someone you need to approach them at some shared level, i.e. find common ground.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

“What are the great faults of conversation?.. I will tell you what I have found spoil more good talks than anything else: long arguments on special points between people who differ on fundamental principles upon which these points depend. No men can have satisfactory relations with each other until they have agreed on certain ultimata of belief not to be disturbed in ordinary conversation, and unless they have sense enough to trace the secondary questions depending upon these ultimate beliefs to their source.”

For example, in debates between libertarians and Marxists you often find they just talk past each other. This is because the former holds the STV as a premise, while the latter holds the LTV. So in debating, e.g. whether profit is exploitation, the debate will often go nowhere, because while each side may be reasoning correctly from their premises, they hold different premises and so reach different conclusions. Hence most debates are a waste of time, because they focus only on secondary questions, without getting at the root disagreement.

On the other hand, it’s easier to debate with minarchists because both groups share a lot of common ground; they know where the other stands.

(This explains why, when someone posts on a forum with radically different views, they will be accused of trolling: because they share very few fundamental principles they can hardly engage in discussion.)

I find it’s very difficult to have discussions with laymen, just because a lot of work is required to establish common ground. I guess the best way to do that would be to have them read some introductory text that presents the libertarian worldview in its entirety. Perhaps Rothbard’s For a New Liberty and Callahan’s Economics for Real People (pdf) as a one-two punch.

[Laughing_Man]

Oh I apparently have visio. I’ll create a list this week.

[filc]

@Sage

I find it’s very difficult to have discussions with laymen, just because a lot of work is required to establish common ground. I guess the best way to do that would be to have them read some introductory text that presents the libertarian worldview in its entirety. Perhaps Rothbard’s For a New Liberty and Callahan’s Economics for Real People (pdf) as a one-two punch.

The conclusion I have come to is that laymen are laymen becuase they have not found the reasonign why economics and liberty is important. I agree with someone’s earlier post that ideological apathetic people can be approached by using inspiring story’s like FoundtainHead ect…

Thanks LaughingMan. FYI I also have visio so feel free to eemploy in any way you think necessary. If I can just get some lists I can also make some of these charts.

[liberty_student]

And presenting them with a 15,000 word Hasnas essay isn’t going to appeal to them in the least.

One needs to be able to advance the argument simply and concisely. I liked Sage’s idea behind the reading list, but anyone who is already open to reading several thousand pages of books and essays, was a candidate for winning over on reason. Such a list is only useful to a very narrow audience. Where a list like that has value, is if we know the material, and can summarize the arguments in our own words, fit to the conversation and interests of the party we are trying to communicate with.

This idea of the logical progression of ideas from a starting point, IF KEPT SIMPLE AND CONCISE has the potential to be a great tool, like the Nolan Chart.

If it becomes convulted, self-indulgent, dogmatic, devotional, then it will be lost on many of the people it is shown to.

@filc

The conclusion I have come to is that laymen are laymen becuase they have not found the reasonign why economics and liberty is important.

Exactly. One can only be successful in communication if they can find out what is important to the other party.

[Laughing_Man]

@filc

Thanks LaughingMan. FYI I also have visio so feel free to eemploy in any way you think necessary. If I can just get some lists I can also make some of these charts.

That will work, I will write up a list

I think it will be centered around ‘Philosophy’ / ‘History’ / ‘Economics’ ranging from Basic / Medium / Advance / Expert. The first works are meant to deconstruct and critique their ideology, then move to basic tenets of free market anarchism, then medium, advance etc.

[filc]

Does this seem logical.

1. It is more likely to persuade a minarchist to anarchy.
2. It is more likely to persuade a statist to minarchy.

Therefore the flow should follow like this

Statism → Minarchism → Anarchy

Beginner → Intermediate → Advanced

Each beginers section will focus primariily on correcting indoctrinations of the state and more or less attempt to bring the person to a minarchist position. Once the person gives in to minarchy they will then have some of the foundational information to understand anarchy. If the chart fails we may at least persuade some statists to be minarchists and agree with the Austrian school and other economical aspects.

[Laughing_Man]

That is what I was thinking. It is much easier to get someone from statist to minarchist. Getting a minarchist to radicalize is difficult.

[Conza]

@filc

Does this seem logical.

It seems good to me.

Has anyone not gone through the phases:

“Government is good and necessary” → “government is evil, but necessary” → “government is evil & unnecessary”.

If anything there may be different starting points for individuals, between the first two phases. And naturally there are differences in time each person takes to flow from one to the other, some take an instant, some take months, years, decades and some - never. I suspect that a lot of people might just have never questioned it, or been shown an alternative. So they didn’t consider whether government was good or necessary, that it just ‘was’.

I’m sure there are a lot of factors that influence a persons world view. This may not have everything to do with intelligence, but interest or the nature of the individuals upbringing and other factors.

Part of what was a draw card for a lot of people towards the Ron Paul revolution, was his principled stand and integrity. Calling out the military industrial complex in the national presidential debates surrounded by war mongers and a mainstream media, especially a war propaganda powerhouse called “Fox”, which is essentially the default channel for every single Republican voter - that takes guts.

It’s not just what he was saying, but in the context he was saying it - that was so powerful.

I’m wondering if there is a way to translate or replicate this into the model?

@Laughing Man

That is what I was thinking. It is much easier to get someone from statist to minarchist. Getting a minarchist to radicalize is difficult.

Yeah. And primarily out of the 3 options this is the only one that is logically inconsistent. I’ve eluded to earlier:

@Conza88

Just some of my observations. There are two types of minarchists;

1. Those who are open minded & susceptible to anarcho-capitalism, they have just never read or been shown how it could work, or that it has in the past.
2. Those who worship the Constitution and State propaganda surrounding it. They have fallen for the “Hobbesian fear” and “We the people” are the government.

It is fairly easy to figure out if you are dealing with someone who is intellectually honest, or dishonest. It usually takes a few responses of back and forth. The approach helps a lot as well. If they are intellectually dishonest, then you are posting to change the lurkers minds - because the opposition has hit a brick wall of cognitive dissonance and quite likely will never get over it. They are usually a lost cause & nothing short of a miracle will move them to address the inner contradictions of their position.

[filc]

@Conza88

@filc

I need more introductory texts which can win the interests of minarchists first.

MY goal really is to swindle them into the anarchist mindset slowly over various texts. Each text should strike their interest into the next.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

I have to play dummy on this one. What topic tree would you place this under and in what section. Begginer, intermediate, advanced? I havn’t read this so I don’t know.

On another note, for LaughingMan and others, A quick 3 things

First

What method do you think would be best to decide the recommended order of literature? Obviously this is only meant as a guide and not as a concrete lesson plan.

One thought was to poll people that came from different backgrounds and grab the collection of books they read and in the order they read them. Then from the pool of likeminded individuals build a reading list from there.

Second

I think it may be somewhat important if we set a book limit. The tree’s should not be lengthy and convoluted with various texts. We should attempt to find the most appropriate text or texts for each topic. We should be able to assume that after a tree is completed the reader would have enough knowledge to know where to go to find more reading material. I wonder if we could keep an entire tree limited to 10-15 books. Do you think thats too short?

Third

@Conza88

I suggested we do one for Environmentalists, Conservatives, Social Democrats etc. as there are works that are better geared towards converting others.

Do you feel these topics are too specific or are they just right for developing a tree from each group?

Regarding conservatives. Despite the fact they may believe in minarchy I feel that most conservatives have lost their or have never originally learned the significance of minarchism and why it works. I suspect most conservatives know little of economics, history, and philosophy. So on that note I wouldn’t want the conservative tree being lacking. We should take the standpoint that they are just as much statists as liberals, which it seems lately they are.

Fourth

@Sage

Excellent post.

I think another worthwhile project would be to gather all of the premises from which libertarianism follows and represent them in an argument tree/flow chart.

Started a new thread on this topic. I’d like to have this accomplished as well.