Really Ignorant people you've encountered on a political basis.

Miscellaneous General
1

Just went to a party, swear I’ve never heard heard someone so outright say they didn’t want to talk about Ron Paul, thought he was crazy and a joke, and the same to libertarianism. She said she was a liberal democrat who supports Hillary, I’ve never heard someone so closed minded towards libertarian politics EVER. I’ve talked to both socialists, real conservatives who like rush, and other non libertarians who were in between, and I’ve had agreeing points with all, and much friendlier responses except her.

She had no openness to legalization of marijuana. She kept bashing libertarians with no actual points. Seemed to be so elitist in her words that I think it made her sound ignorant. She was even talking about all the experience shes had as if this complete justification for a lack of logic. She held no actual argument, just bashing and thought we were just talking or debating on politics. Debate, really? She thought Obama was actually doing something and when I told her he held all the same stances as Bush, she was giving that first year in office excuse.

I’m shocked some republicans are more open. She couldn’t even answer my arguments, but kept contentlessly bashing, with no backing up. Sure some republicans are bigots, but some democrats are really pissing me off.

Similar experiences?

2

Two of my more social-democrat friends pretty much oppose everything having to do with libertarianism, but they both like Ron Paul, mainly due to his consistency.

My mother is sort of like the woman you described. She never uses real points, just general arguments that you almost can’t argue against because it just turns into a shouting match.

I think the most heartbreaking statement my mother ever said to me (about politics) was shortly after I gave her a crash-course on the NAP and libertarian views on government. I said something like “some libertarians believe in small government, others in none”. She said, “…they believe in no government? Someone has to be around to keep people in check…”

She is also glued to belief that there are really only two political parties. Oh and she’s been voting for 29 years. Democracy at work!

3

How do i respond to a person like this? DO you try to prove my ideas or refute theirs?

4

Unfortunately I’m not very good at arguing face-to-face/in-person, so I try to avoid those kind of confrontations like the plague. It may be different for you.

Honestly, if a person is going to be that closed-minded right off the bat, I don’t see a point in even trying to argue. Just shake your head and walk away. If they yell at you for not being able to back up your beliefs (happened to me recently), either ignore it or say their mother wears combat boots or something.

5

I think the socratic method is the best way to discuss politics with people in person.

6

These may help…

Simply: Itunes store → freedomain radio → subscribe to all four volumes → go to podcasts → scan the list of undownloaded podcasts and click “get” on ones that interest you.

Freedomain Radio! Volume 1: Introduction - 271
Freedomain Radio! Volume 2: Shows 272 - 561
Freedomain Radio! Volume 3: Shows 562 - 897
Freedomain Radio! Volume 4: Shows 898+

1331 Loving Your Opponent
1327 Debating Tips
1320 Bait’n’Switch - An elemental fogging tactic to watch for in debates…
668 How the Truth Looks to Others - Empathizing with the blind
627 Saving Others Part 1
531 Logical Fallacies Part 1
381: Loving the ‘Sheeple’
287: Effective Discussions
268: Debating Freedom Without Solutions Part 1
257: Physics and the Three Laws of Logic
256: Blaming the Citizens for the State
252: Changing a Person’s Mind
251: The Subtle Strength of the True Self
249: Libertarians, the ‘minimal state’ and basic logic
192: Curiosity and Personal Relationship
162. Goals and Objectives: The Gun in the Room
158. 10 Arguments for Freedom (Part 1) How to find common ground during libertarian conversations
60. Loving the Lefties
39. The Economics of Conformity
22. They hate us because we’re good?
17. Dealing with Non-Libertarians
7. The Argument From Morality (or, how we will win!)

7

Never debate them.

Be inquisitive and seem genuinly interested in what they say. Never treat them like you know more than they do, or that they are wrong.

Do not give your position away.

Do not seem like an idiot, throw out as many non belligerent trivia and complementary facts as you can without being a burden to the conversation or comming off as pretentious. Be a Horatio to their Hamlet, they are the lead in the “conversation”.

Be Socratic.

Try to gently steer the conversation by appealing to thier knowledge. If they reach a dead end or stump themselves, gently end the conversation so they don’t feel intellectually threatend (no GOTCHA! moments. ever.) and automatically go on the defensive. Let their own momentum lead them to conclusions. You are there just to be the fuel to thier engine.

This takes a lot of time and investment, and would still have a low chance of success particularly with “upper west side” progressive types (who in m opinion are the worst and most obnoxious of the bunch), but it would probably have better odds than flat out debating someone.

8

I had a similar experience, but it turned out that a conversation about voluntaryism went better than one about a free market. I think that’s horribly ironic—some people actually can conceive of a free market in security, but not in other things.

9

Sometimes I use hubris, it really reels people in. I start with “I’m an anarchist, it’s the best position, and you can’t disprove that fact that it’s the best for society and individuals all around the globe.” or something like that.

They try to disprove me, and they end up falling flat on their face. :slight_smile:

10

Yeah. Socratic method will work. It is ideal in some situations for some people.

Me, I prefer to streamroll people I don’t like. Start with empirical evidence. They probably believe a lot of things like the economy is recovering. Point out that 3.5% increase in GDP vs 10% inflation using pre-clinton CPI means the economy has actually shrunk; that the median american works 35 hours a week (not even fully employed), etc etc. Point out that inflation is a tool of the rich to oppress the poor, since only poor people keep their assets in money (living paycheck2paycheck) and rich people keep their wealth in commodity money. So 10% inflation means that the poor and middle class just lost 10% of their wealth under the USG.

What a joke.

Just go hardcore with the facts. That’s all laymen can tolerate. No theory unless you absolutely have to.

Accuse them of being racist for supporting the minimum wage law. Give them a history lesson on it: During the great depression, all white unions didnt want to compete with women or blacks for jobs, so they lobbied for a minimum wage law that would price them out of the market. Repeat: The min wage law was passed by a gang of white guys to STOP blacks and women from getting jobs. Immediately after this, unskilled black unemployment rates shot up. To this day, unskilled black laborers suffer something like 50% unemployment.

Be on the offense as much as possible. These people aren’t used to having to rebut real arguments. You don’t have to reveal you’re a libertarian right off the bat. I usually say that “It doesn’t matter if I’m a communist or a libertarian we all have the same problems with you and your system. The Ron Paul and the RevLeft forums all say the same thing about you. Before we can worry about applying our own political philosophy, we have to take out the trash”. This way you stop them from going on the offensive. In fact it puts them back on the defensive because you’re claiming that no political school supports them.

Note: you do not make friends this way. However, it is a highly effective way to serve someone if you know your history and debate well.

I re-iterate: no friends this way. So you should probably pick and choose when to do it. You can do damage control by being calm as you explain it, though some people are very mean when they encounter resistance. I feel like the socratic method is the high-road. I post this because I think that getting dirty is the way to go sometimes.

11

I don’t know, but it seems to me that the group in power is the most close-minded. This may just be a defensive reaction since they often lack the ability and facts to debate. The less power a group has politically, the more disinterested they are. This type of person is what I’d describe a political thug.

12

Use her tactic against her. Dismiss her as a crank who knows absolutely nothing and be done with her. Should she dislike not being validated and try to engage you further, tell her again “you’re a crank who knows nothing–don’t bother me with your uneducated, incoherent ramblings”.

She can’t be won over, as she refuses to engage her mental clutch and put her brain into drive. You have nothing to prove to her.

13

Some people are beyond salvation.

14

This.

It’s the old 80/20 rule. You’re going to spend 80% of your time on 20% of the population, and 20% of your time on 80% of the population. Go after the low hanging fruit before you try to take on people who would rather see you in prison than free.

For every closed minded person, there are 5 or 6 who are open minded.

15

There is no way. Happy trails, goodbye, see you next fall. YOU CANNOT REASON WITH SOME PEOPLE. I was debating this idiot once whose entire idea why we need socialized medicine was because of (LMAO) brain dead people drivimg up cost so the govt. had 2 come in and take over the ENTIRE industry. He claimed that braindead people cost the medical industry millions of dollars a year to take care of. So I told him “no ones saying the healthcare bill will be less than a trillion dollars so let’s see 1 million or 1 trillion?” He said “Yes” (as in picking the trillion) and then nodded and waited for me to say somthing. I couldn’t. There was nothing more to say. Its the ultimate in Orwellian double think 1,000,000,000,000 < 1,000,000

16

“Oh, I went to college, so I know more about politics then you!” I hate that mentality.

17

I think the best way is by leading them down the path of having to admit that they themselves are violent people, and violent in the worst sense: they will not commit violence themselves, but are more than willing to hire thugs (government) to do the violence for them. That way they can continue to pretend that the violence does not occur, and they are insulated from any risk they might incur by committing it themselves.

I had an “Ah-HA!” moment listening to Marc Stevens of the No State Project last week when he posed such a question very succinctly. When in a conversation with such a person as you describe, ask them for a particular political goal, such as the building of roads or “universal” healthcare, and ask them “OK, so (fill in the blank political goal) is important to you. I understand. What level of violence are you personally willing to initiate against people (you could say “your best friend” or point to someone else in the room) to accomplish that goal?”

From there the conversation might go as follows:

Them: “What do you mean?”

You: “Just what I asked - what level of violence are you personally willing to initiate against people to accomplish that?”

Them: “Well, I’m not willing to be violent against anyone”

You: “Why not?”

Them: “Because that’s wrong, and I don’t have the right”

You: “So you know that it’s wrong - good. Do you have the right to hire someone else to do something for you that’s wrong for you do do yourself, such as hiring someone to murder for you?”

Them: “Well, no, that’s just as wrong”

You: “Then it’s wrong for you to also hire someone to steal for you at gunpoint or otherwise use force to take someone else’s property, right?”

Them: “Right”

You: “Well, isn’t every tax the taking of someone’s property from them by force? If you don’t think it is, what happens if you resist?”

From there you can demonstrate that every tax, and every law on the books is ultimately enforced at gunpoint. If they say that the government is just providing services, you can prove that, because of the above, they are providing services at gunpoint. My goal with such people is not to let them pretend that they are not willing participants in initiating violence against innocent people. Hopefully there are other involved in the conversation, too, who might have their own “Ah HA!” moments. I used this conversation this week, admittedly with someone much more receptive, but her response was “Wow!,” and she will never look at politics and government the same way again.

18

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

^This a bit disturbing, 79 percent of all college professors are liberals? Are colleges more biased then the media? Aren’t colleges supposed to be places of intellectual diversity?

19

No. The liberals get the collages and the conservatives get the military.

20

Lately I’ve been prefacing any political discussion (especially in front of a group) with the statement that I don’t condone violence and won’t continue to talk to someone who does. It is an interesting way to begin a conversation.