Solid. Always wise to stake out the high ground early.
Lol I actually am suprised the number is that low. I live in a colledge town and I’ve met only one facist professor an a full about 20 socialist professor… Oops I mean conservative and liberal of course, I’m so sorry.
A couple of weeks ago I was discussing health care with a coworker. We talked for about an hour. The conversation ended when he said that, yes he would put a gun to my head to enforce his health care system. He “won” the argument but I’m pretty sure he lost the respect of everyone that was listening to us. I wonder which position the bystanders are now leaning towards…
Elite schools are at 87 percent. That is way too high for institutions like schools.
Ignorance would be too lukewarm of a term to describe the…
Well just have a look for yourselves within my linked summations:
I’m with the don’t bother crowd. No matter how you go about it, even if you manage to draw one or two of them out, eventually you’re going to run up against a malicious idiocy in enough people that you simply will lose all faith in humanity. The bottom line is the bell curve is applicable to all large populations, most people are of average or lower intelligence, which means your receptive audience is already a minority and one that has been itself subject to conditioning, brainwashing, selective cirricula in teaching, etc., etc., etc. You can’t convince people on the whole, and you sure as hell can’t convince enough of them to make a difference. What you might be able to do is over time demonstrate how people benefit from the market so they gravitate towards those solutions even if they don’t truly understand them.
I work for the local school district (commercial refrigeration/building automation) and I deal with the “I went to college” idiots all day. You can’t teach a teacher anything.
My shop has 2 close minded liberals. 2 open minded moderates, and 8 close minded conservatives (the hate radio listeners).
For the close minded of either side I follow one of the things they taught us in church years ago - “Don’t preach to the faithless.” Your just going to waste your breath, and you’ll both be wasting time.
This is Sales 101.
Using a religious analogy, there are 3 types of potential customers; Sinners, Saints, and Savables.
It is a waste of time trying to convert Sinners as they will resist strongly. It may even be counter productive because by exciting them you may encourage them to be more active. In fact, an alternate strategy is to do anything possible to subdue them and encourage apathy.
Saints are also a waste of your conversion energy as they already agree with you. Although you should spend more time around them than with Sinners, your time should be focused on reinforcing their faith and encouraging them to take action.
Savables are the people who most of your time and energy should be spent on. These are people who haven’t taken a strong Agree/Disagree stance towards your faith. The right mix of persuasion should result in a high conversion rate. If your efforts aren’t bearing fruit examine yourself, your message, your product, or your defenition of Savable…
I know how that is! I managed to draw someone out on this view point, with bystanders listening in, at my bar! It’s not the person you’re debating who’s mind you want to change, it’s the people around you!
I recently engaged in a bit of an online ‘debate’ with one of my (now former) friends.
We were discussing perfect competition, and after telling him my opinion, I sent him a Mises article.
His response, after not reading it:
"You siting Mises.org for anything, is like me using Mein Kampf as an exclusive book on race relations."
He’s one of those ‘I learned it in College which means it’s objectively true and cant be debated’ types.
Ugh.
I’m a college man. Send him my way [8o|]
Man I wish i were a big enough douchebag to use this argument… “I was in the top 12 debaters in the state at one time so I can’t be debated”. Its more true but I never use it 
You can also point out that there are even people on the forums who hold masters degrees like David Z. And the people who write Austrian theories never went to college… no degrees whatsoever.
Sheesh what college did he go to?
I don’t understand the extremes people take Libertarianism to be. We have a lot in common with everyone in politics. Besides the arrogant idiots from anywhere on the political map who are just jackasses, I’ve been able to agree and talk about at least one or two things with anyone (beside the Clinton crowd).
This. The Socratic method is by far the best method since it brings people to their own conclusion and bypasses pre-concieved notions.
I tried to reason with a Cantor crank on his blog. Useless. I think this is the same.
Why. What do the Clinton Crowd Say.
Well for one, the person who basically made me want to start this thread was from there. The clinton crowd is hard to agree with. Clinton wants all this government regulation and welfare, and at the same time, is against our civil liberties, for example legalization of drugs, free speech, I’ve heard she preaches feminist nonsense, she supports war with Iran, and thinks video games are evil and should be censored/regulated. That last part is the funniest to me, video games are already regulated with ratings. Stores won’t sell you higher rating games unless with parental permission, and there is no evidence that video games lead to violence (actually more evidence for the opposite). I’d say it’s the same fear that grew against Rock music, and comic books, any new form of art gets trashed.
I’ve read and heard about the Socratic method, can anyone give an example of how it works or situation?
I still say keep coming back to the basic voluntaryist principle, which is an absolute abhorrence with the initiation of violence:
“OK, so it’s important to you that children don’t play Grand Theft Auto. What level of violence are you personally willing to initiate against the children playing it, the store selling it, or the game company producing it to keep them from playing it?”
Don’t let them steer the conversation away from that issue, such as with statements as “Oh, you’re just being extreme.” Keep pressing for a responsive answer. If there are others present, the question itself or the person’s response or non-response might lead them to a better understanding that all political questions ultimately come down to violence or the threat thereof.
You put them on trial in libertarian court then give them poison.
Literally, how? I’d love to see more explanations on how to do this, or examples, it would probably be a very good tool for all us (debating with libertarianism in general).
Jan is a minarchist, maybe even a Randian, but he does a great job grilling politicians with the socratic method.
You have to be careful with the socratic method. Draw the subject’s position out, but if they get upset, know when to back off. The socratic method (to me) is about triggering a crisis of reason in the subject. Pushing them back inward, questioning their own premises, and encouraging them to reason through their own beliefs.
One problem is if you let the subject put you on the defensive, such as demanding that you justify freedom, or liberty. That you justify individualism, or to explain how anarchism/libertarianism would work. We can’t know how it will work. That is a trap in argumentation. My fallback position is that no matter what the market produces, as long as it is voluntary, that is acceptable to me morally and ethically.
Once I am sure that someone cannot answer any further (due to the stress of the crisis) or they answer in a manner that indicates they support violence, ends justify the means etc, then I abandon the debate. You cannot reason with someone who has a fundamentally unreasonable position. That position being, they believe in the individualism of their own action, but not the same principles for the actions of others.
In my opinion, during debate, it is better to back off than burn out the opportunity to discuss again. You don’t have to “win” an argument in a day, or even a month or year. The socratic method sows seeds that yield returns over time.