This is usually the assertion from any Leftist that I’ve debated.
How do you debate with leftists? Almost every time I try, the debate turns into an emotional pissy fight. I don’t let myself get sucked in because I don’t like to debate politics, but every once in a while I like to talk about free market economics.
How do you handle immaturity in debates. I feel like I sometimes will lose a debate simply because I don’t want to play the emotional game. Not to mention, the people that are listening to the debate always seem to agree with the person who can be louder, demonize more, and seemingly talk more nonsense.
Tell us some of the encounters that you’ve had with lefties. What are your secret weapons to dealing with them?
“leftists” are not different from anyone else. and like anyone else (libertarians included) they can get emotional. the best advice is to not debate to debate someone that is emotional.
I think the best way to deal with those types of people is to first remove any hangups you have about the label you might’ve given them(or that they gave themselves), such as “leftie”. They’re being emotional for a reason so try to see what experiences in their life have led them to their conclusions. I find that trying to debate “head on” leaves you with almost nothing really being accomplished because whoever you’re debating with has identified with their dogma and won’t let it go even after you “win” the debate, and in that case what’s the point? The more calm you are the more they’re willing to actually open their own minds and listen to what you have to say.
Its always possible to have a discussion where some learning can take place even with an emotional person, it just has to be handled differently. You’ll only get thrown off if you’re expecting the argument to go how you imagine in your head.
I think liberals are 10x as annoying as conservatives, even though I agree with them on a number of issues. I think it’s the level of arrogance that comes from their side when they are economically illiterate. Conservatives may be flag-waving and blinded by their love of country, but at least they aren’t overly pompous about it (usually ). That could be because I mostly see Fox News whenever I watch news, but they seem to accept that they’re on the defensive.
As for arguing with liberals, that’s what I mostly do on the Internet. The internet is mostly liberal and Youtube has a crapton of liberals as well (where I do a lot of debating). Although I’m not particularly good at articulating the case for Austrian econ or an-cap, I at least have to try. Most of them come up with elementary talking points about how “if minimum wage isn’t there, the lower class will turn to shit”, I try to provide an example as to how many more will be employed and how wealth will increase for everybody involved because wealth is not static, and then they retort, “well I still think companies would just lower wages and not hire more people” without providing any reason to substantiate this claim. It’s like talking to a doorknob.
Sorry I can’t provide the type of answer you’re looking for.
I had to realize for myself that my socialist paradigm was not functional in the real world. So, debating a “leftist” is a waste of time, IMO. It’s better to just ask them about what they believe and why they believe it. Don’t offer alternatives. Just question them. Explore the mind of a leftist, that’s about all you can do.
Same goes for the “conservative”, by the way. Just try to understand what they think and why. It’s useless to reason with them.
And, they might end up asking you about what you believe and why which could open some doors.
What unfolds is a discussion, not a debate. Both sides lay out what the believe and why. It’s not about debunking the other side. I think there can be some usefulness in this approach, rather than debate.
There is a natural tendency in any person and in any ideology to group all their enemies together and to see them as if they were aligned and sharing in basic characteristics.
I think liberals are 10x as annoying as conservatives
Hell yes, especially the educated atheist social-democrat type of liberal. They don’t care about debate, they care about image. The harsh reality is that they are way more mainstream and way less “progressive”, “artsy” or what-not than their head full of TED talks and their heart full of “compassion” is willing to accept. Socialism is a mental illness. I stopped debating animals long time ago.
I normally point out that I disagree with ‘The Right’ as well. Leveling with them and telling them “you and I agree on a lot of topics… here’s one for example”.
Point out corporate welfare or something like that, or the bailouts. We all agree those are bad (if you get the feeling your conversation partner sees it that way).
Sharing common ground like that helps me to be allowed to talk to them about it another day I know a lot of conversations turn into debates but I try to share ideas more than debate, even though sharing ideas can lead to debate pretty quickly.
You need to stay calm at ALL costs. Even if they are flying off the handle, stay calm. Your voice, your body language, everything. Let them speak. Don’t ever interrupt anyone. There’s no reason to. If they bring up a thousand issues at once, point them out, pick one, and say you’ll get back to the others later. Force them to have a structured conversation.
Hell yes, especially the educated atheist social-democrat type of liberal. They don’t care about debate, they care about image. The harsh reality is that they are way more mainstream and way less “progressive”, “artsy” or what-not than their head full of TED talks and their heart full of “compassion” is willing to accept. Socialism is a mental illness. I stopped debating animals long time ago.
haha. Did you just equate being educated and compassionate to a mental problem? And yet that is the mainstream… hmm… maybe you need to re-examine what you mean by “mental illness.”
I will admit that many of “us” are arrogent jerks tho. Imo, it comes with making liberalism a moral/ethical argument. “I have compassion, you (in my view) dont. I am also educated. 1 + 1 = Im better than you.”
Hi Epicurus, the mental illness is implicitly assuming one’s personal ethic is morally objective. I don’t dislike altruism and I favor education, but I’m irritated by the failure of highly intelligent people, often experts in unrelated domains, to acknowledge they are not experts on law and economy. In every other industry democracy would be called communism, yet for law and economy - and as a result culture and civilization - there is this mass delusion that the masses know what’s best.
I’m an ancap who doesn’t believe the masses know what’s best for them.
The free market is not democratic. It is meritocratic. People know what they want, but most of the time do not know the best way to get it. I like sailing, wining and dining, cars,… I have no clue on how to make sailboats, wine, great food or cars. The magic of the free market is that experts can turn their view on how to satisfy a need and offer it to potential clients, after which the masses choose. Some entrepreneurs are so good they can even succesfully predict what people would want if he or she made it possible.
Democracy or any form of statism lacks this fundamental dynamic.
i.e. we’d be best to leave the poeple to their own devices right? Even if meritocratic you are still relying on the assumption that enough people know what is good for them, and things will either work out, or correct themselves in the end. I didnt say “all people” know, I said “the people (meaning the majority of them).”
Also, to marked (i think); First, humbug on value-free. I dont buy it, nor know wtf it means, as noone has been able to explain it functionally to me.
Second, value free or not, AE consistently makes the argument that govt can only get in the way. Who is govt getting in the way of? Why is this a problem? Because the people generally know what is good for them, more than some 3rd party beauracrat, and as such the market will correct itself.
…What? It’s value free. It is not “Egalitarian”, “Individualist”, or any other such philosophy. It merely attempts to explain economic phenomena(Booms/busts happening to be a major part of it). Artificial credit expansion happens to have a major factor in to Boom/Bust cycles, according to AE.
The gov’t doesn’t necessarily need to be the one to expand credit, it’s just that any individual that doesn’t already have a “foundation” of peasants paying tribute has a lot less reason to squander his own wealth in some nefarious boom creation scheme.
Marked is right. Value free in the sense that Austrian Economics does not declare or decide what ‘ends’ someone should try to attain. It simply demonstrates or explains that if the ends you choose to strive for include prosperity here is the way to get it.
If you wish to strive for other ends, AE is consistent in explaining how that will happen. Just like physics explains that certain chemicals when mixed together will have a particular result. When individuals act in a particular way, or are restricted from acting in a particular, certain events are inevitable. Whether this is good or bad is up to you to decide. AE merely states that these events will occur.
Libertarian ethics are separate. Many who agree with AE conclusions also agree with Libertarian ethics, but this does not make AE anything other than value free.
I know a lot of conversations turn into debates but I try to share ideas more than debate, even though sharing ideas can lead to debate pretty quickly.