Am I wasting my time debating statists?

Juan:

So ?

Lets talk about something else.

Ultimately, we have to learn how to take our radicalism and make it presentable.  To market it.

This is one area of libertarianism that is sorely lacking.  Even the LP went sideways, and tried to get a career neocon politician rather than continue refining their education and recruitment techniques.

There are no shortcuts.

One area of need for "the movement" is to continually improve marketing.  Better slogans, posters, arguments.  Better books, videos, podcasts.  Better blog posts, letters to the editor, callins to radio shows.  Find ways to sell libertarianism that makes the other person better off for having invested the time to listen to you.

 

If your target doesn't want to buy your product you're wasting your time. If you're going to use this (misleading) market analogy, realize that people are not demanding a coherent and principled system. The want lies and collectivistic bromides.

Juan:

If your target doesn't want to buy your product you're wasting your time. If you're going to use this (misleading) market analogy, realize that people are not demanding a coherent and principled system. The want lies and collectivistic bromides.

But, if people were wise and had the choice, wouldn't they see that freedom to wander in the outside is better than being chained up in a cave?

I just hate it when people invoke "democracy".  By democracy, they mean elections.  True democracy ("rule of people") means anarchy ("no masters").  Only in the absence of political overlords can real democracy exist.  Elections, the choice between two opposing thieves, is not really democracy.

two notable quotes on democracy:

"Democracies have ever been
spectacles of turbulence and contention;
have ever been found incompatible
with personal security or the rights of property;
and have in general been as short in their lives
as they have been violent in their death."  James Madison

"Of course the people don't want war. But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering

eliotn:

But, if people were wise and had the choice, wouldn't they see that freedom to wander in the outside is better than being chained up in a cave?

I guess so. On the other hand, if they are not interested in freedom, then no amount of marketing is going to change their minds, in my opinion.

Some people can be made aware of their mistakes and will change their position if they realize their position is logically flawed. But I doubt the majority of people at statist forums can be converted using rational arguments.

Freiheit:

Is debating statists a complete and utter waste of time?

For the most part. Unless you're in a structured debate with someone who genuinely wants to learn (and not just fight), then debating is a frustrating waste of time.

Freiheit:

Does debating people have any significant influence on their beliefs, or are people completely unwilling to recognize when they're wrong?

If someone is open-minded, and willing to learn and understand different points of view, then a debate could easily change their beliefs. But when a libertarian debates a socialist, they will most likely enter the debate with the mindset that libertarianism is right and socialism is wrong, and that they just need to bash the socialist over the head with arguments against government. And the socialist probably has the reverse mindset: socialism is right and libertarianism is wrong, etc. etc. When people enter a debate with this close-minded attitude, it's no wonder that debates are wasteful. If both parties think "I'm right and you're wrong, and nothing will change my mind," then obviously debating is useless (except for persuading the audience).

Freiheit:

Is there a more productive way I could be furthering the cause of liberty?

If debates are unproductive, then spend your time reading and learning. Understand how someone could support statism. Learn their position better than they know it themselves.

I've noticed that when people first become libertarians, they are very confident in their views and eager to go smash the socialists in debate. This was certainly true in my case. But as you keep learning, you become more aware of your own ignorance and the flaws in your position; you become more humble. You realize that, on most topics, you just don't know enough to have a debate. So you wake up at 5:00 AM to get more reading done.

John Ess:

I really recommend Stefan Molyneux's recent talk at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum

http://www.enigmacurry.com/tmp/Stefan_Molyneux_-_NH_Liberty_Forum_2009.wma

 

He describes how to cut through all the complicated arguments and win easier and in a concrete way most understand:  asking if they'd use violence against you.  Really recommended and very funny (including audience participation).

 This could actually be an effective strategy.  Not that it would convince me but maybe others.

There are ultimately two reasons to debate:

1) To influence spectators of the debate.

2) To find flaws/shortcomings in your own thinking.

I have found two obstacles to these, both of which are present in the thread. First is numbers; if you are a lone voice against many, you are unlikely to influence many spectators. Secondly, if your opposition is unwilling to debate and resorts to name-calling or dodging questions, debating that person to discover your own flaws is pointless. But it does sway spectators, assuming you keep cool and rational. But, again, numbers seem to cancel this out and trying to reason with a forum full of people throwing ad hominems at you is absolutely futile.

I believe that I am objective in saying that the Mises forum has been the only place I've found with predominantly rational debate on all issues. The problem is that being pro-Austrian, the forum is a bit of an echo chamber for me. I don't know why more socialists and statists don't venture here, but they should (the rational ones, at least).

Freiheit:

Is debating statists a complete and utter waste of time?

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=78646&start=75

Am I doing something wrong here, or are most statists just utterly unwilling to use logic?  Is there a more productive way I could be furthering the cause of liberty?  Does debating people have any significant influence on their beliefs, or are people completely unwilling to recognize when they're wrong?

Most pseudo intellectuals tend to be atheists, you're debating on a forum populated by atheists, you're going to run into some of the most arrogant, closed minded individuals you've ever met on such a forum. Most of the time it's a waste trying to convert people in that manner, you're time is better spent elsewhere. But if you're going to insist on trying to convert the world, appeal to their values to get them listening, and open using utilitarian arguments.

I like how Fact-Man did an epic job of self-ownage with his Citizen-Defense Firm Rep dialogue, but didn't even notice nor admit it.

I have to agree with Giles, though. If you want another real-life example of this behavior, check out the recent Thunderf00t thread here on the boards. This guy is also a staunch atheist who will ridicule any resemblance of faith, but then valiantly defend monopolized provision of defense and justice while claiming that anarchy would be prone to slavery. He's so full of his own intellectualism that he can hardly be talked to.

I would have thought the militant atheist crowd would be quite open to libertarianism.  Most already love to rip on the state for its religious overtones, and nearly all have already gone through one process of tearing down a wall of 'truths' constructed in their childhood.  I'm sure a good case for anarchism could be tailored for that crowd.

a platonic charisma:

I would have thought the militant atheist crowd would be quite open to libertarianism.  Most already love to rip on the state for its religious overtones, and nearly all have already gone through one process of tearing down a wall of 'truths' constructed in their childhood.  I'm sure a good case for anarchism could be tailored for that crowd.

It's because of nihilism caused by bigoted religious parenting.  Most kids won't think anything is true if their "truth" they had to endure was complete nonsense.

Their dad probably told them at some point "son, we need low taxes and less government because Jesus said so (ignoring Romans 13).  So it has been written so it shall be.  Amen."

And then he's like "well, that's fucked up.  I'm going to join the socialist club at my college. "

 

a platonic charisma:

I would have thought the militant atheist crowd would be quite open to libertarianism.  Most already love to rip on the state for its religious overtones, and nearly all have already gone through one process of tearing down a wall of 'truths' constructed in their childhood.  I'm sure a good case for anarchism could be tailored for that crowd.

Most of see the state as helping the rich through what they see as laissez faire capitalism, they see people like Reagan and Bush say free markets are the best etc, and so they hate it off the bat, so that is one obstacle, but maybe after time some can be reasoned.

 

Eric:

a platonic charisma:

I would have thought the militant atheist crowd would be quite open to libertarianism.  Most already love to rip on the state for its religious overtones, and nearly all have already gone through one process of tearing down a wall of 'truths' constructed in their childhood.  I'm sure a good case for anarchism could be tailored for that crowd.

Reagan and Bush say free markets are the best et

 

Don't forget those guys thought they were working God's magic, too.

 

I find it to be much easier to convert people that are, either 1. Republicans (becuase of the supposed small government that they support) and 2. Fiscally aware liberals (oxymoron-I know), both group are atleast slanted to libertarianism. But, going after a socialist is like fighting a dragon with a tooth pick-there is no way he is going to budge.

liberty student:

END WELFARE YESTERDAY

 

hahaha, bumper stickers of this.  I need them.

 

the problem with mainstream atheism is that it's just christianity without the "god" idea.  universalism/humanism has exactly the same problems.

After some cooling off and introspection (and retrospection), I have to admit that debates, at least for me, did work to change my mind, though no one ever admits, during a debate, when they realize they've been proven wrong.  All debates do is plant little burning seeds in people's mind, that grow over time.

If I had never started debating Ron Paulites when I was a neocon in 2007, I would never have become a constitutionalist.  Even though I vehemently opposed the Paulites during the debates and refused to admit when they were right.  If I had never started debating more hardcore libertarians, when I was just a "constitutionalist conservative" in early 2008, I would have never become an actual libertarian.  Same thing--I would never admit when I was proven wrong in a debate with libertarians.  And of course, the same thing for when I became an anarcho-capitalist in mid-late 2008.

Indepth debates work.  They just have to be considered as more akin to "investing in longer processes of production." ;)  They take longer to produce the ultimate "consumer's good" (in this case, a libertarian convert), but they sure produce a better one than sitting around with other libertarians talking amongst themselves or just stopping by a non-libertarian forum and shouting a quick libertarian slogan or two.

Dear Freiheit,

 

I too have braved the waters at richarddawkins.net. I think your choice of venue was regrettable. These are people with a cause: They are fundamentally of a totalitarian mindset. I remember posting a point about the "right of conscience"-movements in Australia and, I think, in America promoting a view whereby a health care worker would be allowed to "skip" mentioning the possibility of abortion or prevention measures when counseling a patient. I seemed silly to me but being a libertarian I also feel assured that alternatives to faith-based treatments would be available to the patient. So I posted away - making the point that the freedoms of the individual, or in this case the individual's employer, should of course trump any moral sentiment imposed from the outside community. The work-place should be absolutely entitled to set its own standard of and rules for counseling patients. Its the whole freedom thing.

 

I was hammered in the worst way possible: With that particular zeal of under-graduate students who have found a place to voice their many certainties about this world. And oh, my dear, sweet, tiny, itsy-bitsy fetus jesus, did I lose my patience ... Within the scope of two posts, I announced to my family that I would be drinking heavily at the local pub for the rest of the day. These people are impossible. I've taken to debating statists elsewhere (I ventured stormfront.com of all places - the neonazi place - with much greater success).

 

Rytz

Freiheit:

Is debating statists a complete and utter waste of time?

Yes! ...... er......no!..........er...... maybe? er.......maybe not? Hell , I don't know, are you [ wasting your time]?