Laughing Man:DONE!
Heroic stuff.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Freiheit: Oh! Another gem! Just had someone tell me that we need to do away with money, because "without a price system, we no longer have to worry about profitability or cost effectiveness. ... We just have to make sure that production is reliable, environmentally safe, and energy efficient."
Oh! Another gem! Just had someone tell me that we need to do away with money, because "without a price system, we no longer have to worry about profitability or cost effectiveness. ... We just have to make sure that production is reliable, environmentally safe, and energy efficient."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA
Laughing Man: DONE!
DONE!
Superb.
Freiheit:Is debating statists a complete and utter waste of time?
No, it is never a waste of time. As others have noted, you can sometimes, over time, change the mind of your listener, and can influence those who are following the debate and judging which argument is strongest. However, IMO the strongest benefit is that you yourself become a more effective communicator of these ideas. You become familiar with all possible objections (including fallacious ones) and have a ready response for them, instead of being awkwardly caught at a loss. You craft brief phrases and vivid analogies that effectively communicate complex libertarian ideas. You learn to read the person with whom you're having the discussion and modify your approach accordingly. You become eloquent; persuasive -- even compelling. You become capable of attracting acolytes and perhaps even of stepping into a leadership role sometime in the future, which is frankly what is needed at this time and in the near future.
It can also be fun, if I'm being honest :).
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
I actually had a bit of success debating a Marxist and other statists on RichardDawkins.net back in 2006 when I was posting as "Edutheria". I didn't convert my adversary, but I rallied a number of posters to my side, including one who wrote, "I'd also like to join the respect parade for Edutheria, who has said what I often cannot express well enough when dealing with people who are less inclined towards economic liberalism and the capitalist way. Bravo! "
I think that's the best aim to have when debating statists: worry about converting and motivating the audience, not the adversary.
I hesitate to share the thread, because I was (shamefully) a militant atheist and a fan of Milton Friedman at the time (*shudder*), but here it is anyway.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
Lilburne: I hesitate to share the thread, because I was (shamefully) a militant atheist and a fan of Milton Friedman at the time (*shudder*)
I hesitate to share the thread, because I was (shamefully) a militant atheist and a fan of Milton Friedman at the time (*shudder*)
Hey man! You are talking about the man I love!
Lilburne:I hesitate to share the thread, because I was (shamefully) a militant atheist and a fan of Milton Friedman at the time (*shudder*), but here it is anyway.
I use to be a Marxist. We all gotta start from somewhere. That is why I jumped onto this Richard Dawkins forum. Debating Marxists is my speciality.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Laughing Man:I use to be a Marxist. We all gotta start from somewhere. That is why I jumped onto this Richard Dawkins forum. Debating Marxists is my speciality.
That sort of exposition and argumentation will travel. You can use it with all sorts of people. It's very good stuff.
liberty student: That sort of exposition and argumentation will travel. You can use it with all sorts of people. It's very good stuff.
What do you mean?
Sage makes a very insightful point earlier in this topic, and one I can relate to.
To elaborate on his point, I suppose the goal is what you value and with whom you're arguing. If your goal is simply to knock down your opponent, prove that you are correct and to demonstrate the superiority of your system, then I don't think it is ever worth debating. Likewise, if your opponent has similar goals, it's just not worth it. A lot of people on the internet interact in this sort of way, they're reallt convinced that they're correct, and it's not so much through any rational understanding of the ethical, political and economic aspects of the system they advocate, it's the result of some sort of faith that what they're saying, really is correct.
On the other hand, if you and your counterpart in the debate are both receptive and open minded, then it's well worth it. If you're willing to come to some sort of understanding then you really should go for it. If you "lose" the debate then you've got a whole lot more to think about and you come to understand that perhaps your position isn't as strong as you wish it was. You can now either go ahead and read more on the subject from various perspectives and find out that perhaps some of your "adversaries" criticisms were misguided or incorrect, or you can come to terms with the fact that he was correct and adjust your perspective accordingly. OTOH, if you end up "winning" the debate, you'll get a deeper understanding of your own position and so will the person you are debating.
The key is to keep an open mind and to stay honest, without that you don't have a chance of gaining anything.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Laughing Man:What do you mean?
Your grasp of what you are proposing in your reply there is very strong. You have a confident, uncomplicated delivery. Such a style and capacity will serve you in all sorts of arguments. It's sort of funny but you left out the stuff I don't like, when arguing with leftists. I don't know if you noticed that or not, but leaving it out made your argument stronger. You can appeal to someone elses issues without pandering. Some people pander to right or left, and I dont think that is an effective tactic.
Ouch, you were good at beating down that Marxist. I usually talk about the contradictory nature of Marxism but the 'mysticism' aspect is good for an atheist audience.
liberty student:Your grasp of what you are proposing in your reply there is very strong.
Well arguing with non-libertarians is a lot easier then arguing against libertarians. Especially with people on here who usually come up with really thought provoking replies. It usually takes me a day or so to really ponder what they say.
liberty student:It's sort of funny but you left out the stuff I don't like, when arguing with leftists.
Some of his stuff was just junk. I usually get yelled at for picking at good sentences yet not responding to bad ones. Anyways thanks for the compliment.
You're doing well, I wouldn't even bother.
"Private property is theft" LOL
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Laughing Man: Lilburne:I hesitate to share the thread, because I was (shamefully) a militant atheist and a fan of Milton Friedman at the time (*shudder*), but here it is anyway. I use to be a Marxist. We all gotta start from somewhere. That is why I jumped onto this Richard Dawkins forum. Debating Marxists is my speciality.
Good point; but it's still painful to read. Reading further into it, I just realized that back then I had no understanding of the bourgeoning freedom and prosperity of the high middle ages, the genocidal, backwards nature of the 20th century, or the apriorism of sound economics. What a tool I was! Oh well, I guess even a tool can beat a Marxist.
The Rev: All debate, ultimately, is a waste of time (unless you just like to work for that sweet feeling of being right). No one's mind has ever been changed by proving to him that his belief or opinion is wrong. The Rev
All debate, ultimately, is a waste of time (unless you just like to work for that sweet feeling of being right). No one's mind has ever been changed by proving to him that his belief or opinion is wrong.
The Rev
Mine was.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Freiheit: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.
I do. And have.
Spideynw: Freiheit: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. I do. And have.
go on freiheit, now is your chance to admit you were wrong !
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Natalie: You're doing well, I wouldn't even bother. "Private property is theft" LOL
It's no fun anymore...he is making it too easy.
Natalie:"Private property is theft" LOL
Hey, the mutualists eat that stuff up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap