I guess I'm pretty much posting this to vent my frustration.
I have been on and off debating the libertarian position for a little while, and as I'm sure others have, I've noticed the following as well: all of the arguments are very similar. I'm bound to have someone mention the following:
-"What would you have to say about Standard Oil/Microsoft?" or "Without the government, large corporations would own everything."
-"FDR got us out of the Great Depression" or "Before the FED there were tons of booms/busts."
-"Worker conditions and the wage gap were terrible in the 1890's, it was the Progressive movement that fortunately lifted the country out of this."
-etc.
The arguments may have a few changed words, or a different alluded historical example, but they are pretty much always identical. I feel as if the people I'm debating really think I haven't thought about monopolization, cartelization, the business cycle, or poverty at all; that I have zero knowledge of history; and that I'm just accepting the positions I have willy-nilly, because I have yet to enter a debate where the other poster already has a general idea of the libertarian position and attacks the argument from there.
Sometimes I'll get what I call "An honest intellectual", someone who realizes that there are already counterarguments to these sorts of things and directly tries to refute those. And those are the sort of experiences I really grow from. But for the most part it's what I described above.
"Keynesianomics is a Ponzi scheme."
"You are correct in that Capitalism does not help with poverty, because it eliminates poverty altogether..."
"That wonderful strawman: greed."
Inequality bad.
Most people just recite what they learned in government school.
The best thing to do is have a large database of previous "comments" that you have made on the internet and be able to copy and adapt previous answers and text from Mises.org and other sites' articles so as to quickly be able to summarize the key points about why the "7th grade" government school explanation is wrong.
Fephisto:But for the most part it's what I described above.
Sounds unrewarding. I only really debate here anymore, and I've found that is not very enjoyable either. I don't think it is exclusive to non-libertarians. In debate, people become entrenched in what they already know and believe. It is very hard to be open minded, and not assume your opposite is evil or stupid for disagreeing with you.
90% of my debates now are for the gallery. You might be arguing with one person who you cannot budge, but you can use it as an opportunity to communicate with hundreds or thousands of readers.
Particularly online, the more people argue, the more polarizing their positions become. There is a trend to differentiation, not towards mutual agreement. I find it is satisfying if I can point out where two people agree. If you can get someone to acknowledge even some portion of your argument, that's a victory. You don't have to win the battle in one day or even one year.
Anyway...
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
I couldn't agree with this more. Even in debates where the debaters hold 99.9% of the same beliefs. Instead of focusing on agreements and working toward a common goal debaters get caught up in trying to prove one another wrong. At times this can lead to more complications and misunderstands among people that are new to the movement to the point of them being driven away from it (Libertarians can't even get along with other libertarians so how could they possibly get along with anyone else).
With that being said I have found debates and quick exchanges via youtube and other social networks to be an outstanding way to communicate the message of liberty to people that haven't had the opportunity to hear it. A single comment has the ability to spark enough interest in a person so that they go out and research the topic on there own. Even if they don't agree with what is said upon first glace the idea is with them forever.
liberty student: the more people argue, the more polarizing their positions become.
I've never thought about it in this light before. Your dead on.
Statism is a religion.
liberty student:90% of my debates now are for the gallery. You might be arguing with one person who you cannot budge, but you can use it as an opportunity to communicate with hundreds or thousands of readers.
Good point. It's much easier for observers to get their ego out of the equation and note when their views warrant reconsideration. These forums, I've long suspected, have tons of lurkers who follow the posts (the listed number of "followers" has to be a very low estimate, because this thread only shows "1 Follower").
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
Fephisto: I guess I'm pretty much posting this to vent my frustration.
I know what you mean...
;-)
As I see it...
There is no point in convincing a thief into an honest life and hard work.
We can convince only the "marginal" minority - and that is surely enough.
One by one...
The "margin" will move in the direction of our effort.
It is just a matter of our determination and time.
Yes! It will take a lot of time, but... We cannot coerce anyone to freedom...
liberty student: 90% of my debates now are for the gallery. You might be arguing with one person who you cannot budge, but you can use it as an opportunity to communicate with hundreds or thousands of readers.
This is exactly how I came to study Austrian economics and libertarianism.
When I debate with people on a forum, it's not to convert the person I'm debating but instead convert everyone who is reading.
Only arguing to the the gallery is worth it.
The reason that you run into the same stuff over and over is not simply due to schooling. Few people have the long term memory to actually remember all of those things. It is because the system of references is circular. Everyone reads the same sources and all of those sources use each other as sources.
You are also arguing with kids for the large part. They think that they solved the world when they stumbled on some blog one day or had a revelation in the shower.
Fephisto:-"What would you have to say about Standard Oil/Microsoft?" or "Without the government, large corporations would own everything."
You mean how Standard oil reduced the price of oil by 90% and fueled an economic explosion? Or how Microsoft put personal computers in almost every person's household? That's a really strong argument!
Fephisto:-"FDR got us out of the Great Depression" or "Before the FED there were tons of booms/busts."
The FED began open market operations in 1922, caused a major bubble, which lead to the great depression. Great depressions and stagflation replaced panics.
I've won plenty of debates versus morons.
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