MatthewF:Lately I've been prefacing any political discussion (especially in front of a group) with the statement that I don't condone violence and won't continue to talk to someone who does. It is an interesting way to begin a conversation.
Solid. Always wise to stake out the high ground early.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Libertyandlife:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html ^This a bit disturbing, 79 percent of all college professors are liberals? Are colleges more biased then the media? Aren't colleges supposed to be places of intellectual diversity?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
^This a bit disturbing, 79 percent of all college professors are liberals? Are colleges more biased then the media? Aren't colleges supposed to be places of intellectual diversity?
All the statists and Keynesians will look up and shout "Save Us!" and I'll wisper "No."
liberty student: MatthewF:Lately I've been prefacing any political discussion (especially in front of a group) with the statement that I don't condone violence and won't continue to talk to someone who does. It is an interesting way to begin a conversation. Solid. Always wise to stake out the high ground early.
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...
The Late Andrew Ryan: Libertyandlife: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html ^This a bit disturbing, 79 percent of all college professors are liberals? Are colleges more biased then the media? Aren't colleges supposed to be places of intellectual diversity? 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.
Libertyandlife: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html ^This a bit disturbing, 79 percent of all college professors are liberals? Are colleges more biased then the media? Aren't colleges supposed to be places of intellectual diversity?
Elite schools are at 87 percent. That is way too high for institutions like schools.
"Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom." Soren Kierkegaard
Ignorance would be too lukewarm of a term to describe the....
Well just have a look for yourselves within my linked summations:
Jury duty is your civic duty. You must serve on behalf of the citizens of your country, since rights are derived from the state as opposed to nature. To avoid jury duty is immature and selfish because I arbitrarily decided you should do it.
Under the table jobs are wrong because they cheat the tax system. This is illegal; therefore it is wrong. Not paying your taxes is also stealing. Don't try to go against the grain, since the the status quo is an eternal axiom.
Libertyandlife:How do i respond to a person like this? DO you try to prove my ideas or refute theirs?
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.
A cult is a religion with no political power. - Tom Wolfe
Life without music would be an error. - Nietzsche
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. - Edward R. Morrow
Tukaram: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...
MatthewF: 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...
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 am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
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.
Seph:He's one of those 'I learned it in College which means it's objectively true and cant be debated' types.
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.
Seph:"You siting Mises.org for anything, is like me using Mein Kampf as an exclusive book on race relations."
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
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).
Dondoolee: Libertyandlife: How do i respond to a person like this? DO you try to prove my ideas or refute theirs? Never debate them. Be inquisitive and seem genuinly interested in what they say. Never treat them like you know more than they do, or that they are wrong. Do not give your position away. Do not seem like an idiot, throw out as many non belligerent trivia and complementary facts as you can without being a burden to the conversation or comming off as pretentious. Be a Horatio to their Hamlet, they are the lead in the "conversation". Be Socratic. Try to gently steer the conversation by appealing to thier knowledge. If they reach a dead end or stump themselves, gently end the conversation so they don't feel intellectually threatend (no GOTCHA! moments. ever.) and automatically go on the defensive. Let their own momentum lead them to conclusions. You are there just to be the fuel to thier engine. This takes a lot of time and investment, and would still have a low chance of success particularly with "upper west side" progressive types (who in m opinion are the worst and most obnoxious of the bunch), but it would probably have better odds than flat out debating someone.
Libertyandlife: How do i respond to a person like this? DO you try to prove my ideas or refute theirs?
How do i respond to a person like this? DO you try to prove my ideas or refute theirs?
Never debate them.
Be inquisitive and seem genuinly interested in what they say. Never treat them like you know more than they do, or that they are wrong.
Do not give your position away.
Do not seem like an idiot, throw out as many non belligerent trivia and complementary facts as you can without being a burden to the conversation or comming off as pretentious. Be a Horatio to their Hamlet, they are the lead in the "conversation".
Be Socratic.
Try to gently steer the conversation by appealing to thier knowledge. If they reach a dead end or stump themselves, gently end the conversation so they don't feel intellectually threatend (no GOTCHA! moments. ever.) and automatically go on the defensive. Let their own momentum lead them to conclusions. You are there just to be the fuel to thier engine.
This takes a lot of time and investment, and would still have a low chance of success particularly with "upper west side" progressive types (who in m opinion are the worst and most obnoxious of the bunch), but it would probably have better odds than flat out debating someone.
This. The Socratic method is by far the best method since it brings people to their own conclusion and bypasses pre-concieved notions.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
I tried to reason with a Cantor crank on his blog. Useless. I think this is the same.
Libertyandlife: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).
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.
Libertyandlife:I've read and heard about the Socratic method, can anyone give an example of how it works or situation?
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).
Libertyandlife: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).
http://www.janhelfeld.com/
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.
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