I wanted to have you guys kick some ideas around with me on how best to win over the socialists and neo cons.
In either case I think its important to stick to ideology, the basics, individual liberty, low taxes/higher standard of living (for neocons and socialists respectively) limited gov (for the conservatives) and so on.
The idea here is to be broad enough so as to allow them to agree with you, and then illustrate how that principal applies to Libertarianism.
I also like to take small steps when in discussions with neo conservatives, I like to first bring them back to reagan conservatism, and then to Goldwater, and then the Old Right, Minarchy, and then expose them to Anarcho-Capitalism. if anyone's mind could handle the leap from neo conservatism to Anarcho-Capitalism it would be powerfull enough as to not needing to be reach, the person would have thought of it themselves.
I also have a hypothises that the Ethical treatment is best for neoconservatives, and that the utilitarian approach can be more effective for the socialist, that is provided they have the intellectual capacity and honesty to follow.
Anyway, any other ideas?
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
Most Neo-Cons think they're quasi-libertarians.
Hm why would you think the moral treatment is best for neocons? I think both groups need a good dose of economics and moral arguments because they are both severely deficient in both cases. Socialists lack an understanding of market economics but also of why the market is itself moral, and neocons switch off their economic thinking when it comes to their favoured schemes and interventions, which permeate most of the economy. Their lust for war and desire to control individuals' lives is where the moral arguments come to hand.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
First off, I'd like to make sure you're not confusing neocon with New Right.
New Right = Free markets but aggressive foreign policy (i.e. Goldwater).
Neo-conservatism = Regulated markets and aggressive foreign policy (i.e. Bush, Cheney, Gore, Lieberman, Clinton, Obama, etc.)
Neoconservatism is a very loose ideological term, meant only to distinguish more Rockefeller-type people from the Goldwater-types.
In any case, I think your approach is sound. I think that it's important to highlight the role of the entrepreneur to socialism. Remember, many socialists believe that capitalists are unproductive leeches on the backs of the working class. Marx's surplus theory of value is based on the entire assumption that capitalists do nothing but demand unearned profit. It is important to show that a CEO who earns $50 mil a year really does earn it. You also have to show where supply and demand comes in, especially in terms of wage inequality (i.e. if we capped CEO pay we wouldn't have as many good CEOs and the good ones remaining would move out of the country). It's also very important to show that capitalism isn't a zero-sum game.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
The only 'winning' stragety I think will work is Panarchy. This allows everyone to live under their choice of 'rules' but NOT to impose upon another (out side of their 'group'). It also eliminates the monopoly attitude that nation state government's rely upon to corral all its good little sheeple into their economic slaughter house. Non-monopoly is not only a basis of a FREE market, its currently working in human lives/actions every day - we all use different insurance companies, attend different churches and shop at the stores of our choice. Ought to work just fine with 'rules/laws', and the protection racket that passes for goverment too.
Jain
It's also good to show that a great deal of the inequality they so loathe stems from the government itself, in multitudinous forms, first and foremost in the form of the banking cartel. Trying to challenge the very premise of the inherent morality of equality and patterned distributions is perhaps the most important thing though. Both members of the right (New Right or neocons, makes no difference in this regard) and the left adhere to a very static view of markets, which is the source of most of their fallacious arguments with regard to economics, and thus an understanding of uncertainty and dynamism in the market is necessary to dispel these.
If you ask me the best argument against "liberals" in order to convert them is to show them the reality of the benevolent father they see government as.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Austrian economics is not a specific body of fact, but a logical method for reasoning. Get people to ask the right questions and they will arrive at the right answers. And you won't look like an argumentative ***.
You have to think of yourself first.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
I agree... except how do you inspire them to ask the questions. so far the best I've been able to do is ask the questions myself. do you own your own body? and build on that... getting them to see the non aggression axiom....
Attackdonkey:I wanted to have you guys kick some ideas around with me on how best to win over the socialists and neo cons.
Bribes. Water boarding. Interpretive dance.
My advice, avoid people who already have a badly flawed ideology, and look for the ones who are empty vessels you can fill up with dreams of liberty, sound money and free markets.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
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