I wanted to start a discussion concerning what you all have found to be the most effective point-of-entry in making people more sympathetic towards anarchism (even if it is only to the point of converting them to minarchism), or in causing them to convert to anarchism. There are many ways to go about enlightening the ignorant, and the dialectic approach is generally the best method for reaching anybody. Knowing this, the point of entry is still a mystery for me, since I am a relatively new anarchist. For that reason, I ask you: what point of entry do you all find to be the most effective amongst your family, friends, or acquaintances?
For the very short period of time that I have been supporting the Austrian theories, I have found that the modern day event of the bailout is useful, due to the fact that it is both controversial and the knowledge required to understand why the bailout is harmful is, I believe, fundamental to many aspects of basic Austrian theory.
So are there any other modern events that you all find useful for bringing the subject up and making strong headway? Or is there, perhaps, a single topic that you find is always effective, regardless of what the modern day political events may be?
Share your thoughts and advice, so that others may take advantage of them. This will help to make the movement stronger. Oh, and try to qualify your response with a bit of logic and reasoning, such as why you find it effective. This will allow the less educated (such as myself) to benefit fully.
I think this is a really cool topic, and I can't wait to read some of the other responses.
I find it easier to get people to condemn government at a moral level rather than a practical level. I find there are certain arguments that are pretty effective. One thing I try to do is clarify exactly what a government is. I think a lot of people's definition of government is so abstract that it interferes with their ability to morally evaluate it's actions. ("The government is the embodiment of the will of the people", etc.)
Then I just ask them some questions. Why am I evil if I go into a stranger's home and kill them, but when a soldier does it they're are hero? Why am I not allowed to take people's property without their permission, but the state is? Some people get really angry, but others are receptive. They listen and it gets them thinking.
My success has been limited though, so take my advice with a grain of salt.
You can't force people to change their mind. Before I became an anarchist, I heard a lot of interesting arguments, but I didn't "convert" until I had some time for introspection.
Going straight to murder/death/kill is a sure way to turn people off. Trust me, I know.
I like to appeal to emotion. Like envy or jealousy. "Hmm, I wish I could get bailed out!" or "So they are too big to fail, but I am too small to fail, too bad I have 6 employees with families to feed, looks like we're on our own"
I also like to appeal to the future. "Hmm, if they bail these businesses out now, will they ever be able to stop bailing them out?" and "How are they going to pay for all of these bailouts? Are taxes going to go through the roofs later?"
You can always mess with rank and file neocons by bringing up where the money is coming from. "So, looks like we're going to have to sell our kids to the Chinese and Japanese!"
I like softening people up. The first time, you have to test where they are at. Someone who is adamantly for the bailouts, will just be a waste of time. Someone with doubts, or who hasn't considered it much, can be steered in a positive direction.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Some people are statist to the core, unfortunately. In that case, trolling is fun.
Just ask the right questions.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Just ask the right questions.
You hit the nail on the head. This is the single best way I have found to convince other people of things. Let them think through the whole process themselves. If you just throw your conclusions at them without all the reasoning that you yourself had to follow will usually make them recoil and put their guard up.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
I definitely agree. This is the most effective route to take no matter what you are trying to convince a person of--be it politics, economics, religion, etc. This is the primary method that one of my ex-minarchist friends (now anarchist) used to lure me away from mainstream thought. Since "ask the right questions" is a bit of an obvious answer, may I ask what topic(s) you find best to begin with? That is, what topic, in your experience, people are more sensitive or open to when you take this more subtle approach.
I really think most people believe in the " social contract " theory of government. People are taught to rationalize the state and even if they despise it at times,they accept it for the "greater good" or for the poor ect. If they have any interest they will look into Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and eventually Spooner. Once the moral foundations of the State are destroyed, everything else is just philosophy and economics.
Start rant about how the "powerful" are corrupt and how government is giving away your money to failed business. Throw some democracy worship around about how it is "our government", it has taken power from " we the people ". The social contract should come up sooner or later. I find moderate liberals to be more open to the idea if they learn that the state is formed only by conquest and not some magical piece of paper enforced for the benefit of all. The state is the embodiment of everything the liberal hates: a rich and powerful elite stealing from the poor and enslaving them, but taking just enough care of them so they can exploit them continuously. It is like the "those greedy corporations are exploiting the poor, and they lobby so the entire government is corrupt and run by a few rich men" argument. If they ever make the comparison between that and the State, the lid has been opened.
Then the doubts, questions and what if 's come about how society could function without a State. Getting them to even seriously question that is where all the complicated academic stuff comes in.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
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