General

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

ViennaSausage — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:25 GMT

I usually try to find some common ground with leftists. Discuss the logic and basis of their thoughts, with a sprinkle of libertarian logic in the mix.

However, with the more extreme leftists, I have found that this does not necessarily work, because they have an all left or nothing attitude.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Marked — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:30:26 GMT

Talk w/ them to learn, to understand their POV and to simply discuss the subject matter. Don't go to a debate to "prove them wrong" no matter how right you think you are; that will only end up in disaster. Either way, the best thing to do is keep calm. I've lost (and still lose) countless debates and arguments with people because I tend to get very emotional by nature. On the infrequent debates i've had where i remained calm, i either learned something or "won".

It depends on the type of "Emotional attack", IMHO. If they're just basically reciting what they've learned all these years, than a more compassionate dismantling of their arguments is a good idea. However, the type I'm guessing you're describing really has no business being "talked nice" to. You can keep your own head cool while coldly dismantling their attacks with no shred of remorse.

The individual who tries to act professional and ends up in tears has a lot less credibility than the guy who looks like he's not breaking a sweat while still grinding their ego under his boot, IMO. And since debate is really all about winning the audience members, I think it's rather foolish to try and convert the other debater most of the time. It helps to keep them off your back on the internet, at least.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

MPP — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:08:31 GMT

As Student rigtfully pointed out, avoid the emotions, if/when at all possible; if not, the debate becomes a pointless childish fight. it's very difficult to debate when either you (especially) or your opponent (leftist or otherwise) gets emotional and things can quickly go downhill from there.

For that matter, you can do things to decrease the liklihood either you or your opponent will get emotional during the debate: 1) avoid at all costs personal attacks. it makes you look foolish, ignorant and immature (you dont want to come across as a politician, do you?). 2) Don't take their accusations/comments personally. They may have good reason to think they way they do (they're not the only one who has biased / misinformed opinions). and 3) keep the tone in a "i'm here to discuss this with you and learn" rather than a "me vs you" style. Talk w/ them to learn, to understand their POV and to simply discuss the subject matter. Don't go to a debate to "prove them wrong" no matter how right you think you are; that will only end up in disaster. Either way, the best thing to do is keep calm. I've lost (and still lose) countless debates and arguments with people because I tend to get very emotional by nature. On the infrequent debates i've had where i remained calm, i either learned something or "won".

One problem with debating with leftists, now that i think about it, is that they rely on emotions to get their point across. With the countless debates I've had with leftists (from social democrats to communists), they inevitably structure the problem in an emotional manner, such that if you disagree, you come off as a cold, caloused bastard. so be careful with that, especially if it's a public or semi-public (i.e. university or HS level) debate. (BTW, pay attention to CNN and MSNBC (liberal media) and their articles tend to show fish and birds covered in oil in an article about the oil spill; or the poor people who are losing their houses every day to mortgage forclosures etc when discussing new housing regulation - you'll see what i mean).

Last, but not least, watch Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" (http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/) and his countless discussions on youtube. Not only is he an excellent debater, but watch how he handles himself when talking to lefties who, again, try to make it emotional.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

scineram — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:31:57 GMT

There it is.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Wesker1982 — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:27:33 GMT

http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index.php/2009/11/14/the-gun-in-the-room/

point out the gun in the room. has worked for me against liberals.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Consultant — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:24:06 GMT

Epicurus,

- Yes we agree that people know best what they want, the discussion is on socialists implicitly assuming a monopoly ( the state) will generate the best satisfaction for that want. This is a mistake, often implicit and unquestioned, that statists make.

- AE is value free because praxeology is about logical necessities implied in human action. Surely you agree that logic is value free.

The anti-statism is libertarian, not Austrian, in saying "look most people want maximum welness, the best way is the free market". So libertarians are pointing out the political implications of a personal ethic many people have.

An Austrian Economist could perfectly advice a socialist party to raise minimum wages, as it will keep unskilled workers unemployed, thereby increasing potential votes, the welfare state and the perceived relevance of unions. The Austrian Economist simply points out the logical consequences of the minimum wage policy, without taking a stance on whether these consequences are "good".

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Noah — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:23:41 GMT

Re: value free

Marked is right. Value free in the sense that Austrian Economics does not declare or decide what 'ends' someone should try to attain. It simply demonstrates or explains that if the ends you choose to strive for include prosperity here is the way to get it.

If you wish to strive for other ends, AE is consistent in explaining how that will happen. Just like physics explains that certain chemicals when mixed together will have a particular result. When individuals act in a particular way, or are restricted from acting in a particular, certain events are inevitable. Whether this is good or bad is up to you to decide. AE merely states that these events will occur.

Libertarian ethics are separate. Many who agree with AE conclusions also agree with Libertarian ethics, but this does not make AE anything other than value free.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Marked — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:06:27 GMT

Also, to marked (i think); First, humbug on value-free. I dont buy it, nor know wtf it means, as noone has been able to explain it functionally to me.

...What? It's value free. It is not "Egalitarian", "Individualist", or any other such philosophy. It merely attempts to explain economic phenomena(Booms/busts happening to be a major part of it). Artificial credit expansion happens to have a major factor in to Boom/Bust cycles, according to AE.

The gov't doesn't necessarily need to be the one to expand credit, it's just that any individual that doesn't already have a "foundation" of peasants paying tribute has a lot less reason to squander his own wealth in some nefarious boom creation scheme.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Laotzu del Zinn — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:48:42 GMT

i.e. we'd be best to leave the poeple to their own devices right? Even if meritocratic you are still relying on the assumption that enough people know what is good for them, and things will either work out, or correct themselves in the end. I didnt say "all people" know, I said "the people (meaning the majority of them)."

Also, to marked (i think); First, humbug on value-free. I dont buy it, nor know wtf it means, as noone has been able to explain it functionally to me.

Second, value free or not, AE consistently makes the argument that govt can only get in the way. Who is govt getting in the way of? Why is this a problem? Because the people generally know what is good for them, more than some 3rd party beauracrat, and as such the market will correct itself.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Consultant — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:37:14 GMT

I'm an ancap who doesn't believe the masses know what's best for them.

The free market is not democratic. It is meritocratic. People know what they want, but most of the time do not know the best way to get it. I like sailing, wining and dining, cars,... I have no clue on how to make sailboats, wine, great food or cars. The magic of the free market is that experts can turn their view on how to satisfy a need and offer it to potential clients, after which the masses choose. Some entrepreneurs are so good they can even succesfully predict what people would want if he or she made it possible.

Democracy or any form of statism lacks this fundamental dynamic.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

John Ess — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:31:46 GMT

The old argument from adjective.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Marked — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:30:26 GMT

I hope you arent calling yourself a libertarian and also that the masses do not know what is best for them... isnt that the entire concept of AE?

Austrian Economics is value free, like all forms of economics. It is not part of libertarianism. Please do not confuse the two.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Laotzu del Zinn — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:28:45 GMT

I hope you arent calling yourself a libertarian and also that the masses do not know what is best for them... isnt that the entire concept of AE?

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Consultant — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:11:02 GMT

Hi Epicurus, the mental illness is implicitly assuming one's personal ethic is morally objective. I don't dislike altruism and I favor education, but I'm irritated by the failure of highly intelligent people, often experts in unrelated domains, to acknowledge they are not experts on law and economy. In every other industry democracy would be called communism, yet for law and economy - and as a result culture and civilization - there is this mass delusion that the masses know what's best.

Re: You're a dumb, extreme right wing, fox news brainwashed, revisionist history racist!

Laotzu del Zinn — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:50:52 GMT

Hell yes, especially the educated atheist social-democrat type of liberal. They don't care about debate, they care about image. The harsh reality is that they are way more mainstream and way less "progressive", "artsy" or what-not than their head full of TED talks and their heart full of "compassion" is willing to accept. Socialism is a mental illness. I stopped debating animals long time ago.

haha. Did you just equate being educated and compassionate to a mental problem? And yet that is the mainstream... hmm... maybe you need to re-examine what you mean by "mental illness."

I will admit that many of "us" are arrogent jerks tho. Imo, it comes with making liberalism a moral/ethical argument. "I have compassion, you (in my view) dont. I am also educated. 1 + 1 = Im better than you."