Whenever I try to explain that the state isn't needed to a statist colleague, he just grins and chuckles, and I'm called a "silly radical" and such, like I'm an idiot. Are there any short and to-the-point methods of explaining the invisible hand theory without sounding like a crackpot to the keynesian masses?
just cite empirical evidence. Particularly broad statistics such as quality of life. Particularly keynesianism has failed to predict all major economic crises. His fellow keynesians like bernake and krugman haven't been able to make life any better during this depression. Keynesian economic policies also failed in america japan and europe. The irony is that keynesianism used to get laughed out of conferences 30 years ago
Remind him that countless revered minds have been radicals. John locke, thomas jefferson, bla bla bla. Is it any wonder that when things are this bad and people are so misguided that a radical has the right answers?
Ask him if he could individually opt out of paying taxes to support the Keynesian programs, if he would.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Snowflake:just cite empirical evidence
The argument from efficiency is so useless.
meambobbo: Ask him if he could individually opt out of paying taxes to support the Keynesian programs, if he would.
Any sufficiently cynical statist would claim that he is very glad to pay taxes.
Conza88:The argument from efficiency is so useless.
You don't. You must make your full intellectual secession. Just point out that you don't need the state, and they're not invited.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The argument from efficiency isn't really all that effective, but I do start out with that, then eventually us the 'Against Me' argument coined by Stefan Molyneux (or maybe that's another one he stole..) just point out the gun in the room. It's not a bad way to go, I converted a minarchist that way.
It goes something like this:
The gun in the room, e.g., “Put down the gun, then we’ll talk.” STATIST: I support [FILL IN THE BLANK, e.g. the surge in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, the Welfare State, the War on Drugs, Homeland Security etc. etc.]. YOU: I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically (E.g. “You likey the surge? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Donnie Rumsfeld/Timothy Keitner”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you? STATIST: Er, yes? (What else are they going to say?) YOU: Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me? STATIST: Er, yes? YOU: So, you agree that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the surge, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the surge?' This might not be doing the argument justice, but this is it put simply. It is important to show the gun in the room with any government program. We can all see the evil that men do, especially politicians, with our tax money.
Or, something like this:
Statist: I support staying in Iraq. Me: Well, I don't think you should be shot for supporting the war in Iraq. Statist: Of course I shouldn't be shot! Me: Do you think I should be shot for not supporting the war in Iraq? Statist: Well, of course you should not be shot! Me: Well, okay, then I should not have to pay taxes. ------- Me: Are you willing to look me in the eye and say, "Laws, you should be shot." Are you going to cheer when they drag me away to prison? I just want to understand the basis of our relationship. You do, after all, claim to have some affection for me, some love for me, some respect for me, etc. Statist: Ahh, well, of course not. Me: Okay, we're on the same grounds, then. So, you don't support the use of violence JUST against me, or everyone except me? Statist: No, I don't support violence against anyone. Me: Well, then, you must be an anarchist, or a libertarian, a voluntarist, or whatever the hell! You must be a philosopher... basically decent. Statist: No, I still believe in the state; I still believe in taxation; I still believe in government; I still believe in... RON PAUL. Me: Oh, I see! Then you /do/ support the use of violence against me.
You can even ask him/her if she'd be the one to pull the trigger, or if he/she would relegate it to a third party.
You observe, but you do not see.
TelfordUS:Whenever I try to explain that the state isn't needed to a statist colleague, he just grins and chuckles, and I'm called a "silly radical" and such, like I'm an idiot.
Maybe you should abandon the idea that it is such a self evident fact (or even a fact at all).
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus: TelfordUS:Whenever I try to explain that the state isn't needed to a statist colleague, he just grins and chuckles, and I'm called a "silly radical" and such, like I'm an idiot. Maybe you should abandon the idea that it is such a self evident fact (or even a fact at all).
Some people need the state, for example, politicians.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel: laminustacitus: TelfordUS:Whenever I try to explain that the state isn't needed to a statist colleague, he just grins and chuckles, and I'm called a "silly radical" and such, like I'm an idiot. Maybe you should abandon the idea that it is such a self evident fact (or even a fact at all). Some people need the state, for example, politicians.
Do you think you're being witty?
I've learned that if you really want to convince these people, get everyone else to chuckle at them and call them a silly radical. Take the same attitude towards the state, use a little comedy and turn the tables. Put him/her in the position of being ridiculed. Use the NAP and only reciprocate in kind. You are allowed to defend yourself from passive aggression as well.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
laminustacitus: Daniel: laminustacitus: TelfordUS:Whenever I try to explain that the state isn't needed to a statist colleague, he just grins and chuckles, and I'm called a "silly radical" and such, like I'm an idiot. Maybe you should abandon the idea that it is such a self evident fact (or even a fact at all). Some people need the state, for example, politicians. Do you think you're being witty?
Did I offend you?
laminustacitus:Maybe you should abandon the idea that it is such a self evident fact (or even a fact at all).
Lam, do you need the state?
Daniel:Did I offend you?
Why would you offend me?
liberty student: laminustacitus:Maybe you should abandon the idea that it is such a self evident fact (or even a fact at all). Lam, do you need the state?
To flourish in a material sense, I need the state to establish an institutional framework in which the market can function efficiently. Without the state, there is no good reason to believe why private defense providers would cooperate thus there is no method of knowing a priori whether an anarchist society would be able to provide the necessary institutions to cultivate the division of labor, and inter-temporal planning.