I thought it would be useful to start a thread of suggestions as to how to word or frame certain libertarian positions in appealing ways.
Many of these you've probably already heard before, but maybe there will be one in there that's new. There's no harm in sharing your thoughts.
Governments can lie. Corporations and individuals can lie, too. Do you only accept the latter? What happens if the government lies? What happens in Walmart lies? Under which system do you have the most recourse?
Should corporations be allowed to do anything individuals cannot do? Should governments be allowed to do anything individuals cannot do?
Do you believe in separation of church and state? Why do you believe that? Do you then favor the separation of economy and state, and your personal life and state, and education and state, and so on.
What would justify the forceful intervention of a third party into your religious or personal life? What would justify a forceful intervention of a third party into the economy, education, etc.? The same things: murder, theft, fraud, rape, etc.; injury to liberty.
"Taxes are voluntary." Was the military draft voluntary? Was no one fighting the war in Vietnam against their will, for example?
*Stefan Molyneux recommended an interesting tactic: "flip it." Why should libertarians have to do all the heavy intellectual lifting? Why not ask them why they feel that only government is capable of providing a good or service (for example, roads)?
Also, it could be helpful to ask why it would be worse for something currently provided by the private sector (for example, shoes) to be produced only by the public sector. Rothbard’s classic counterfactual about shoe production is also helpful in and of itself.
2. For conservatives, general "seeds":
Quote the Declaration of Independence. Every individual has the right to their life, liberty, and to pursue happiness as they understand it. So if happiness means to you opening a pretzel cart business, or not living a healthy lifestyle, or having a relationship with someone of the same sex, as long as the lives and liberties of others are not being interfered with, these pursuits ought to be protected.
(Government-protected) monopolies produce poor goods and services. Why would they produce the best laws? Why would they produce the best enforcement of law?
3. Competing currencies:
There is no law in the US mandating everyone speak English in every exchange. Why isn’t there chaos? In some situations it’s better to use a language other than English if you can speak it.
Non-cash payments. Ever look to see if a restaurant accepts Visa? Ever notice that some gas stations charge more per gallon if you pay with a card than if you pay with cash? It’s not chaotic, is it?
4. For anti-immigration conservatives:
Why trust government with a quota system? If government knows the correct number of laborers needed in every area of the economy and can regulate it better than any other force, why not have the government running everything?
Why not also have the government place a "moratorium" on Americans giving birth? A lot of people come into the country that way. If these children are born, they will become American citizens just like immigrants would. In the future, they might out perform Americans who have been citizens for longer periods of time and "take [their] jobs." Also, those kids someday could blow a hole in the deficit just like immigrants could. Okay, okay; we won’t have a moratorium, maybe just a little regulation of how many people can come into the country via birth. How about, each couple can have two kids, tops. Sound good?
(For those who fear the culture will be "corrupted" by foreigners) Why such insecurity over your culture? If it truly is the best, it will stand the test of competition, just as the best businesses do in the free market.
5. Pro-drug war conservatives:
Federal prohibition is a "one-size-fits-all solution" to drugs.
This should be handled as locally as possible: by your family or you, yourself.
What is the purpose of temporarily incarcerating a non-violent drug user? Is it so that, after being released, they will not do what they did to put them in jail in the first place, in this case being illegal drugs? Doesn’t that make this a taxpayer-funded rehab for the drug user (ignoring for the moment the effectiveness of this "rehab," and just focusing on its purpose)? Why should we be forced to pay for the poor life choices of others? This should be handled by voluntary charity.
Who should be the parent? Who should teach your kids about how to be healthy: you, or the government (the criminal justice system)?
Don’t adults have the right to live unhealthy lifestyles? Where does the government get off regulating our salt intake or our soda intake? Is it that government can only intervene when something is very unhealthy? What about the morbidly obese?
6. Pro-mandatory rehab left-liberals:
Would you justify forcing a morbidly obese person to go on a diet? If someone is ruining their life with drugs, and you can use force to make them stop, then why would it be unjust to prevent a 500-pound person from eating dessert at gun-point? Don’t you know heart disease is the number 1 killer in the US?
7. Republicans on international relations:
Foreign aid = welfare
For those who think foreign aid is necessary to "buy" friendship abroad, why do you think our relationship with other countries is so shallow? Is the only reason Israel likes the US because we bribe them?
Are other countries so weak that they would fall apart without welfare from the US?
8. For left-liberals, miscellaneous:
Point out the fact that America, like most countries, has a mixed economy, a mixed healthcare system, a mixed education system, etc. If the economy is part capitalism, part socialism, part corporatism, be sure to insist that the person you’re talking to explain why capitalism is the one to blame.
On laws against hazardous workplace conditions: Being a boxer or a UFC fighter is a very dangerous job. Should it be illegal?
The government should reduce inequality that comes as a result of random genetic predisposition (or "lottery"). What about kids that are better-looking than me? It must be easier for them to get dates or become movie stars. Can I force them to pay for my plastic surgery? Or should the government just level the playing field by smashing up pretty kids’ faces?
What about your GPA in school? Not every kid starts college with the same academic resources; some went to great primary and secondary schools, while others went to underperforming inner city schools. Some kids have to take care of a loved one outside of class, while others don’t. Some kids parents pay for everything and they don’t have to work during the semester. It’s hard to hold a 4.0 if you have to work 40 hours a week. Also, some majors are easier than others (eg. History is easier than Engineering). There is unfairness here. Why not redistribute GPAs? Do you still feel you own your GPA? Too bad.
Government should set standards (minimum wage, laws against price gouging): Everybody has their own standards. Why would you impose yours on them? Should there be government-mandated standards for say, romantic dinners? If your hot date is not meeting your standards, don’t call them back. What if you think someone else’s standards regarding the date are too high? Are they gouging you if they say they don’t want to go on a date unless you promise to marry them?
*Unsolicited endorsement: here’s a good resource for all things price gouging (among many other topics) http://candlemind.com/projects/progclub/file/michael/getEducated.php?listID=22
Why not a $100 minimum wage? $1000? Why would that be bad? Would it make everybody rich?
Get money out of politics! My response: that’d be like getting beer off of college campuses. Just like with guns and drugs, no matter how many laws you have, these things to get into the system; when they do, they are even dirtier and less accountable than if you had just done it through legal channels to begin with.
Money in political speech gives a disproportional "megaphone" to elites: Bill Maher doesn’t have one of those on his hour-long weekly show? Doesn’t Bill O’Reily have one?
Freedom vs. empowerment. This was posted the other day. http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/11nfzl/a_good_response_to_assertions_that_freedom
Another word that works is opportunity. You cannot force someone to give you an opportunity, say, a role in a Scorsese picture.
"I want the government to redistribute my income and take care of the poor." Then why do you need the government to force you to do it?
Also, why not use the government to redistribute your other property, as well? Maybe a poor person could use some of your clothes; should the government take it and give it to them? Why shouldn’t the government also force you to share your room with someone? Maybe 50% of your room should be inhabited by a less-fortunate person.
"The government should ask us to..." The government doesn’t ask you to do anything. The government tells you what you have to do, and tells you what will happen if you don’t. Does a mugger ask you for your wallet? I’m sure you could think of other aggressive scenarios where no one is asking for anything.
Don’t just divide up the pie, make more pie; this is the beauty of capitalism. Making more pie is how society progresses.
9. Who will build the (fill in the blank)?
It’s not that I want the goods and services being provided by the public sector today to go away, it’s that there is a better way (less invasive, more economical/efficient/creative way) to provide it.
In the free market, you have to be innovative. Education would be more experimental if it was provided competitively like other goods and services on the market. Imagine how bland your grocery store would be if it were run by the government.
Stefan Molyneux (I think it was him) gave the analogy of a rock in a river; if you remove the rock, does the river dry up, or does water fill the space?
How would you guarantee rights would be protected? No society can. Even today, you cannot be guaranteed that you will never be aggressed against, despite the best efforts of law enforcement. In which society would your rights be better protected is the real question.
"Death and taxes." I’m sure a mediocre car manufacturer would say, "If there’s one thing that’s inevitable in this world, it’s death and mediocre cars."
10. Some of my own miscellaneous
That’s what we’re conditioned to think. Think outside the box.
Orphanages are private organizations that could defend the rights of children in a system without a state. I admit this was a big hurdle for me and some of my other libertarian friends, and children-loving charities was hard to conceptualize. Everybody knows what an orphanage is.
Real fast: if someone suspects a child is being abused, the orphanage would be contacted. Then, a private arbitration agency would make a judgement, and if the parent is found to be abusive, rights to raise the child will be given to the orphanage. Then restitution for any harm done to the child could be pursued. There would be more incentive for fairness in this decision than in today’ system (there are plenty of horror stories of children needlessly being taken from their parents).
(For religious people) Free will instead of freedom. The goal is to maximize free will. (Some people say liberty is just code for "license." Don’t we have free will? I respond.)
And my favorite is in response to the assertion that Jesus would be in favor of government welfare: Who did Jesus force to be charitable? Didn’t Jesus use peaceful means to influence others to care for the weakest among them? Doesn’t God judge you for how you chose exercise your free will, and whether or not you chose to follow his ways?
Wow. I didn't realize how much I typed. That's an eyesore.
I suggest using bolding to emphasize and help the reader.