I’ve spent the last few years really immersing myself in learning libertarian theory, reading Mises, Rothbard, Bastiat, Rand, Hayak, Nock, Optiz, etc. and after a conversation with a friend of mine—a pretty hardcore liberal, as I use to be—I realized something: I wouldn’t even know where to begin to point him in the right direction.My conversion from socialist to near-anarcho-capitalist was the result of the alignment of several factors at once: a few muckraking books, a few conversations with articulate libertarians, and the emotional jolt of reading Anthem in one sitting. However, whenever my friend and I are talking about the law, and the role of government, I can’t make any headway. We’ll get to some topic regarding “social justice” (like the Affirmative Action, Welfare, etc.,) and I will say, “it’s not the government’s job to be doing these things,” and all I can get from him is “well that’s just where you and I disagree.” I’ll ask him why he thinks the government is “obligated” (his term) to do these things for the populace, and he’ll say “The Constitution.” I’ll ask him which portion of the Constitution he’s referring to, and he’ll change the subject. I don’t know if he knows he can’t formulate an argument beyond that point, or what.So there’s the context. My question is (and this can be applied to anyone in a similar situation) is what sort of reading materials can I refer him to? Most of the stuff I’ve read has been in the mind of a person eager to learn the depths and implications of this philosophy, I can’t genuinely asses the material in terms of how a person resistant to the philosophy will take it.For me, the core of the transformation was an understanding of economics. Once I starting understanding how the market works, everything else fell into place.I was thinking The Law by Bastiat, On Liberty by Mill, or even Our Enemy, the State by Nock. Do you guys have any other suggestions? I want something that presents a total theory, is readable for the beginner, and makes sound arguments. My goal is not to “win” some debate with my friend, but to fundamentally change his mind about politics and economics. I’m also afraid that if I go to extreme, or give him something too peppered with insider jargon—”The Case For the 100% Gold Dollar” or “In Defense Of Anarchism”—he’ll write it off as nutty.
The last time I heard a fellow say, "we'll just agree, not to agree". My response was "no we can agree that you have nothing to add to this subject".
I had a friend ask, "if you were to lead someone into the austrian school, what would be a good start, or a good read."
It may depend on what particular interest the person has. "Do you enjoy philosophy, history, politics, economics, psychology?" Metaphisics, and astrology, may be a tough stretch. I have loaned out my copy of The Road to Serfdom a few times with mostly positive responses. The P.I.G. to series are nice. My stepmom is a biblical cook, so I had her read Locke's Second Treatise on Government. In discussions with interested new-liberals, I use John Stuart Mill's example of "one simple principle". If it's a warmonger I ask them if they've ever taken a martial arts course, if yes, I prose. What is the very first principle they teach you. These are a couple of ways to get across the principle of non-aggression. In The Law a nice simple point is...
Self-preservation and self-development, are common aspirations among all. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceasless, uninterupted, and unfailing.
I've told a friend that he could find just about any topic he is interested in, if he would just explore, mises.org.
I make my nine year old son listen to Lefarve, and I think it has been invaluable to his thought process.
I just started Robert Higgs, new book Niether Liberty nor Safety. He picks a nice Mencken quote...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamerous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Last week I handed a guy a print out of this... Declaration of Independencein American
He was so amused, he made copies for his friends.
I am of the opinion that Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, is a well written and easy to understand introduction to Econ.
You know another read that is short and thorough, An Introduction to Austrian Economics by Thomas C. Taylor.
What peeked my initial interest was the video http://mises.org:88/Fed
I was hoping to learn more about Bastiat, I am anxious to start the Bastiat Collection. There is so much material here, that I feel like I will never run out of stuff to read here at mises.org.
For me I think the most helpful tool in expressing liberalism, is a smile, and a pleasant demeanor. Then I patiently wait for someone to bring up a subject.
Individualism Rocks
Is your friend a conservative or a liberal or something else? In the former case, Hoppe's Democracy - the God that failed might do the trick. In the latter, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty would be a softer introduction. In fact, the latter two texts are suitable for anyone. Hoppe's book, whilst excellent, will no doubt offend anyone in a PC mindset. The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills is also great.
I guess I was relating to a few experiances. I know one guy that lets me use him as guinea pig. He always tries to give another view, sometimes I think he plays devils advocate. I usually don't ask people for their political denomination. I slip and call some of them socialists, but I try not to slam peoples values. I think the democrats rhetoric is not a true to liberal ideals stance. Their is some sort of psuedo-definition of liberal in the status quo, perhaps.
I haven't been introduced to Hoppe's "Democracy" . Another on the growing digest list, I will make that my new year resolution. Finish, the works I have now, and purchase new light by years end. Everyone is a something else.
Bank Run:It may depend on what particular interest the person has. "Do you enjoy philosophy, history, politics, economics, psychology?" Metaphisics, and astrology, may be a tough stretch. I have loaned out my copy of The Road to Serfdom a few times with mostly positive responses. The P.I.G. to series are nice. My stepmom is a biblical cook, so I had her read Locke's Second Treatise on Government. In discussions with interested new-liberals, I use John Stuart Mill's example of "one simple principle". If it's a warmonger I ask them if they've ever taken a martial arts course, if yes, I prose. What is the very first principle they teach you. These are a couple of ways to get across the principle of non-aggression. In The Law a nice simple point is...Self-preservation and self-development, are common aspirations among all. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceasless, uninterupted, and unfailing.I've told a friend that he could find just about any topic he is interested in, if he would just explore, mises.org.
The non-aggression principle is so key to libertarian philosophy, and I realized that most people will accept it as a good ethical principle, but will reject when you apply the principle to certain government sacred cows like tax-financed services. It just getting people to have the "all government action is force" epiphany that's a real struggle.
Inquisitor:Is your friend a conservative or a liberal or something else? In the former case, Hoppe's Democracy - the God that failed might do the trick. In the latter, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty would be a softer introduction. In fact, the latter two texts are suitable for anyone. Hoppe's book, whilst excellent, will no doubt offend anyone in a PC mindset. The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills is also great.
Very stock new-liberal. I think I'll go with the Rothbard pieces, The Law, and On Liberty as a general introduction.
Bank Run:If it's a warmonger I ask them... What is the very first principle they teach you.
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?
Yeah, you can take the kid out of the Airborne but you can't take the Airborne out of the kid...
The Art of War is a fun read, it's short.
Well I am sure the first principle in any school of note teaches, the only justification of using this skill, which is self defence, is to defend oneself, or that of those he loves.
I can do nothing with sadists. How 'bout y'all, got ideas? I feel the masochists will find a way to take themselves out.
Y'know, here in the states united by liberty, our soldiers must first swear an oath to uphold the constitution. It is sour grapes that they not be told to read and understand it fully before doing so.
In the military one knows that animals are less beaten.
Sweet Mercury:The non-aggression principle is so key to libertarian philosophy, and I realized that most people will accept it as a good ethical principle, but will reject when you apply the principle to certain government sacred cows like tax-financed services. It just getting people to have the "all government action is force" epiphany that's a real struggle.
I know what you mean here. I feel like there's some kind of invisible line, and once you step over it, it's hard to understand what could possess someone to be on the other side. I cannot picture how I could think about any topic without the realization that government is nothing but force, and I am amazed when I say what seem to me to be trivial things and am met with laughter or a blank stare. An example is slipping in "theft" in place of "taxes" which I do without thinking.
I have a few friends who are truthers of various degrees, and also socialist in their economic policies. I can't fathom how one can hold these two positions together. They also tend to complain about corporate control of government, corporate welfare, and special privs - and I agree with them entirely, but I can't fathom how one squares these with a belief in universal healthcare. Any thoughts on how to talk to such people?
JAlanKatz:I have a few friends who are truthers of various degrees, and also socialist in their economic policies. I can't fathom how one can hold these two positions together. They also tend to complain about corporate control of government, corporate welfare, and special privs - and I agree with them entirely, but I can't fathom how one squares these with a belief in universal healthcare. Any thoughts on how to talk to such people?
I was one of those people! And I don't know what convinced me, really. I had been put in a state of questioning my beliefs by someone simply pointing out that obvious contradiction: I don't trust the government to do anything, yet I expected them to take care of my healthcare. I reject authority as a matter of principle, but didn't think that inviting the State into my life for beneficiary reasons would also invite their authority.
I was unabe to answer that contradiction, and I also happened to be reading a muckraking book called Fasy Food Nation which detailed many of the corporate abuses in the fast food industry. It also detailed how much more effective the market was in getting companies to change their meat buying policies than government enforcment was, and it just clicked.
I don't know how to get other people to click though. I have convinced people, through debate ad example, of how useless (and, actually, harmful) the FDA is, and how those services could be better rendered through rivate 3rd companies (many restaurants do just that in cleanliness inspections)—I've seen that light of realization in their eyes, yet they don't make the leap. They remain ultimately statist.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV. And you think you're so clever and class less and free. But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see.
There's room at the top they are telling you still. But first you must learn how to smile as you kill, if you want to be like the folks on the hill.