Hey I was just wondering if any of you think its a bad idea to debate with friends. I feel that after talking about anarchism it the light of g20, people have been kind of exiling me a little, and I don't like it. I mean want to talk, but he refuses to give anarchy any legitimacy, in fact I told him to come here and discuss his problems with it and he said that its not worth it because its as he says, "obviously illogical". I am usually not outward about my political views and usually just call myself a libertarian because I am afraid of alienating myself. I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I thought that this community would most understand my position( I am new to the anarchist position), so any help or advice would be warmly welcomed, thanks in advance.
Eric:I feel that after talking about anarchism it the light of g20, people have been kind of exiling me a little, and I don't like it.
People generally don't like angry radicals, and I share their dislike. Furthermore, I find that it is only the angry radicals who are exiled.
Eric:I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I thought that this community would most understand my position( I am new to the anarchist position), so any help or advice would be warmly welcomed, thanks in advance.
Don't be an angry radical - it only helps when singing to the choir.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
I;m not angry and I do not condone what some of the anarchists were doing, but most of them, were just singing peacefully and dancing in the main protest plaza, Again I think breaking stuff is completely stupid so in that sense I share there dislike, But thanks for responding I do appreciate it =].
You certainly should engage your friends in such discourse. People seem to be sensitive to certain terminology (such as 'anarchy'). You might want to discuss your position without using such terms, at least at first.
If you are being 'exiled' and you aren't being an annoying 'angry radical' (as laminustacitus put it), then good riddance. Don't waste your time being friends with people who at the slightest threat to their worldview push you away.
From what I've gotten its just the word anarchy, it stirs up thoughts of bomb throwers, lawlessness and chaos. So just don't call it anarchy. Call it natural order, voluntaryism, polycentric law, etc...
Friendly debate is good. Best to keep the debate simple. Build consensus on basic premises, e.g. private property, non-aggression, etc. Then show how the opposing view contradicts them.
Understand that what the general public considers an 'anarchist' is much different than the libertarian oriented anarchism philosophy which you likely favor and which is covertly very logical indeed.
...and don't associate yourself with the 'so called' anarchist that huddle at the g20 rallies. I avoid the term all together with most folks preferring instead 'extreme libertarian', 'anarcho-capitalist', or 'voluntarist'
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
I introduce myself as a radical libertarian then go on to explain that what I proposes is similar to 19th century libertarianism or classical liberalism though the meaning of the word has been expanded. Since the evolution of the libertarian party, it has taken a bigger meaning and can include minimal size government. I believe however that the government is not justified in any size. I was at a dinner party with republicans and I think it went well.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
bbnet: ...and don't associate yourself with the 'so called' anarchist that huddle at the g20 rallies. I avoid the term all together with most folks preferring instead 'extreme libertarian', 'anarcho-capitalist', or 'voluntarist'
Good advice here. I will refer to my position as 'libertarianism', 'radical libertarianism', or 'voluntaryism' in mixed company. I don't suggest using 'anarcho-capitalism' as many people have bad images associated with both 'anarchy' and 'capitalism'
Why anyone would call themselves an anarchist is beyond me.
Nonarchist / anti-monopolist / anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist / Austro-Libertarian / Principled and logically consistent Libertarian / Radical classical liberal...
There a number of labels that are far better if you so want to choose.
It's probably too late now, since he's got all the bs stuff that is associated with "anarchy" in his head, as a conception of you. Why would you associate with a label, traditionally carried by the traditional socialists? The vandarchists hate the state, because they think it protects private property..!
Well to each his own, but I refuse to be associated with the label.
The Rothbard Article was in the mid 1950's. If you his work Betrayal of the American Right where he admits that he became an anarchist.
i actually referred to myself as an ancap lol
Eric: i actually referred to myself as an ancap lol
Why move onto the position you hold, when the issue of whether government is evil or not, hasn't been agreed to by them? And why it is necessary or not. Debating without offering a position is pretty helpful, but people squirm pretty quickly. Deep down they know they're wrong, or in a contradiction - they want to seek your position asap, so they can dismiss it. For whatever reason.
"I don't think there is any point moving on to solutions, when we haven't agreed on what the problem is."
Laughing Man: The Rothbard Article was in the mid 1950's. If you his work Betrayal of the American Right where he admits that he became an anarchist.
Yeah, I have read it. His position never changed, though the label he associated with did.
There is a reason he didn't just refer to himself simply as an anarchist.
http://mises.org/resources/2667 - New Banner Interview
"Also, we have a long-range problem which none of us has ever really grappled with to any extent. That is, how do we finally establish a libertarian society? Obviously ideas are a key thing. First off you have to persuade a lot of people to be anarchists — anarcho-capitalists."
His nonarchy article was before he came up with the label, anarcho-capitalism - but the same insights were still there and didn't change. After that it became expedient to just refer to anarchism (no rulers), but of a different type. Instead of having to explain what nonarchy is.
*shrugs* lol.
Yes his position did change.
Murray Rothbard in Betrayal of the American Right: My conversion to anarchism was a simple exercise in logic. Ihad engaged continually in friendly arguments about laissez-fairewith liberal friends from graduate school. While condemning taxation,I had still felt that taxation was required for the provision ofpolice and judicial protection and for that only. One night twofriends and I had one of our usual lengthy discussions, seeminglyunprofitable; but this time when they'd left, I felt that for oncesomething vital had actually been said. As I thought back on thediscussion, I realized that my friends, as liberals, had posed the followingchallenge to my laissez-faire position:They: What is the legitimate basis for your laissez-faire government,for this political entity confined solely to defendingperson and property?I: Well, the people get together and decide to establish such agovernment.They: But if "the people" can do that, why can't they do exactlythe same thing and get together to choose a government thatwill build steel plants, dams, etc.?I realized in a flash that their logic was impeccable, that laissezfairewas logically untenable, and that either I had to become a liberal,or move onward into anarchism. I became an anarchist.
My conversion to anarchism was a simple exercise in logic. Ihad engaged continually in friendly arguments about laissez-fairewith liberal friends from graduate school. While condemning taxation,I had still felt that taxation was required for the provision ofpolice and judicial protection and for that only. One night twofriends and I had one of our usual lengthy discussions, seeminglyunprofitable; but this time when they'd left, I felt that for oncesomething vital had actually been said. As I thought back on thediscussion, I realized that my friends, as liberals, had posed the followingchallenge to my laissez-faire position:They: What is the legitimate basis for your laissez-faire government,for this political entity confined solely to defendingperson and property?I: Well, the people get together and decide to establish such agovernment.They: But if "the people" can do that, why can't they do exactlythe same thing and get together to choose a government thatwill build steel plants, dams, etc.?I realized in a flash that their logic was impeccable, that laissezfairewas logically untenable, and that either I had to become a liberal,or move onward into anarchism. I became an anarchist.
I think there is a stigma to being called an 'anarchist' like many people have said in this topic. However, to combat this stigma we must show that anarchism is not some 'smash and destroy' irrational ideology. It is one founded on logic.
laminustacitus:People generally don't like angry radicals, and I share their dislike. Furthermore, I find that it is only the angry radicals who are exiled.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Laughing Man:Yes his position did change.
Not after graduate school. Which is the point - it didn't change from when he wrote the piece in the 50's, to when he wrote the piece in the 70's.
Have you read Justin Raimondo's Enemy of the State?
Eric:Hey I was just wondering if any of you think its a bad idea to debate with friends.
It's hard to debate with anyone who is closed minded or dogmatic. Whether they are a fanatical anti-propertarian left anarchist, or a neoconservative republican, or a progressive liberal true believer, or a "libertarian" ideologue.
It's not what you are talking about, or what they already believe, but the level of sincerity in the debate.
If you can't find people who will listen, and consider your opinions, and people whom you respect enough to listen to, and consider their opinions, then you are just wasting time and energy. It's like a guy in front of an open door, who decides to side step 2 paces to his left, and go through the wall instead.
I am NEVER ashamed of my moral positions, and I am NEVER ashamed of my personal observations. When people try to shame you, by name calling or otherwise belittling you, they are demonstrating not just their weakness of character, but a fundamental lack of confidence in their own premises.
If anything, we should feel badly for them, although if they are really aggressive, it's hard not to dislike them.
Conza88:Not after graduate school. Which is the point - it didn't change from when he wrote the piece in the 50's, to when he wrote the piece in the 70's.
...because after graduate school he was an Anarchist.
Probably, if you want to keep them as friends. Unless they are open-minded. In which case, debate away.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Laughing Man: Conza88:Not after graduate school. Which is the point - it didn't change from when he wrote the piece in the 50's, to when he wrote the piece in the 70's. ...because after graduate school he was an Anarchist.
He was always against the state after that time. Have you read the Enemy of the State?
When he wrote the nonarchist piece, he was against the state. What altered was the label association. He rejected associating with anarchy, because it was mostly associated with traditional socialists. He suggested nonarchy be used. He wrote that piece in 1950's. Later on, the label of anarcho-capitalism was adopted, and thus the loss of the need to use nonarchy.
What is so hard to understand?
Don't preach. Dispute. Find a topic they are willing to debate, then move from there into anarchism. For instance, tell them that road production was carried out better by private suppliers before being monopolized by the state. Or argue that competition amongst states and the frontier kept taxation and regulation to a minimum, which is why America prospered throughout the 19th century. Argue that the Wild West was less violent than most major cities are today. And bring the facts.
To deal with the pervasive attitude of "if it was better we'd have it already," clue them in to how long it takes for certain political philosophies to be destroyed. For most of human history, abolishing slavery was "obviously illogical". For most of political economic history, government granted monopolies (mercantilism) were determined to the be the most efficient form of production. The world was flat. The king was king because God desired such. etc etc.
Call them out. Tell them their reliance on traditionalism is outright stupid and would have prevented the industrial revolution.
Ask them to explain how Somalia, despite lacking a central government since 1991 is one of the leading countries in Africa is wireless communication and export growth.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
My dear fellow coleague: The abuse in semantics creates confusion.In my view, laissez faire means that politician shoul gain confidence only in the protection of private property rigths.Laissez faire and natural order are equivalent.In view of the historical records political parties have demonstrated that power lust is almost always the icentive for political careers.
Rafael Garcia
I dont believe in sneaking in your ideas slowly, state your position firmly and clearly, and if he refuses to (or lacks the intelligence) to have a holistic discussion, just own him on the small issues as stated above, and if he snobs you, give him the Socratic method. or tell him hes right, that his dirty overlords are far more intelligent than him and it would be pareto efficient for him to be their puppet, As for the rest of society I think they can make there own decisions.
Debating is an art form, who cares if you hurt a few people.
strat2131:Debating is an art form, who cares if you hurt a few people.
Sounds like the ramblings of someone who has never debated someone.
laminustacitus: strat2131:Debating is an art form, who cares if you hurt a few people. Sounds like the ramblings of someone who has never debated someone.
Or someone who never debated with their family or close friends, at least.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict