What should I say . Me vs anti- advertising leftist type.

what should i say to this guy?  I'm debating him  and he thinks the welfare state is good ,society doesn't care about the poor, advertising is evil and causes poverty, he considers theft to be a victimless crime,be claims to be a capitalist,claims to be in favour of private property,says advertisers are parasites,seems to think Obama is the new hope and so many more fallacies.

 

I think i have him on the defensive I just keep reminding him government causes poverty & is coercive and advertising causes wealth and is voluntary. I've said to him how can he believe in property when he likes the welfare state and taxation as well as theft. I pointed out welfare destroys families,the productive & communties but this guy's argument just goes round and round , it could be summed up as "wealth is evil .people are poor.government is good sometimes.advertising is perverting society and making people poor. He just makes no real sense.I'm not trying to make him libertarian just trying to make him see sense.

 

any good ideas for things  i should say to challenge him on his views?

 

 

Scott F:

any good ideas for things  i should say to challenge him on his views?

Make it personal & argument from morality.

Show the gun in the room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOTqRb5nvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANZhW0zxDVs

Scott F:

the welfare state is good

State redistribution of wealth hurts incentives to produce. So even if there is a very large redistribution of wealth, it is a large piece of a shrinking pie.

Conversely, even if the free market maintained its current ~10% spending on charity, its economy grows so much faster and healthier than any state run economy, so its a smaller piece of a growing pie.

Obviously we prefer the free market long term. The best socialists can do is make everything better for about 15 seconds until the market readjusts itself to the higher tax rates and production drops off.

There's also arguments about efficiency that show up. I posted a bit about being poor in a capitalist vs statist society here.

Scott F:

society doesn't care about the poor

If he cares so much why doesn't he start a business where he pays and treats workers properly?

Scott F:

advertising is evil and causes poverty

no one forces you to watch advertising. Also, advertising is pointless in the free market because anyone could make coca-cola and call it coca-cola. Right now, you'd get sued out of your mind for violating their IP rights. Do away with these statist protections and all of this brand-name advertising disappears.

Scott F:

Obama is the new hope and so many more fallacies

derp burp fart ugh barf

Scott F:

government is good

How are voters supposed to compete when special interests buy off both parties.

 

Quick Update

I think  I won the debate.

 After my last posts to him he replied he'd get back to me and hasn't and it's been about two weeks. I pulled out the stops. I pointed out  consumption directs the economy and is natural. I spoke of how necessary advertising is,I told him how arrogant he was to claimt that people didn't need this or that product,I  refuted his idea of advertising as brainwashing by pointing out I wouldn't buy a poster I didn't want,I smashed his illusion of trying to claim to be a capitalism by  showing taxes are the very opposite of capitalism,I explained how utopian government was etc etc... you get the idea. Basically I think I wiped the floor with him,so to speak.

 

 

Good job. Now if only DFB could do this.

Those people do tend to walk away. They don't change their mind though. They just stay within safe zones and beat up on weak republicans. Thats just been my experience.

 

Not sure if this will help but here is an article i wrote on advertising http://mises.org/daily/4207

You need to remind him that wealth is not a very dangerous desire. People work hard so they can make money, and when a society is forcibly given equal pay, everyone will do the least amount of work possibly in order to get by. When everyone is worth the same amount of money, the only way to 'get ahead' - since greed will indeed still exist - is through obtaining power. Power is a much more difficult desire to get rid of when there is no wealth involved, if that makes sense.

don't say anything. just flash him one of these then bone his wife. point, set, match.

 

My oh my. Let me tell you thing. You cannot convince people to change their views overnight. I do not believe in sudden conversions on the way to Damascus. First of all you should really ask yourself if he's worth your time and you wouldn't be better off doing something else. I have long given up the idea of converting hopeless Statodules (ie worshippers of the State) but you may be more optimistic or more patient than me.

If you believe he's not a lost cause start out very simple and from where you know you can make a breakthrough. For example start from monetary politics. That's a point where, if you have read Rothbard or just the daily articles on mises.org and LRC you are likely to start from a position of strong advantage. Very few people know the daily scam being run by central banks and governments. You can win an easy victory by pointing out that while politicians fill their mounths with "social justice" they are at the same time stealing from fixed wage earners and small savers through hidden and morally repulsive means. If you can get a foothold there, keep going through small steps. Don't rush it.

There's no "magical bullet" to win over people. The best approach is to go through baby steps. If you tell people "Trains are dirty, blame the State" you are very likely to be taken for a crackpot and reinforce their feelings that "libertarians" are just a bunch of fanatics.

My oh my. Let me tell you thing. You cannot convince people to change their views overnight.

 

I'm not trying to make him libertarian just trying to make him see sense.

 

He wasn't trying to convert him.

Conza88:

Show the gun in the room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOTqRb5nvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANZhW0zxDVs

 

 

Love it! ill definitely give this a try sometimes.

Conza88:

Scott F:

any good ideas for things  i should say to challenge him on his views?

Make it personal & argument from morality.

Show the gun in the room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOTqRb5nvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANZhW0zxDVs

Molyneux portrays consequentalist arguments as relying on statistics and other historical data, which can never be mastered enough to make an ironclad argument against, for example, the welfare state.  However, Austrian economic theory alone is enough to make such an ironclad argument.  And it is much more ironclad than "the gun in the room", because most people are willing to accept double standards for the sake of widespread prosperity, but hardly anybody is willing to accept policies that they realize would result in widespread suffering.  Economic theory cannot be learned in a single podcast, but it can be learned in a year or two of determined, independent study.  For those who really want to be convincing in debate, it's totally worth it.

The Gun in the Room

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

An alternative is to claim that being mislead by your fellow man is the human condition. In the market, each individual bears the cost of his own opinions. If he foolishly believes what swindlers and counterfeiters say, he will do poorly. If he is wise, or follows the advice of benevolent experts, he does well. In other words, there is a market incentive for people to improve their functional worldviews.

Conversely, in a democracy, people do not bear the costs of their opinions. You can think all sorts of crazy stuff and it won't make a difference because only the marginal voter is pandered to during elections, and there are usually 10-30 million of those. People are more likely to have unresearched and careless opinions, enabling greater amounts of fraud.

The market isn't perfect, but it is a hellova lot better to buy products individually relying on the individual's decisions, than to buy goods collectively relying on collective wisdom.

Relevant: Walter Block's defense for the advertiser (audio).