Wouldn't it be great to have a wiki-style debate cheat sheet to guide liberty activists in their online (and off-line) debates?
E.g. Roderick's responses to ten objections: http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
In spite of the fact that debates are very dynamic, I think there is room for a guiding framework that lists the best arguments in support of the free-market and self-ownership. Where there is a controversy, we can simply list the possible alternatives and let the debaters choose for themselves. Since they are the ones debating, they would copy it and modify it as they please.
I started to devise an example of a debate, but then realized what I was doing resembled central planning. So I think trying to systematically link together the best arguments would be a bad idea. Rather, why not have the arguments available as blog-style posts in the wiki database. So whenever someone is engaged in a debate, they can search for the best arguments on a particular topic, and paste the content into their online debate, but modifying it a little to suit the context. Obviously, the editing permissions would vary in the wiki.
It really doesn't have to be a massive public work scheme, but rather, a framework of libertarian paternalism (even if that is an oxymoron).
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Category:Argumentation
That's a good starting point.
In terms of debate strategy, I think it's important to stick to a framework for efficiency. Most people don't have the time to become very familiar with Austrian economics, and it's better that they copy and paste as much as possible in their online debates. I started to form an argument on a liberal forum, but then I realized it was taking me too much time to tailor (so as not to get censored). It seems better to stick to debate forums like ODN or forums that have a debate subforum.
It's interesting that the liberal DemocraticHub forum has 27 civil rights subtopics, and only 16 subtopics for the whole of economics, and no one dares to discuss any alternative economic theories. That's why I'll always be a libertarian; because I see everyone else ignoring certain issues and explanations almost like the plague. When on a forum like this, I can discuss something like the merits of keynesianism, and not worry about being censored or offending anyone.
Ancap66:Most people don't have the time to become very familiar with Austrian economics, and it's better that they copy and paste as much as possible in their online debates.
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a438/pics56/messages/canttelliftrollingorjuststupid.jpg
Many people support the free market, but they don't know the details of why it is better (think Tea Party). Many don't have the time to become very familiar with these details. That's why they ought to copy and paste from Mises, Cato, etc, when they are debating online. Comprende.
No. Not comprende. "Nonsense." You're basically saying "people don't have time to actually learn anything, so instead they should just waste their time getting into debates they have no business being in and are ill-equipped to handle, and simply paste stuff which they haven't even read, let alone understand."
I'm sorry if you're actually being serious and actually have your heart in the right place (which I'm really not convinced is the case), but if it is, I'm sorry but that's one of the worst, most damaging, most asinine things I've ever heard.
Why in the world would you ever recommend people just copy and paste crap they don't understand? Either you're a troll, looking to waste forum members' time and mock people, or you're content with people being mindless drones, going around regurgitating canned talking points which they haven't even taken the time to understand...let alone prepare on their own. (And I'm not even agreeing that having canned talking points is a good thing.)
What's more, you make it quite obvious you yourself haven't even read the material you're suggesting people just mindlessly copy and paste, by claiming people should just grab from "Mises, Cato, etc".
Please. I beg you. Read a book.
You're basically saying "people don't have time to actually learn anything, so instead they should just waste their time getting into debates they have no business being in and are ill-equipped to handle, and simply paste stuff which they haven't even read, let alone understand."
On second thoughts, I think people have the time to spare, but not the mental oomph required to study the details of economic theories. Think of the massive Tea Party rallies, where everyone went out of their way to support the free market in principle, but didn't have a detailed understanding of how it works in practice. If they have the physical oomph needed to wave signs on the footpath, why not encourage them to copy meaningful content from Mises, Cato, etc, and paste them into online debates? Obviously, they would have to read the content in order to tailor it to the flavor of the debate.
...or you're content with people being mindless drones, going around regurgitating canned talking points which they haven't even taken the time to understand...let alone prepare on their own.
I'm in favor of that, so long as the canned talking points are very good. I want liberty in my lifetime.
Ancap66:If they have the physical oomph needed to wave signs on the footpath, why not encourage them to copy meaningful content from Mises, Cato, etc, and paste them into online debates?
So lemme get this straight. You're claiming they have all this mental ooomph to go out and carry signs, and we should try to tap into that...not by offering them good books to read, but by encouraging them to get into online debates so that they might copy and paste crap they don't even understand.
Great plan.
Obviously, they would have to read the content in order to tailor it to the flavor of the debate.
Then why don't they just read the book in the first place and forulate their own argument?
...or you're content with people being mindless drones, going around regurgitating canned talking points which they haven't even taken the time to understand...let alone prepare on their own. I'm in favor of that, so long as the canned talking points are very good. I want liberty in my lifetime.
If you honestly believe people mindlessly repeating talking points they don't even understand and essentially becoming non-thinking drones is the way to liberty, I actually feel kind of bad for you.
Interesting points -- I think that, oftentimes, the path to liberty relies on characters who don't actually exist. Ancap66 makes a good observation that there are mindless drones impeding the circumstances, and John James, you make a good point that the only way to make these mindless drones useful is to convert them into thinkers. I think the big questions are, what is the process by which one becomes passionate about an idea like liberty, and secondly, can we analyze the process in order to better the chances of more 'conversions'?
Ancap66,
Forgive me, are you saying that normal people who we can hope to convert to libertarianism will not learn much about economics, or that people arguing in favor of libertarianism will not/need not necessarily learn economics?
@JJ
"If you honestly believe people mindlessly repeating talking points they don't even understand and essentially becoming non-thinking drones is the way to liberty"
I have only ever seen a handful of "internet Austrians" who actually progressed beyond talking points, or who really had any grasp on economics or the subjects with they criticized. It's easier to just talk about the moral injustices of statism and go on about broken window fallacies with a basic criticism of extreme Keynesianism rather than really understand most doctrines which they perpetuate or the source of those which they oppose.
The fact is that the average individual, even intelligent ones are much more concerned in being right, than with having an understanding.
The most advantageous part of debating online is learning about which areas you don't understand well enough and need to study more. It also discourages learning to have a "cheat sheet". Think about what the term "cheat sheet" usually refers too. Are those "cheat sheets" good?
And, surely, you can't know you're right about everything, so having a "cheat sheet" for your beliefs won't help you correct that.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman
Ooh, nice Feynman quote.
While OP is definitely confused, I think there is something to be said for putting together a "common argument flow-chart" for the sake of better understanding how most arguments go.
For example, an argument is typically either consequential or moral. Understanding how to identify which sort of argument the opponent is trying to make (consequential versus moral) can be of great use in preventing fallacies to fly by unchallenged. Many statists make arguments of the form "here are consequential arguments for government intervention, therefore capitalism is immoral." All arguments of this form are braindead but unless you know that there is a strong tendency of statists to confuse the categories, you may not notice the problem.
Among consequential arguments, there are the "market failure", "information asymmetry", "public goods" (really another way of saying market failure), "nudge", "it's just never been done right", "inflation reduces unemployment", "climate change", "Venus Project", etc. arguments.
Among moral arguments, there are the "property is theft", "large wealth is inherently immoral", "capitalism fosters greed", and so on, arguments. I think Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies is a good resource for a lot of these fallacies.
Clayton -
Neodoxy:"If you honestly believe people mindlessly repeating talking points they don't even understand and essentially becoming non-thinking drones is the way to liberty, I actually feel kind of bad for you" I have only ever seen a handful of "internet Austrians" who actually progressed beyond talking points, or who really had any grasp on economics or the subjects with they criticized. It's easier to just talk about the moral injustices of statism and go on about broken window fallacies with a basic criticism of extreme Keynesianism rather than really understand most doctrines which they perpetuate or the source of those which they oppose. The fact is that the average individual, even intelligent ones are much more concerned in being right, than with having an understanding.
I fail to see what any of that has to do with what I said.
Are you arguing that people mindlessly repeating talking points they don't even understand and essentially becoming non-thinking drones is the way to liberty?
"I fail to see what any of that has to do with what I said. "
I'm saying that many of the most successful champions of liberty in our day, and probably the most successful champions of every doctrine ever, have often been those who, even if they are not drones, definitely have drone-like qualities to them.
"Are you arguing that people mindlessly repeating talking points they don't even understand and essentially becoming non-thinking drones is the way to liberty?"
There is no SINGLE way towards liberty, or to most goals, but certainly it is a way to get there. If the talking points are convincing to the masses and the message is effectively spread then the battle is inevitably won the same as if everyone say down, read, and fully understood Human Action. The difference between these things is that one is much more likely than the other... There's more than one reason that democracy doesn't work, James.
So you actually a believe liberty can be achieved not by people understanding it but by simply regurgitating talking points that have been crafted for them...like puppets.
And you believe that the masses will be able to show a level of interest, intellectual rigor, and comprehension which is utterly unrivaled in all of human history? If this were realistically achievable then democracy would be a powerful enough force to achieve optimal results, but the fact is that there are very few who are capable of this, and therefore a system like democracy is bound to fail, as is any system which relies upon normal people to act like the most astute of scholars.
In answer to your question, the answer is more or less, yes. If the ideals are compelling and the arguments learned or accepted by the masses and are effective then how couldn't it be?
I'd also like to throw out there that I'm not implying that they don't necessarily have a general understanding of what they're talking about, but rather that they do not have an extremely deep or inquistive understanding of what they're talking about. There's a difference between being able to do basic math and really understanding the apriori nature of mathematics and the extent of its implications
Neodoxy:And you believe that the masses will be able to show a level of interest, intellectual rigor, and comprehension which is utterly unrivaled in all of human history? If this were realistically achievable then democracy would be a powerful enough force to achieve optimal results, but the fact is that there are very few who are capable of this, and therefore a system like democracy is bound to fail, as is any system which relies upon normal people to act like the most astute of scholars.
Wha? Nice straw man, but I'll reiterate what I said, and anyone who is actually interested in being intellectually honest can decide if your characterization is anywhere near accurate.
"If you honestly believe people mindlessly repeating talking points they don't even understand and essentially becoming non-thinking drones is the way to liberty, I actually feel kind of bad for you."
Where in the world did you get "learned or accepted" from "copy and paste like mindless drones"?
Neodoxy:I'd also like to throw out there that I'm not implying that they don't necessarily have a general understanding of what they're talking about, but rather that they do not have an extremely deep or inquistive understanding of what they're talking about.
If they have a general understanding of what they're talking about then they should be just fine in formulating their own arguments and defending their positions themselves. The entire point of the OP was to speak to the notion that there are people who believe in "liberty" apparently, but have no fricking clue why they believe it, or even what it really is, or why and how it works...so they have no way to defend it...so what is needed is for people who actually have taken a little time to read a book or two and learn something to create and build boilerplate arguments for these ignoramuses who blindly follow an ideology for god knows what reason, so that they might have something to put in their facebook comment section when someone trash talks the youtube video they posted.
I'm sorry if I don't find perpetuating and encouraging blind faith and regurgitation of pre-formulated statements to be a very likely recipe for liberty. To me it sounds more like a prescription that Kim Jong-Il would prefer.
And tell me...just what makes you think people who are actually opposed to free market positions would even take the time to seriously read these canned arguments (let alone be convinced by them) when the people who supposedly already agree with them don't have the time to actually learn enough to formulate their own arguments?
You're banking that while the people who supposedly support liberty don't have a minute to spare to read a single article—or, god forbid, determine why they believe what they do—the people who are against such sentiments will not only actually read these pre-packaged statements, but will be active-minded enough to think for themselves and come to new conclusions...offered to them by mindless robots.
Okie dokie.
"Wha? Nice straw man, but I'll reiterate what I said, and anyone who is actually interested in being intellectually honest can decide if your characterization is anywhere near accurate."
It's little different than what you're attempting to do to what I'm saying.
It's not mindless, and they do understand, their understanding is simply rudimentary and basic, following much more from basic logic, assumptions, and simplification rather than a true deep understanding. If you believe that this is not an accurate description of most of the fine "warriors of liberty" then you're deluded. The fact is that if you talk to most "internet Austrians" then you can probably pinpoint at least 8 different arguments or chains of reasoning which they will make.
"Where in the world did you get "learned or accepted" from "copy and paste like mindless drones"?"
Sorry that was a typo. It was supposed to read "learned are accepted", as in if the arguments which the group is propagating are accepted by the masses, then the battle is inevitably won. Even if these arguments are simply copy and pasted.
"If they have a general understanding of what they're talking about then they should be just fine in formulating their own arguments and defending their positions themselves. "
The average Austrian could scarcely stand against the average neo-classical who actually had a good grasp of what he was talking about. The fact is though that Austrianism has indeed manifested itself with a compelling, somewhat populistic, and indeed inherently anti-statist argument-based ideology, the closest thing which has ever exist to this was Marxism. A much more in depth understanding is necessary for a really suitable formation of an opinion. At any rate, once again the fact is that an understanding of a few arguments and basic concepts is not the same as a real and in-depth understanding. The former is relatively common, the latter, not so much. Basic Austrian theory like the information in Economics in One Lesson could be taught to a child without too much difficulty, the same cannot be said of human action.
"The entire point of the OP was to speak to the notion that there are people who believe in "liberty" apparently, but have no fricking clue why they believe it, or even what it really is, or why and how it works...so they have no way to defend it...so what is needed is for people who actually have taken a little time to read a book or two and learn something to create and build boilerplate arguments for these ignoramuses who blindly follow an ideology for god knows what reason, so that they might have something to put in their facebook comment section when someone trash talks the youtube video they posted."
Reading a book or two is still not the same as having a thorough understanding... If it was then those liberals who read Chomsky and Klein would be god damn geniuses and our discussion wouldn't be taking place because I'd be off punching a capitalist somewhere. I am not arguing that people should or do not have any clue what they are talking about, merely that they don't have much of an in-depth understanding of the matters which they talk about.
"I'm sorry if I don't find perpetuating and encouraging blind faith and regurgitation of pre-formulated statements to be a very likely recipe for liberty. To me it sounds more like a prescription that Kim Jong-Il would prefer."
Replace statements for arguments and I think you'll find that's in large part what this website has done. It doesn't matter who would have proposed what, the fact is that if something works then it works. An enslaved mind can still support liberty, though this is not directly what either of us are talking about.
"And tell me...just what makes you think people who are actually opposed to free market positions would even take the time to seriously read these canned arguments (let alone be convinced by them) when the people who supposedly already agree with them don't have the time to actually learn enough to formulate their own arguments?"
"You're banking that while the people who supposedly support liberty don't have a minute to spare to read a single article—or, god forbid, determine why they believe what they do"
Not at all. I'm relying upon a basic understanding based upon reasons which, although still sub-optimal, put the normal way political opinions are formed to absolute shame. Usually this does indeed involve reading articles, or some books. They can usually define quite clearly why they believe what they believe, although it usually wreaks much more thoroughly of a doctrine embraced rather than a conclusion reached. For instance, I remember when I first became a libertarian I watched a good number of relavent youtube videos, read "For a New Liberty" and "Economics for real people", and read a dozen or so Mises dailies and I thought I was the shit. Years later my conception and support of libertarianism doesn't even resemble what it originally did and I'm still filling in and expanding my understanding of the relevant subject areas.
"the people who are against such sentiments will not only actually read these pre-packaged statements, but will be active-minded enough to think for themselves and come to new conclusions...offered to them by mindless robots."
Yea... Not being willing to read several thousand pages and have a huge amount of intellectual rigor is different than being willing to read some basic arguments which make you think or which are effective.
Neodoxy:It's little different than what you're attempting to do to what I'm saying.
I'm not attempting to do anything to what you're saying. I'm responding to the OP, and for your statements I simply asked if certain things were what you were actually sayng. (And you responded "the answer is more or less, yes")
So I don't see how you can claim I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying, as (1) I simply asked if I had it right, and (2) you said I did have it right.
It's not mindless, and they do understand, their understanding is simply rudimentary and basic, following much more from basic logic, assumptions, and simplification rather than a true deep understanding. If you believe that this is not an accurate description of most of the fine "warriors of liberty" then you're deluded.
Again, did I say that? I'm talking about whoever these people are that cannot forumlate any arguments of their own and need entire pre-formulated debates so that they don't even have to really originate a thought or response of their own, but instead might just copy and paste what someone else has—as the OP wishes—written for them.
Neodoxy:The fact is that if you talk to most "internet Austrians" then you can probably pinpoint at least 8 different arguments or chains of reasoning which they will make.
Then obviously "most Internet Austrains" aren't the people the OP is talking about, are they? Because what you just described sounds like people who can formulate their own arguments. This guy is specifically asking for a "cheat sheet" for "people who support the free market" but "don't know why it is better", and evidently would be better off just "copy pasting from Mises and Cato, etc."...and then offers the Tea Party as an example.
Plenty of "Internet Austrians" I've come into contact with have many problems with the Tea Party and would prefer not to be lumped in with that group.
So it sounds to me like you're defending something that isn't even being attacked here. And what's more, if you think "copy pasting from Mises and Cato, etc." is the kind of plan that is useful, I'm not sure what to say.
The average Austrian could scarcely stand against the average neo-classical who actually had a good grasp of what he was talking about.
Then perhaps the average Austrian needs to either:
a) at least learn what the—to borrow the Good Will Hunting phrase—"right fucking books" are so that he might refer them to such opponents (or god forbid read a few himself)
or
b) not get into such confrontations
Neodoxy:At any rate, once again the fact is that an understanding of a few arguments and basic concepts is not the same as a real and in-depth understanding.
I have no idea why you keep saying this. I've never even suggested such things were the same.
Reading a book or two is still not the same as having a thorough understanding...
Ah, but it might at least provide enough of a rudimentary understanding that one could formulate his own argument...and god forbid might actually be enticed to read and study more so that one might gain such a "thorough understanding" at some point.
And if not, would at least provide a resource to draw on/refer an opponent to...thus again, eliminating the need for him to be a simple parrot.
I am not arguing that people should or do not have any clue what they are talking about, merely that they don't have much of an in-depth understanding of the matters which they talk about.
Okay. And?
Replace statements for arguments and I think you'll find that's in large part what this website has done.
You'll have to explain that.
It doesn't matter who would have proposed what, the fact is that if something works then it works.
An enslaved mind can still support liberty, though this is not directly what either of us are talking about.
...meaning you're a believer in and are fine with "liberty through enslavement". Okaaay.
Neodoxy:Because the arguments are generally convincing.
I ask you why people who are actually opposed to free market positions would even take the time to seriously read these canned arguments, and your answer is "Because the arguments are generally convincing."
Well that clears everything up for me...
The moral arguments for free markets, the populist arguments of the government hampering "what we free people can do" or something of the like, are both prime examples of exceedingly effective arguments that are superbly lacking in real justification. As for statists who have actually in some way come to their own conclusions through something other than the usual passive acceptance, then they're usually out of reach anyway, and they're the prime cases of people who would find something wrong in these "cut/copy" arguments, which is what the arguments usually come down to, because that basic understanding leads to very similar arguments.
I remember when I first became a libertarian I watched a good number of relavent youtube videos, read "For a New Liberty" and "Economics for real people", and read a dozen or so Mises dailies and I thought I was the shit. Years later my conception and support of libertarianism doesn't even resemble what it originally did and I'm still filling in and expanding my understanding of the relevant subject areas.
How is your conception and support different?
Just so we're clear:
John James:You're banking that while the people who supposedly support liberty don't have a minute to spare to read a single article—or, god forbid, determine why they believe what they do—the people who are against such sentiments will not only actually read these pre-packaged statements, but will be active-minded enough to think for themselves and come to new conclusions...offered to them by mindless robots.
Neodoxy:Yea...
(I left out the last part of your sentence because it's irrelevant. I never said anything about reading thousands of pages or anything of the sort. My question to you was simply that you're banking on the idea that people who have no interest in and no support for a free market position will read arguments offered to them by people who supposedly support such positions but don't even have the time to read said arguments themselves. And your answer was "yea.")
This thread is a great example of why we shouldn't bother debating about collaboration, and just get stuck into it.
Let's assume that I was "confused" when I started this thread, and that this is what I am suggesting as of now:
It takes a lot of time and energy to form a debate argument. Most people don't want to spend that time and energy forming debate arguments. So let's collaborate to form the SAME debate argument and save ourselves an enormous amount of time and energy.
I spent about an hour forming an argument against the Federal Reserve, that I was going to post on a liberal forum. Then I realized I would have to spend another hour crafting every response. Changing society at the individual level is a black hole that can end up draining your life.
What would be great is if we each spent about 15 minutes composing the same argument, e.g:
The "How Many Men?" Argument (1) Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights. Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup. Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote against them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing? Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing? Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing? Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing? How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million? How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?
We can do the same thing for consequentialist arguments on the Mises Wiki.
"I'm not attempting to do anything to what you're saying. I'm responding to the OP, and for your statements I simply asked if certain things where what you were actually sayng. (And you responded "the answer is more or less, yes")"
Then correct where I am going wrong in understanding you. Half of our disagreement here has arisen from the fact that we have different conceptions of drone-like or puppet like, mine being much broader than yours. What you are proposing seems drone like to me, in that it is more or less the copying of arguments which other people have made wihout a true understanding of the matter and only a basic understanding seems generally drone like in my book which is one of the first things that I said
"even if they are not drones, definitely have drone-like qualities to them."
"Again, did I say that? I'm talking about whoever these people are that cannot forumlate any arguments of their own and need entire pre-formulated debates so that they don't even have to really originate a thought or response of their own, but instead might just might copy and paste what someone else has—as the OP wishes—written for them."
I'm not. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
"Then obviously "most Interent Austrains" aren't the people the OP is talking about, are they? Because what you just described sounds like people who can formulate their own arguments. This guy is specifically asking for a "cheat sheet" for "people who support the free market" but "don't know why it is better", and evidently would be better off just "copy pasting from Mises and Cato, etc."...and then offers the Tea Party as an example."
Because that's about what I believe makes someone a truly independent thinker.
"I ask you why people who are actually opposed to free market positions would even take the time to seriously read these canned arguments, and your answer is "Because the arguments are generally convincing."
Well that clears everything up for me..."
I was specifically responding to why they would be convinced. At any rate, the fact is that if anyone looks into the subject or gets into an argument then it's convincing no matter who is saying it. Getting into arguments/ showing an interest is why people would be exposed to these arguments
"How is your conception and support different?"
In just about every way. My understanding of the individual and society is infinitely more complex and my conception of morality is unrecognizable from my vague ideas back in the day. I could go through a list, but I see that s unimportant.
"(I left out the last part of your sentence because it's irrelevant. I never said anything about reading thousands of pages or anything of the sort. My question to you was simply that you're banking on the idea that people who have no interest in and no support for a free market position will read arguments offered to them by people who supposedly support such positions but don't even have the time to read said arguments themselves. And your answer was "yea.")"
Once again the source of dispute comes from the idea of what defines a truly educated and un-robotic opinion. I consider that a huge amount of intellectual rigor is required to really form an independent opinion and not be a mouthpiece for someone's ideology or beliefs. You obviously do not hold this same criteria. The yea was also entirely rhetorical, I was under the impression that was obvious
Neodoxy it would be easier to follow your posts (and therefore respond) if you would use the quote functionality. Wading through the different font texts with quote punctuationa and then not quote punctuation, and spacing with no seeming uniformity is becoming too bothersome. I'll respond to the things that stuck out most.
Neodoxy:I was specifically responding to why they would be convinced.
I didn't ask how they would be convinced. I specifically asked "just what makes you think people who are actually opposed to free market positions would even take the time to seriously read these canned arguments (let alone be convinced by them)..."
And your response was "because they are convincing."
I hope you can see the lack of sense in this response.
If you'd be willing, I'd be really interested to read it.
I usually don't use the quotation function out of convenience on my end because I don't particularly like using it.
John James: I didn't ask how they would be convinced. I specifically asked "just what makes you think people who are actually opposed to free market positions would even take the time to seriously read these canned arguments (let alone be convinced by them)..." And your response was "because they are convincing." I hope you can see the lack of sense in this response.
I was originally responding to the underlined portion. I thought what I didn't respond to in my last post was implied by this: If the arguments are good ones and phrased in a vaguely eloquent manner then why wouldn't people take time to read them? Just because something is not independently researched does not mean that they aren't effective arguments in and of themselves.
Taken to PM. We've gotten off-topic enough as it is.