How do I/we win an argument? (eg: Why would we be better off without Government)

Hi

Someone had to ask ths!

So, how do I/we win an argument?

Here are some of the questions (and follow up questions asked);

• In reply to "We would be better off without government"

1. No we wouldn't, you're an idiot
2. Yes, but what about Law and order?
3. But what about the poor people?
4. Yeah, but then I could just kill you
5. (The list goes on)

I've tried answering them myself, and they make perfect sense to me, yet I am still unable to convince whoever I am having an argument with.

So, how do I convince them? How do I win the argument without doubt?

Please reply

Thanks in advance,

Panarchy

Well, the simple way in my mind is to make compromise.

Quick answers:

1...

2: We probably do need some sort of police, otherwise there would be havoc because people would be scared.

3: Personal Responsibility, if you care that much take the 35% the gov't no longer takes and donate it.

4: Grow up

 

My ideas, we need some government, eg: military, some police, fire, ambulance, hostpitals.  Is what we have too much?  For sure.

Also, the change would be so drastic for most people.  I say we could easily trim sayu, at least $1Trillion from USA Fed budget annually, for example.

Just explain to them that they are better off spending and dooling out their money then their dumb-a** legislators.

Panarchy:

I've tried answering them myself, and they make perfect sense to me, yet I am still unable to convince whoever I am having an argument with.

The goal is to develop systematic, timeless arguments that address every concern and answer every objection. As a general rule, I believe that you don't count as refuting someone unless they agree with you.

If you can't convince someone, try to understand their premises and arguments, i.e. understand the reasons why they believe in their position. See things from their perspective. Once you understand the premises and arguments they use to justify their position, you can begin destroying it.

And the key to doing that is: Read, read, read!

^Hahahaha, I like your sentence "Once you understand the premises and arguments they use to justify their position, you can begin destroying it."

I know a need to read a lot more then I have (my brother has a nice library of books), but there's one thing stopping me. TIME

I'm just to busy with so many other things I have on, studying, creating my linux distribution, studying some more, learning, adding to my knowledge... meeting ppl...

Maybe in a year or two I'll have the time to read these kind of things.... but not now!

kylepeabody:

Well, the simple way in my mind is to make compromise.

Quick answers:

1...

2: We probably do need some sort of police, otherwise there would be havoc because people would be scared.

3: Personal Responsibility, if you care that much take the 35% the gov't no longer takes and donate it.

4: Grow up

 

My ideas, we need some government, eg: military, some police, fire, ambulance, hostpitals.  Is what we have too much?  For sure.

Also, the change would be so drastic for most people.  I say we could easily trim sayu, at least $1Trillion from USA Fed budget annually, for example.

Just explain to them that they are better off spending and dooling out their money then their dumb-a** legislators.

Thanks

$1 Trillion on Sayu? What's Sayu? (sorry, I'm not american, so I don't know about it)

Panarchy

you have to assert and then defend and eventually convince people of a few important concepts that apply to all of these before you can ever convince them of specifics.

1. monopolies are bad, competition always breeds better customer service. (justice and order are too important to be monopolized)

2. it sucks that we have unproductive people in our society, but the alternative to leaving them to their own devices is literally stealing other people's labor at gunpoint. (poor people would have more opportunity to be productive in a free market anyway)

3. that leads directly to private property.  private property is the basis for a peaceful society.  In a society where the ownership of things is not clearly defined there will always be conflict over unequal use. (only crazy people will kill in an environment where there is no profit in killing)

i'm a bit tired so I can't think of more.  But if you can get them sold on those ideas (and you have to start off gently with a lot of people) you're *well* on your way to them at least being curious enough to investigate libertarianism.

Panarchy:

Hi

Someone had to ask ths!

So, how do I/we win an argument?

Here are some of the questions (and follow up questions asked);

• In reply to "We would be better off without government"

1. No we wouldn't, you're an idiot
2. Yes, but what about Law and order?
3. But what about the poor people?
4. Yeah, but then I could just kill you
5. (The list goes on)

I've tried answering them myself, and they make perfect sense to me, yet I am still unable to convince whoever I am having an argument with.

So, how do I convince them? How do I win the argument without doubt?

Please reply

Thanks in advance,

Panarchy

If you attempt to convert everybody you're going to waste time. Relying on mass enlightenment is a silly idea. Those susceptible to libertarianism will be converted and nobody else. If somebody shows a strong reaction against libertarianism you won't convert them, unless they seem to be open to the ideas don't even bother. Refine your own views, and if you want to help bring liberty there are other ways about it.

nazgulnarsil:

you have to assert and then defend and eventually convince people of a few important concepts that apply to all of these before you can ever convince them of specifics.

1. monopolies are bad, competition always breeds better customer service. (justice and order are too important to be monopolized)

2. it sucks that we have unproductive people in our society, but the alternative to leaving them to their own devices is literally stealing other people's labor at gunpoint. (poor people would have more opportunity to be productive in a free market anyway)

3. that leads directly to private property.  private property is the basis for a peaceful society.  In a society where the ownership of things is not clearly defined there will always be conflict over unequal use. (only crazy people will kill in an environment where there is no profit in killing)

i'm a bit tired so I can't think of more.  But if you can get them sold on those ideas (and you have to start off gently with a lot of people) you're *well* on your way to them at least being curious enough to investigate libertarianism.

1. Monopolies are good, if they're gotten rightly, and aren't a forced monopoly (eg Microsoft had a monopoly, but now Linux is gaining some ground)

2. I agree with some of what you say, however miser's aren't bad. (I remember reading about this sort of thing in an article here, might've been this one

3. Agree with that entirely.

Okay!

Panarchy

GilesStratton:

Panarchy:

Hi

Someone had to ask ths!

So, how do I/we win an argument?

Here are some of the questions (and follow up questions asked);

• In reply to "We would be better off without government"

1. No we wouldn't, you're an idiot
2. Yes, but what about Law and order?
3. But what about the poor people?
4. Yeah, but then I could just kill you
5. (The list goes on)

I've tried answering them myself, and they make perfect sense to me, yet I am still unable to convince whoever I am having an argument with.

So, how do I convince them? How do I win the argument without doubt?

Please reply

Thanks in advance,

Panarchy

If you attempt to convert everybody you're going to waste time. Relying on mass enlightenment is a silly idea. Those susceptible to libertarianism will be converted and nobody else. If somebody shows a strong reaction against libertarianism you won't convert them, unless they seem to be open to the ideas don't even bother. Refine your own views, and if you want to help bring liberty there are other ways about it.

Perhaps it'll be possible to have mass enlightenment if I target the young. So if I can convince them, we'll eventually have mass enlightemnet. As the younger they are, the more likely they'll be open to ideas.

Panarchy

GilesStratton:

If you attempt to convert everybody you're going to waste time. Relying on mass enlightenment is a silly idea. Those susceptible to libertarianism will be converted and nobody else. If somebody shows a strong reaction against libertarianism you won't convert them, unless they seem to be open to the ideas don't even bother. Refine your own views, and if you want to help bring liberty there are other ways about it.

I'd call that a general libertarian fallacy. We claim that our ideas are based on rational deduction (which they are), and then we claim that humans are capable of acting as rational beings. So, either we are wrong with one of our premises, or a large portion of mankind simply refuses to act in a rational fashion even though they could which makes premise 2 at least questionable.

Look, if you'd talked to me 2 years ago, you'd have dismissed me as a typical pro-state socialist troll. And rightly so. I trolled a lot. One year ago, even though I'd heard all the arguments by Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, the Mises Institute and many others, I was still a state troll, albeit not a socialist one anymore. Only recently did I summon the courage to take my positions to their logical ends.

It takes time for humans to make these fundamental shifts in their premises, especially if they're of the elderly kind. You can go to a friend's house and make the perfect logical case for market anarchy, but it won't fly. Ideology corrections, like correction processes in the market, take their time. Don't expect it to happen too fast.

Thanks, couldn't agree more.

I don't expect it to happen too fast, but we gotta start somewhere. And let's say I'm able to convince 2 out of 10 people that I talk to...

Eventually we'll have 20% of the population on our side. That should be enough.

The only difficulty would be in convincing [at least] 2 out of 10 people.

Panarchy

Sphairon:

I'd call that a general libertarian fallacy. We claim that our ideas are based on rational deduction (which they are), and then we claim that humans are capable of acting as rational beings. So, either we are wrong with one of our premises, or a large portion of mankind simply refuses to act in a rational fashion even though they could which makes premise 2 at least questionable.

We claim that mankind can use reason to acheive their ends. Not that they'll always be correct, nor that their ends and what we would advocate and finally not that they can follow long lines of deductive reasoning. If we did claim all of these things we'd have to admit that mankind was somewhat perfect, we don't.

Sphairon:

It takes time for humans to make these fundamental shifts in their premises, especially if they're of the elderly kind. You can go to a friend's house and make the perfect logical case for market anarchy, but it won't fly. Ideology corrections, like correction processes in the market, take their time. Don't expect it to happen too fast.

And? Even if that were true, resources are scarce, most importantly time, it makes no sense to waste these resources acheiving ends that in the end won't count anyway. In any case I doubt your argument is correct, not everybody is capable of following the reasoning necessary to understand libertarianism, much less act upon some NAP instead of their own welfare.

Panarchy:

Perhaps it'll be possible to have mass enlightenment if I target the young. So if I can convince them, we'll eventually have mass enlightemnet. As the younger they are, the more likely they'll be open to ideas.

So your idea is to try and convince the people least capable of following difficult lines of reasoning, least able to afford the material to understand libertarianism, are the least interest and are least capable of acting upon these beliefs? You're going to get very far with that one.

1) "No we wouldn't, you're an idiot."
     This response is simple immaturity at best. Frankly put, you are not going to convince this person. If they already have libertarian leanings, e.g. strong belief in property rights et cetera, then they may eventually convert themselves. No amount of arguing on your part however will do it. If, on the other hand, they have strong statist or socialist leanings, then no amount of arguing, self research, or anything will ever convince this kind of person, except open, obvious, and personal betrayal by the State. They are a zealot who looks down on anyone not "enlightened" as they are. There is no convincing them.

2) "Yes, but what about Law and order?"
     What about it? The state has thus far done a piss poor job at providing it. Look around you. We have a mafia that exercises more power than the state, and often itself uses the state to accomplish its ends. That is just one example. The most effective way of providing law and order would be via a privately run system which operates to please a customer base such as:
     * Police: privately owned and operated, it is paid for via an insurance program. Your health insurance would pay the necessary fees for providing police protection as well as fire and rescue services, with risk assessed individually based on where you live, the activities you engage in, et cetera. Alternatively - should you not desiere overall health insurance, but police protection only - you could by a "personal safety insurance." Not only does this place you in a direct customer-business relationship with police, making them bound to protect and serve you directly; but, also it eliminates the current view that the State has that "police are there to enforce the law and to ensure overall community safety, not to protect individuals" as the law currently contends. (For evidence of that - at least in the US - you can view a myriad of court decisions.)
     * Courts: a system operating like in the Heinlein novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Both parties upon entering the privately-operated court agree on a fee which both are capable of paying. They then both pay the same amount. If it turns out that a judge is "for sale", information regarding his nature will quickly spread and people would stop buying his services - if they don't just kill him outright. Since both parties agree on and pay the same fee, and since the case is heard immediately, all evidence presented, and the decision made swiftly this eliminates the problem of "justice to the highest bidder." Furthermore, this also eliminates the current courtroom connundrum where more often than not a persons prior criminal history speaks louder than the truth of the present circumstances. Go find out how often a person in todays court system is convicted not on the acual evidence and circumstances surrounding the case, but simply on the basis that "well, they've done something like this before." Furthermore, a privatized system eliminates the monopolization of the courtroom by special interests such as the American Bar Association, and allows the person to select whatever legal council they desire, and not just a lawyer who is "certified" (read, whose monopolization of services is legitimized) by the State.
     * Punishment, where applicable: assuming the above court issues a "guilty" verdict, both sides may be allowed to issue their contention for sentencing. This allows the individuals harmed, and the individual who did the harming to both be served and allows that the victims will get the justice that they desire. This totally eliminates the system we have now which either tramples the human rights of victims in order to "reform the violator" or which tramples the human rights of the violators in order to "protect the victim." It allows them to meet on equal ground, and it allows the victim to feel like justice has been done. If the objection of "well, what about inhumane punishments" comes up, then you have three responses you can follow: either a) well, the act the violator committed was no more humane, so why should they receive better treatment than their victims; b) it's a privately runned system, therefore if enough peole feel that the court acts inhumanely, then people will cease patronizing it and it will go out of business; or, c) some combination of the above.
     * Appeals: it may be pointed out that "well, first judges aren't always right, so what about appeals?" The response is simple. If a person feels that the guilty verdict wrongs them, and that the judge did not hear the entire case, then they would - since it is a private system - be able to demand that the case be re-heard elsewhere. This creates an appeal structure without the messy hierarchy and judicial activism inherent in appeals today.
     * Juries: it may also be pointed out that "a jury system is more just, so what about juries?" First off, one should immediately point out that there is nothing inherently better about a jury system. Our jury system still spits out junk verdicts based off of sometimes downright false evidence. Secondly, if one feels that a jury system is more just or better, then that creates a demand for a jury system. I'm certain that they would be able to find some form of supply in the form of either a board of multiple judges, or an actual jury as we think of it today. It wouldn't look like our current "petition the people" type of jury that gives us really bad services today, but rather a person would more likely be judged by people with similar experiences to their own. They would be able to petition, for instance, carpenters for a carpenter or soldiers to try a soldier, rather than our current system which has soldiers trying carpenters and carpenters judging the actions of soldiers. Frankly, neither has the experience of the other, neither has the knowledge to make an educated decision on the case of the other, so therefore neither really has any business on a jury of the other.

3) Poor people are always and have always been better served either by religions or private-sector charities. The State often shows favoritism in the granting of welfare, and is often subject to equal opportunity quotas that the private sector (and religion) is  not subject to. The State, furthermore, to pay for any kind of system of charity to the poor must do so through the immoral act of forcing someone else to give up their economic needs to satisfy the needs of the "poor." Also, to be able to give to the poor, the State must inherently invent a blanket definition of who is poor and who is not, which tends to result in the current fallacy in the United States that anyone making over $40000/year is wealthy! Finally, stemming from the fact that it must invent definitions to be able to act, the State is incapable of acting on an individual basis and must always act on large scale. This prevents the genuinely needy from getting what they need and oftentimes results in the nonindustrious getting favorable treatment.

4) This is just an immature response, to which I respond simply: "no, you could try, but then - assuming you survive the encounter - you would have to take it up with my private insurance company, and you can bet that anyone capable of protecting me would be a whole lot meaner than I am." I realize that response is a touch immature, but I really need to get going. I'll give you a better way of dealing with it later, since I actually have successfully done so. :p

Updating on point 4, there is nothing in a Statist society that really prevents one person from murdering another. It happens all the time, and murder - even in Statist society - is even done professionally on a for hire basis. So, what genuinely stops murders from happening. Obviously, the Sate and fear of punishment are not the answer, since many societies that had - often greusome - public executions have had higher estimated crime rates than even the United States today. So, there must be another answer. I, personally, think that the answer lies in either fear of retribution, fear of the potential victim, or in innate recognition that murder is wrong.
* Fear of Retribution: so long as there is some structure - legal or otherwise - by which a murder victim is avenged, some (albeit small) portion of would-be murderers will be too afraid to commit the act. They fear either vengance from family members, or pursuit by some entity of justice. In a stateless society, it is most certain that a person will - through willing associations - have some kind of agreement with their life insurance company that pusuant to their death, an investigation will be undertaken which will decide 1) if the death was by natural causes, and 2) if not, then whodunnit. Furthermore, in being forced to pay out their assets for an unnatural death, I'm certain that the life insurance company will have some motivation for getting their money back in the very least, if not open retaliation to discourage future, similar acts. Also, through willing associations, it is possible that I would develop a string of connections with friends and family members that contingent upon an unnatural death on my part, retribution will be sought. Retribution does not require a State, and indeed all too often the State merely gets in the way of proper retribution.
* Fear of the Person: so long as there is a State which prevents people from defending themselves, there will always be a (near endless) supply of hapless victims. However, in a stateless society where people are free to defend themselves, this pool of victims becomes severely constricted. People first off have better access to privatized security personnell interested in their protection. Secondly, people have more incentive to protect themselves as they are no longer indoctrinated to believe that the State exists to protect them. Criminals fear when people stand up to defend themselves, because it creates a situation they cannot predict...it makes the crime not easy, and therefore less likely to be pursued. Furthermore, in a society where people are free to protect themselves at will from perceived threats, capable people are no longer merely another person they're free to pick on, but become open threats to the life and limb of the criminal. If everyone is disarmed and their right to self-defense negated, then a criminal is free to attack the  guy who has arms as big as my legs and a mile-wide vicious mean streak. If, however, that same person is free to defend themselves, then the criminal has no incentive to pursue them...after all, to do so would be to risk life and limb for uncertain returns.
* Innate Recognition that Murder is Wrong: this works especially well if the person has openly espoused "killing of any form is wrong" opinions. You can simply ask them what prevents them from killing you right here, right now. If they reply, "the justice system," just tell them flat-out that their answer is BS and continue pressing them. Eventually, you will get the response of, "well, it's just something you just don't do." There's no reason why - I think it stems form innate recognition of property rights, personally - but for some reason, a vast bulk of people seem to innately recognize that to take the life another person is inherently wrong unless done in the interest of self-protection, or the protection of others from immediate danger of life or limb. It's just one of those things you don't do to most people. The person will eventually have to resort to the "some psychopath" or "some sociopath" excuse, however that excuse fails in that most psycho/sociopaths go through their entire lives without ever hurting anyone, Also it should be readily pointed out that those psycho/sociopaths who are going to commit a murder, are going to do so regardless of whether there is a state or not. If someone believes that it is okay to kill people under a given circumstance - warfare, self-defense, in the way, money, what have you - then when put in a circumstance where the moral acceptablity is met and it is rational for them to do so, then they will kill the other person. Whether or not there is a State to tell them, "no no" is totally irrelevent. They will do it anyway. To believe that the State, by some magic spell, makes people not kill each other is nothing short of ignorance - I say ignorance because ignorance implies ignoring of the facts as opposed to just not knowing of them.

We claim that mankind can use reason to acheive their ends. Not that they'll always be correct, nor that their ends and what we would advocate and finally not that they can follow long lines of deductive reasoning. If we did claim all of these things we'd have to admit that mankind was somewhat perfect, we don't.

Doesn't that degrade a vast proportion of humanity to the status of brutes?


And? Even if that were true, resources are scarce, most importantly time, it makes no sense to waste these resources acheiving ends that in the end won't count anyway. In any case I doubt your argument is correct, not everybody is capable of following the reasoning necessary to understand libertarianism, much less act upon some NAP instead of their own welfare.

And how can we decide from a distance who will be most appreciative of our ideas? Obviously, we'd have to talk to all of them. Just targeting rich businessmen will not suffice - see James Taggart.

Again, if a sufficient number of people are unable to pursue the NAP, where do you draw the line between man and brute?

Doesn't that degrade a vast proportion of humanity to the status of brutes?

How so? He never said most men are incapable of reason.

How so? He never said most men are incapable of reason.

He said we don't claim that man is capable of following long lines of reasoning. But since we're constructing these lines of reasoning ourselves when debating in the forums, and voluntarily follow them when reading Mises or Rothbard, it implies that we're somehow superior to the many ignorami who continue to hold a flawed view of economics and government despite of our best efforts.

Animals can follow short lines of reasoning. I'm hungry + I'll find food in my bowl = I'll head for the bowl. Claiming that it's not sure whether humans are capable of following long lines of reasoning basically assumes that humans might as well be limited to short lines of reasoning or, in other words, that humans think and act as brutes.

 

Hmm I'd amend what he said and say most are simply not willing to follow such lines of reasoning, rather than being incapable.

That's more probable, but still sheds a fairly bad light on our fellow men.

No, IMO it just sheds bad light on the education/habituation they've received (man being somewhat malleable.) A bad education is enough to create a high time preference and disregard for long (but necessary) chains of reasoning. I can't think of anything a state would like more, sort of like a psychopathic parent that never wants its children to grow up and always be dependent on it, with a slight tinge of depravity since it parasitizes off them anyway.

Jon Irenicus:

No, IMO it just sheds bad light on the education/habituation they've received (man being somewhat malleable.) A bad education is enough to create a high time preference and disregard for long (but necessary) chains of reasoning. I can't think of anything a state would like more, sort of like a psychopathic parent that never wants its children to grow up and always be dependent on it, with a slight tinge of depravity since it parasitizes off them anyway.

I don't know if I have ever heard it described so...poetically.  That is awesome.

Sphairon:

Doesn't that degrade a vast proportion of humanity to the status of brutes?

The vast majority of humanity currently endorses large scale theft, so, would you disagree?

Sphairon:

And how can we decide from a distance who will be most appreciative of our ideas?

Those who come to us to know who will be appreciate to our idea. In any case, Ron Paul (and others like him), will be more successful as this sort of thing than you. Not that we can purely rely on that approach, but that doesn't mean the two don't complement one another.

Sphairon:

Again, if a sufficient number of people are unable to pursue the NAP,

Leave it to economic incentives as opposed to philosophy to acheive this.

The vast majority of humanity currently endorses large scale theft, so, would you disagree?

In their defense one might say that taxation is generally not being recognized as theft, and war not as murder etc. State indoctrination in every field of society sure shows some effect.

I would agree with your other points.

You all seem like some pretty smart guys.  Why don't you write your ideas in the wiki I started?

http://mises.org/Community/wikis/debate/myths-about-market-anarchy.aspx

I'm starting to think I botched it (like I sound like some kind of violent conspiracy wacko, which I'm not).  Rewrite the whole thing, if you want.  And be sure to address the popular myths (government keeps the peace, democracy tames government, property could not exist without government.)

Sphairon:

I'd call that a general libertarian fallacy. We claim that our ideas are based on rational deduction (which they are), and then we claim that humans are capable of acting as rational beings. So, either we are wrong with one of our premises, or a large portion of mankind simply refuses to act in a rational fashion even though they could which makes premise 2 at least questionable.

It is neither a fallacy nor does a large portion of mankind act irrational.

Rational action is not what one likes to call rational by himself, but what the individual decides to do, given the options the individual thinks he has.

If we replace what we think is right, with the term rational, than we are doing just the same the collectivist do, trying to press our "rationality" onto others.

Acting rational simply means to decide what action to take to get into a more satisfying state, nothing more. For someone who fears to be beaten or is threatened by a gang of thugs like the state, it is totally rational to bow and live, instead of fighting and face harm.

I know it sounds simplistic, yet, the only way I found to convince others is to help them understand, that they are the only ones that can make themselves act, i.e. to help them grasp the concept of self-ownership and accept it as a natural law.

 

All the rest follows from that. You do't have to argue about state, poor people, social welfare etc. They can, and will, come to grips with it by themselves as they compare it to their new found idea that they own themsleves.

It is here where we should focus. All those high level discussions won't lead anywhere, unless you agree on the fundamentals.

 

CShirk: WOW! Really found your [albeit long] reply enlightening!

Thanks you really taught me a lot with just that one post!

GilesStratton:

Sphairon:

Doesn't that degrade a vast proportion of humanity to the status of brutes?

The vast majority of humanity currently endorses large scale theft, so, would you disagree?

Hmm... I like the way you said that. It also gave me an idea;

Theft of life?

"Taking someone's life with force or the threat of force is killing."
- As in "'Join the army, or die'" and other less extreme views. What'd you think of this 'play on words' when compared to my first post "Taking money with force or the threat of force is theft"

Eh?

nhaag:

I know it sounds simplistic, yet, the only way I found to convince others is to help them understand, that they are the only ones that can make themselves act, i.e. to help them grasp the concept of self-ownership and accept it as a natural law.

^Wow!

Thanks to that idea[l], I can finally understand it better myself, (what you said about self-ownership being natural law and what someone else used in the argument about self-ownership in relation to theft of life).

_________________________________________________

I'm glad that this forum actually has some smart things on it. As a very smart author (who has written a few articles here and there... including here at mises, and wrote a book) who I know very well told me only stupid people go on forums [including when I specifically mentioned this one], well I'll direct him to this topic, as some of the replies have truly enlightened me, and helped me understand... well everything!

So thanks!

Please continue to express your ideas and feeling by writing them down!

Thanks a million, keep up the great replies!

Panarchy

PS: Thanks to everyone else for your replies, sorry for not quoting each and every reply, but well, you know!!! Short and sweet

I dont know about you, but I dont know anyone who can argue with freedom.

Start there. With liberty.Everything else will follow.

Complex arguments are great but often muddle and mask the real issue.

When debating someone, make sure you start out by understanding their view of the world - do they believe that having freedom is the only thing that allows people to act virtuously?

If they don't then admittedly it will be a long discussion. But if they do, then any challenge that arises can be socratically met with the question: but does it maximize freedom?

Even the worst dullard and errant fascist can agree on liberty.

Until you actually get into debates with people who have read the texts (Marx, Hegel, Smith, Mises et al..) in my experience, it is best to keep it simple. I would start your reading right away though.

I agree this is a good approach. Try to find out if your partner can agree that Liberty is the basic principle from which all has to emenate, or if he believes that society is the basis.

If he goes for liberty, he is an individualist at heart and you will be able to convince him eventually. In the second case, things get rough as you need to change his believe about collectivism being somehow more important than individual freedom. Changing such an belief is very difficult as one has to change a lot of long trained basic beliefs that are almost hidden to him conciously.

And always use the KISS (Keep It Stupid and Simple) approach, no arguments on a scholar level unless you are sure you dicuss with someone who can follow you on this - a Ph.D. is no evidence he can, trust me :-)

 

 

Hmm... yes, however, what do I say when the argument gets to the point where I need to inform the arguer, about the Natural Law, and how Society doesn't make Morals, but Morals or inbuilt.

How do I convince them of that?

Panarchy:

Hmm... yes, however, what do I say when the argument gets to the point where I need to inform the arguer, about the Natural Law, and how Society doesn't make Morals, but Morals or inbuilt.

How do I convince them of that?

As far as I remember the topic was about strategies to convince others. Given that most people do not fancy scholarly discussions, the questions is how to put forth arguments that are strong, convincing and easy to grasp.

My answer wasn't meant to enlighten someone in the forums here, but to agree to the statement made that keeping it simple is the way to go. You don't start math with calculus but with 1 and 1 is 2.

If someone agrees on the argument that only individuals can act, and I go beyond the misesian view that action is concious behavior only, than it follows that a group can not. If a group can not act because it is a category, it can not have morals at all. A category is a convenient way to group items and can therefor never act. For a single being to increase the chance of survival acting non-aggressive increases the chance not getting hurt in a fight in the first place. That means to favor peaceful settlement of conflicts is a natural way to increase the possibility of survival for the individual. This is where morals evolve from as well as the idea of the division of labor. Cooperation tends to increase chances to survive, confrontation tends to decrease them.