I believe a big factor in resistance to libertarian ideas is the belief that there should be some degree of equality in society. Even if one is successful in arguing that the market is economically superior to government, the person may remain a statist despite conceding the that point. The typical approach is to convince the statist that the only way to achieve equality is to initiate physical aggression. Yet this may also fail since the violence in society is not visible to the statist. Is there a way around using the non-aggression principle and persuade somebody that inequality and hierarchy are good?
Heritability and intelligence and all that encompasses (class differences, race differences etc).
You have to make him understand inequality is natural and normal, and that it is fallacious to draw equivalence between 'fairness' and 'equality' (you've already got this down with coercion though).
"If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheer-leading or expensive lawsuits."- Jared Taylor
Statist solutions that attempt to achieve equality fail miserably. Look at public schools.
A free market makes everyone wealthier over time. By introducing redistributive taxation, you're slowing that process of wealth accumulation, and thereby harming the poor over the long run.
Furthermore, there is also the issue of the impossibility of comparing interpersonal utility. Because it is impossible to measure utility and because everyone has their own value scale, you cannot say that taking $100 from Peter and giving it to Paul creates a net gain in utility or welfare.
Lastly, if someone argues for equality simply for equality's sake, shoot them down for being stupid. Why should we value economic equality in the first place? If one values economic equality, why not start valuing equality in all of its forms? The best way to counter "equality for equality's sake" is to smack the proponent of this idea upside the head with a copy of "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut.
Political Atheists Blog
Also, don't forget to mention the difference between equality before the law and equality of outcome. If everyone is equal before the law, then no one receives special treatment. Equality before the law rules out redistributive taxation and laws or government policy that treat some differently from others (e.g. affirmative action). Equality of outcome treats everyone unequally. Equality of outcome means that one person gets treated preferably by the law than another. Equality of outcome means that one person pays more taxes and has more of his rights violated for the sake of another person. So which would you say is the true equality? Equality before the law (everyone is treated equally) or equality of outcome (everyone is treated differently)?
Also, don't forget to mention the difference between equality before the law and equality of outcome. If everyone is equal before the law, then no one receives special treatment. Equality before the law rules out redistributive taxation and laws or government policy that treat so me differently from others (e.g. affirmative action). Equality of outcome treats everyone unequally. Equality of outcome means that one person gets treated preferably by the law than another. Equality of outcome means that one person pays more taxes and has more of his rights violated for the sake of another person. So which would you say is the true equality? Equality before the law (everyone is treated equally) or equality of outcome (everyone is treated differently)?
Never really saw that contradiction so clearly before. Thanks for pointing it out.
...
I had the pleasure of meeting Jan Narveson (as i had mentioned earlier this week) and he's willing to get me a deal on a copy of this book:http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521883825&ss=fro
Is there a way around using the non-aggression principle and persuade somebody that inequality and hierarchy are good?
Learn it well, and teach them the Ricardian Law of Association(or comparative advantage). Better yet, read this book first:
http://mises.org/books/game.pdf
Inequality rather than being a scourge, is the very reason for the division of labour and human civilisation as we know it. Those uneducated in Economics are wholly unaware of the fact that it is precisely those with the greatest comparitive disparities that mutually benefit the greatest from trade. We don't need to advance social Darwinian rhetoric to reach these people, especially when many who advance the former too seem to suffer from a misunderstanding of Economics.
There is no better way in my opinion, to make them see how pointless an end enforcing equality is.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Good point, abskebabs.
Giant_Joe, so did you get that book? Have you started reading it? Anything you'd like to say about it?
Got through the first 2 chapters. Pretty good account so far. He really breaks things down. So far, it's turning out to be an excellent primer for someone who wants a serious introduction to a theory of anarchy. I'll finish it this week and bump my thread up.