In my journalism class I have a couple of class mates that are pretty big leftists. Both are very informed, very opinionated and in the top 5 of our class of 400 GPA wise, so they are pretty intelligent people.
Today, one of them said "We just need FDR to rise up from the dead and save us all", while the other said "If I was president id say screw laizzes faire. We gotta have some one jump and solve this problem". Theres some quototions so you see what Im goin against. The girl also laughed at me and another kid reading the article "Atlas Shrugged: From fiction to fact in 52 years".
Like I said, these are two very informed people and its gonna be two on one when I actually confront them. I consider myself about as informed as them and I think I can keep up in a debate with the both of them but Im a bit intimidated because I am still ignorant. I wanna confront them in a way not so much trying to have a full out debate, but also to get them interested and actually persuade them into the austrian theory and understand why the 'New Deal' sucked and why a future New Deal from Obama will only make things worse.
Any suggestions? Helpful facts or analogies? Or some suggested articles I can read?
Bob Murphy is writing a new book in the "politically incorrect guide" series about the Great Depression. I'm expecting that it will be pretty good (covering all the basics).
Otherwise, Rothbard's classic analysis is pretty good and free from mises.org. http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
Here are some less academic writings:
http://www.libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/us-the-new-deal.html
Understand their arguments. Since it is 2 on 1, you will not get to dictate the direction of the debate.
You can't do better than a thorough reading of America's Great Depression, backed up by some Hazlitt perhaps, and some general economic theory, as opposed to applied.
If they are intelligent, then your arguments may get through, it may just take a long time.
A very important point, and one that I could learn a lot from myself, is: always focus on the issue in hand. Don't push anarcho-capitalism in general, just focus on the Great Depression and why less intervention would have been better. Don't argue that Hoover was an extreme socialist, just argue that he was an interventionist who had his own New Deal. Don't argue that we live in a socialist world, just show them that it is far far far from the ideal of laissez faire. Don't attack Obama directly, just argue that he could do things better.
Always attempt to appeal directly to peoples previously held prejudices and beliefs. I imagine they link to think that they have the upper hand on ethics, self-determination and freedom. Show them the light!
That said, I have had less luck than Stephenson in my missionary efforts.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Well, you will need to understand that GDP is an irrelevant statistic, because they will refer to that a lot. GDP can go up if capital consumption goes up, which is not wealth creation. Also, you will need to study up on the dust bowl and the Homestead Act and how they affected things. http://rs6.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/depwwii/dustbowl/dustbowl.html.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Schmitto2121: In my journalism class I have a couple of class mates that are pretty big leftists. Both are very informed, very opinionated and in the top 5 of our class of 400 GPA wise, so they are pretty intelligent people. Today, one of them said "We just need FDR to rise up from the dead and save us all", while the other said "If I was president id say screw laizzes faire. We gotta have some one jump and solve this problem". Theres some quototions so you see what Im goin against. The girl also laughed at me and another kid reading the article "Atlas Shrugged: From fiction to fact in 52 years". Like I said, these are two very informed people and its gonna be two on one when I actually confront them. I consider myself about as informed as them and I think I can keep up in a debate with the both of them but Im a bit intimidated because I am still ignorant. I wanna confront them in a way not so much trying to have a full out debate, but also to get them interested and actually persuade them into the austrian theory and understand why the 'New Deal' sucked and why a future New Deal from Obama will only make things worse. Any suggestions? Helpful facts or analogies? Or some suggested articles I can read?
Apparently, Thomas E. Woods Jr., is writing a new book contemporary to our current "crisis," which should also come in handy.
doesn't GDP data account for Capital Consumption Allowance?
The I in C+I+G+X-Z represents gross investment and does not account for depreciation.
Irish Liberty Forum
Then wikipedia lies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Consumption_Allowance_(CCA)
liberty student: Understand their arguments. Since it is 2 on 1, you will not get to dictate the direction of the debate.
Better yet, play them off against one another.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
First of all understand this: virtually everyone who holds an opinion in economic matters (economists included) has never really considered how he knows his beliefs about economics correspond with reality. Your classmates hold to the cliche leftist view of recessions simply because it is conventional to do so. They do this because they have no intuition about how markets function.
The key is to show that their assertions contradict other views they have. So for example, that only the state can save society from high unemployment, low prices, and other "horrors" amounts to saying that people are essentially basket cases unless they have the state to hold their hand to do anything; that they are simply incapable of action unless the state has set a goal for them.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!