I recently engaged in blog commentary regarding AnCap with an individual who exhibited signs of openness to liberty. I would appreciate any feedback on ways I could have made my comments more clear, or areas in which I may be contradicting myself or making invalid assumptions.
The posts and comments are found here and here (in that chronological order).
Thanks in advance.
Well I read about 2 sentences of his before I felt like vomiting so... I would advise not to argue with fools. From a cursory read I feel his mind is closed.
I somewhat agree with twisted.
Your counter arguments were good. It's a bit of a dirty trick, but I like to argue one level of sophistication below, not above my opponent. If you speak above people, you frustrate and alienate them. Speaking from authority doesn't work in debate, only where you have a passive audience. If you speak below them, you invite them into preaching to you, which allows them to expose their own fallacies even further.
And don't be afraid to mix in a rhetorical question or two. It's very handy. That and the socratic method are really good for getting people to acknowledge that they do not have a rationally derived position.
My first facepalm was about here: "In fact government is born of completely altruistic intentions.", and I couldn't get much further in that first post.
I dunno, I dunno... might be a tough one there.
And I second LS's above tactic for discussion and debate--I use that all the time but never really thought about it before.
Start with the principle of self-ownership and work from there.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
I really appreciate your points, LS. Wish I could go back and adjust things accordingly.