General

Re: PIG

ViennaSausage — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 02:15:34 GMT

Be polite, no matter what.

Re: PIG

bbnet — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 19:16:22 GMT

Get both sides to contradict themselves as to the validity of the government and ideals they support, consider this as a study guide.

Re: PIG

K.C. Farmer — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:57:22 GMT

Play the middle ground between the Liberals and Conservatives. If you must participate in goverment, then you are the thug for without the entire government would cease to function. Liberals could not succeed in their social policies without you. Conservatives would not have a military to fight wars or police power to enforce their morals. You represent the moderate, reasonable position. Why go totalitarian in only small measures? Government is about raw power, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

From this position, you can pretty much tear apart any beneficial positions either side takes in the debate. Of course, you need to back this with strong evidence, which will be more powerful than the touchy-feely arguments other members of the class would make. Points also to make are that if they don't support your position, then they might as well have anarchy, voluntarism, libertarianism, etc. Expect folks to ask "what's that?", and then it's all good...

Re: PIG

Chyd3nius — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:58:41 GMT

Try to show that it was a government and FED who created the current mess - It's still the strongest work of Austrians.

EDIT: Oh yes, be moderate and tell to your friends to be too. So only few points where you can be accurate, you will be ignorated if you go total AN-CAP and want to sell roads. "America is not capitalist" is good to tell too.

Re: PIG

rhermida — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 02:06:37 GMT

From my personal experience in high school (as a minarchist in a classroom of neocons) it is helpful to not be overly ambitious and to explain a few concepts very well, rather than explaining/emphasizing a larger number of concepts poorly (relative to what you would be able to do if you had more time).

Explaining simple ideas like seen vs. unseen effects, the broken window fallacy, tradeoffs/no free lunches, market signals, etc... can go a long way in moving people in a positive direction. Another HUGE distinction that is helpful is the distinction between intentions and actual results. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the Milton Friedman clip that discusses this issue.

Of course, you should never lie, compromise, or betray your beliefs if you can help it.

Just my opinion from personal experience. YMMV.

Re: PIG

Wheylous — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:51:48 GMT

I think he means what Rothbard means when he says that an AnCap doesn't have to disclose his complete anarchist position immediately.

Re: PIG

z1235 — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:17:14 GMT

Neodoxy:
I would also rather preach a moderate position that people will listen to and might bring them aboard than a radical and more correct position that people will think is crazy.

I would strongly advise against this. Only propose positions that you can honestly and consistently defend. Otherwise, you would inevitably lose credibility and, with it, the respect of the audience you're trying to convince.

Re: PIG

Wheylous — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:17:38 GMT

If you will only have the one debate to convince people, your task is neigh impossible. I advise you adapt GeorgeOughtToHelp.com

Furthermore, I suggest you employ a tactic I am thinking of using when I do policy debate this year. You be the liberal and argue for statism, explaining exactly what it is in AnCap terms yet embracing this and not rejecting it.

So for example, my topic for the year in the debate is USFG funding of space exploration. When I have to argue affirmative, I am thinking of coming up with some statists plan and explaining it the way it actually is:

"I propose that the USFG create a system to collect funds to explore space. Space exploration will benefit humanity, and hence it is something that the government must do for the good of all. We will take money from people to send matter into space. If these people do not wish to give up their property to us, we will initiate aggression against them to enter their houses and take them away to shut them away in jail. In the meantime, we will take their possessions to fund our program which we believe most beneficial to humanity. And we're not evil, really. We were voted into office by more than 50% of the people. Hence, the people want this, and because more than half of the people want us to take people's property from them, it is what we will do regardless of the wishes and rights of the other 49%. This space exploration program will exist to both help the common good in the future and to bring glory to the United States as a continuation of our centuries of nation-building. Colonialism in Asia and Africa is a thing of the past. Now the US must colonize Mars, like England, France, and Portugal colonized their parts of the world."

Something along these lines. Make it 100% truthful and 100% Orwellian. Then have your opponent have to argue against that. It would make the distinction quite clear.

Re: PIG

John James — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 21:07:17 GMT

You might have to just play this by ear. It's really going to depend on the circumstances and how the opportunities present themselves. More or less it's going to be a matter of presenting an alternative and interesting viewpoint to what is being introduced. It will especially help when you have an answer and the instructor doesn't. I met a kid at a Mises Circle event who told me he was introduced to Austrian economics when he was in high school and his father gave him a copy of The Mystery of Banking. It wasn't long before classmates were looking to him during class discussions, and after hearing the teacher's assessment asking "what do you think, Mark?"

But I wrote a bit about how to effectively argue here and here, and the concepts are the same, as the goal is the same...so you might find something useful there.

Re: PIG

Neodoxy — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:36:15 GMT

Nielsio:

Why do you go to school?

So that I can get into a good college and achieve my goals. Autodidacticism alone can't get me there.

Anyway if we could stay on topic I and I could get some advice then I might actually be able to help an educate others in what would otherwise be counteractive.

Re: PIG

Nielsio — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 19:27:04 GMT

Why do you go to school?

PIG

Neodoxy — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 18:46:26 GMT

I'm entering my senior year of highschool and we have class called "Participation in Government", properly abbreviated to PIG. I'm not sure exactly what it is that we cover in the class although of course it will cover the basic political process. There's also a fair amount of covering of the big political issues these days between liberals and conservatives, I know that last year there was a pretty big thing about both gun control and abortion. There's also a debate towards the end of the semester between the liberal and conservative candidate along with a political race between the two.

I have an anarcho-capitalist and two moderate libertarians in the class with me, all of whom I am good friends with, hell it was who brought them to where they are now. The teacher is far enough to the left to almost be considered a Scandinavian style social democrat; the class will probably consist of between 15 and 23 people. The class is an easy A and is not an elective so we're not exactly going to have only the smartest of my classmates in there with us.

Any advice on how to bring the good word of libertarianism and voluntarism to the class? As I see it now it's going to be hard to juggle between "teacher, your class is bull**** and you're about as dangerous as a psychopath with a machete" and really getting the point across. I would also rather preach a moderate position that people will listen to and might bring them aboard than a radical and more correct position that people will think is crazy.

Strategies?