General

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

nhaag — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:43:17 GMT

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.

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

Panarchy — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:08:06 GMT

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?

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

nhaag — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:38:57 GMT

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 :-)

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

AndrewKemendo — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:09:40 GMT

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.

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

Panarchy — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:52:23 GMT

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

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

nhaag — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:51:37 GMT

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.

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

ama gi — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:36:16 GMT

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.)

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

Sphairon — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:50:45 GMT

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.

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

hayekianxyz — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:48:13 GMT

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.

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

sirmonty — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:28:07 GMT

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.

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

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:07:22 GMT

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.

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

Sphairon — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:56:33 GMT

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

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

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:52:04 GMT

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

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

Sphairon — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:51:07 GMT

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.

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

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:41:39 GMT

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.