Political Theory

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Daniel James Sanchez — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:11:39 GMT

"Those who dismiss moral arguments as "emotionalism" are gravely mistaken. Human moral sentiments are rooted in..."

Sentiment is synonymous with emotion, so I don't know how you could claim that moral sentiments are anything other than emotions, no matter what they're rooted in.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Wibee — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 02:50:52 GMT

With arguements I see many examples of libertarians get too focused on an issue, so focused that they loose the bigger picture. To average people, libertarians sound like they advocate unsafe products and society. Even I get that impression when listening to some people. Some Libertarians, mostly vocal ones, fail to separate the government from the regulations. I would totally want certain regulations in my everyday life. I would buy a product that has been independatly tested to me standards. I would drive on the road that the owner was actively trying to make safe.

I would start off every arguement with the unethical-ness of the state and compulsive government. That regulations should be left to the private markets.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Conza88 — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 02:26:00 GMT

Those who say only the economic angle works, or only the ethical one... both fail remarkably.

These folks tend to take their own personal preference or the general trend they followed of coming to the philosophy of liberty and apply it to the rest of humanity.

No. Both approaches work, it just depends on the person. As such the message to be most effective should be tailored to that individual.

The reason Ron Paul is so effective is because he uses both, consistently. Both the moral and economic arguments. He is also humble, principled and folks can trust him.

That is the personal side that typically stands out for folks who respect that. That opens the door for further learning - the acknowledgment that you might not know something, or you may be wrong in your current beliefs.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Sieben — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:43:08 GMT

I noticed that arguments from statism don't come from the goodness of a monopolist protection agency, but from a fetish for central-ness. See my thread about it here.

In short, you can get them to admit that statism doesn't really solve any problems, because what if there were a thousand governments in Texas, well they wouldn't be able to do anything. So they just want everything to be connected and coordinated, which really obviously opens the door for the market. People have this false dichotomy in their heads between "government" and "doing nothing". We can stress that the free market isn't nothing... acting through the price system etc etc

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Graham Wright — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:29:04 GMT

The "gun in the room"/government is immoral argument can be persuasive, but is largely ineffective. The moment you gain an inch in the debate, your opponent will likely turn to a utilitarian defense and say, "Even if taxation is theft, a world without the state would be highly inequitable and chaotic.

Michael, I would say that is a great place to start a debate from: the moral high ground. They have understood that they are advocating an immoral system, and I am advocating a moral system. So they know they need a good reason for saying this, so they resort to "the state is necessary to prevent chaos." And then you start the economics debate to show that anarchy isn't chaos, it isn't so bad at all, in fact it's less chaotic than government, because it is guided by the invisible hand rather than the hands of politicians. You bodyslam their reason for advocating their immoral system with economic arguments. The idea is that they walk away thinking, yes, the state is immoral, I wonder if there really is another way.

If you're looking for an easy way while arguing with someone, you can ask them the simple question:

Do you think people are inherently good?

Brian, yes, good one. I do find many statists have this inconsistency where they say freedom won't work because people are too evil and at the same time they say democracy stops evil people getting into power, and only basically good people can win elections. Reading Why The Worst Get On Top (Hayek) made me see the inconsistency in myself.

Challenging the moral status of the State because it grossly violates ordinary human moral sentiment is the most powerful argument against the State, IMO.

Clayton, I agree.

No. 3 and 4 will probably account for more than half of ‘converts’ one will ever make.

Merlin, yes, I agree they are powerful. In my experience they work well on intellectual, politically-opinionated types who have no knowledge or interest in economics. They have the advantage of sounding very practical and realistic.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Graham Wright — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:26:01 GMT

Well lots of opinions here. Different approaches work for and on different people.

I agree that ethics is vital to the argument for liberty, but I can't help but imagine that people's instinctive reaction to an ethical argument is to point out the practical problems with the ethics of freedom, especially since it logically leads to anarchy. Of course it will be hard to persuade anyone using any kind of argument, but...well, to me at least it was the economics that did it, and indeed had ethics been the start for me I probably would not be posting here, so I assume other people are the same way.

That is interesting, because for me it is the opposite. I started taking an interest in all this because I got angry about the bailouts, the falseness of politics, growing police state measures, wars, conspiracies, etc. I was open to hearing a new perspective, and then along came Ron Paul. It was his passion for liberty that brought me here. Then I spent about 6 months asking questions of the form how will X work without government? I was delighted to find out, by learning economics, that prosperity comes as an added bonus of liberty.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Merlin — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:21:31 GMT

No. 3 and 4 will probably account for more than half of ‘converts’ one will ever make.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Smiling Dave — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:12:56 GMT

So, for example, raping a child is not good, no matter whether you are a moral nihilist or not, simply because that is not how people use the word "good."

There's a mistake in there somewhere, Clayton. Dictionary.com defines good as "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious".

Now if someone starts a new religion and preaches that raping a child is morally excellent, virtuous, righteous and pious, then sums it up and says "raping a child is good", he is using the word good correctly. He is using it to mean morally excellent, etc., which is the CORRECT AND UNIVERSAL usage of the word good. In other words, he, like everybody else, is using the word good as a shorthand for morally excellent etc.

Everybody else may disagree and say "No, it is not good to rape children." But they are not using a different dictionary. They are using a different value system.

"How people use the word" is the vague phrase that caused this confusion.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

scineram — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:11:53 GMT

1,3,5,6 do not really work. The rest you can inded argue.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Clayton — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:21:17 GMT

Those who dismiss moral arguments as "emotionalism" are gravely mistaken. Human moral sentiments are rooted in our biology and social evolution, they are not arbitrary feelings. I'm currently working through these ideas myself but the easiest way to illustrate it is to imagine that morality boils down the problem of precisely defining the words "good" and "bad." While we all understand that opinions on what is good or bad differ from one person to the next, and while goodness and badness are ultimately rooted in subjective valuation, the meanings of the words "good" and "bad" are no more arbitrary than the meaning of the word car. While you are free to use the word "car" any way you like, if you use it in a way which is not part of customary usage, no one will know what you are talking about, that is, you will be speaking gibberish. Similarly, while you are free to evaluate morality any way you please, if you use "good" and "bad" in a way which is not part of customary usage, no one will know what you are talking about. The meanings of words emerge from customary usage. No one individual - even the chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionary - has the power to change the meaning of a word. So, for example, raping a child is not good, no matter whether you are a moral nihilist or not, simply because that is not how people use the word "good." You might be a sociopathic moral nihilist who happens to find pleasure in the thought of child rape but your moral dysfunction has nothing to do with what is good or bad.

Challenging the moral status of the State because it grossly violates ordinary human moral sentiment is the most powerful argument against the State, IMO.

Clayton -

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Clayton — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:04:38 GMT

I think 2,5,7 and 10 are integrally related and, together, make the most powerful case against the modern system of two-tier law.

The foundational idea in human morality is the Golden Rule. It is culturally universal which means that it is actually rooted in our biology. The Golden Rule is so basic that even very small children can understand it ("You shouldn't hit him, would you like it if he hit you?"). The State is the upending of the Golden Rule. People are naturally outraged by violations of the Golden Rule, that is, by blatant hypocrisy. I think that the statists are fighting gravity... the natural order is natural. The State is unnatural.

Clayton -

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

BrianAnderson — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:53:30 GMT

If you're looking for an easy way while arguing with someone, you can ask them the simple question:

Do you think people are inherently good?

If they say 'yes', then ask why they don't want everyone to be free. If people are good, they will help those in need with charity and won't succomb to being part of a machine without emotion. In socialism, everyone is the government's producer - nothing more and nothing less.

If they say 'no', then ask why you would want a bad person in charge of everyone else. If people are bad, then the bad person on top will take all for himself/herself and leave nothing for the underlings.

That's the simplest way I've seen. The less the government tries to take your money away, the more freely you'd be willing to give it away to help those who have actually fallen on tough times.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Michael J Green — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:33:14 GMT

I agree that ethics is vital to the argument for liberty, but I can't help but imagine that people's instinctive reaction to an ethical argument is to point out the practical problems with the ethics of freedom, especially since it logically leads to anarchy. Of course it will be hard to persuade anyone using any kind of argument, but...well, to me at least it was the economics that did it, and indeed had ethics been the start for me I probably would not be posting here, so I assume other people are the same way.

Agreed. The "gun in the room"/government is immoral argument can be persuasive, but is largely ineffective. The moment you gain an inch in the debate, your opponent will likely turn to a utilitarian defense and say, "Even if taxation is theft, a world without the state would be highly inequitable and chaotic. A little theft is justified if it saves us from such a morally repugnant system." Now you have to start arguing the efficacy of the market, and even if you do an admirable job there, your opponent will probably be unreceptive. If the market is so superior, why did you feel it necessary to argue that the state does bad things?

So start by arguing the efficacy of the market. You don't get lost in the morass of morality. And if they do appeal to morality, you should have yourself covered, unless the person has completely hostile values. In those rare cases, there's not much you can do, no matter your argumentative tactics. Move on to better targets.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

liberty student — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:38:00 GMT

trulib:
If you ignore ethics - and ethics is relevant to any discussion about government, including health care - you are basically making an admission that whatever system has best consequences should be the one we choose.

Exactly. Yes, this is why ethics (and moralizing) can be counterproductive. You're not making an argument based on reason, you're making an argument based on emotion. You're not leaving the person who meets you more intellectually capable of withstanding challenges to their position. You are only equipping them to make the guilt arguments (gun in the room, etc) which can ultimately be turned against them, since the argument is not based on reason.

I know this is tough for people to grasp because I struggled with it, but the gun in the room argument doesn't work as well as equipping people to use reason to see why property rights and freedom are the best outcomes if their goals are prosperity, happiness and peace.

Re: 10 approaches in making a case for liberty or anarchy

Coase — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:30:41 GMT

I agree that ethics is vital to the argument for liberty, but I can't help but imagine that people's instinctive reaction to an ethical argument is to point out the practical problems with the ethics of freedom, especially since it logically leads to anarchy. Of course it will be hard to persuade anyone using any kind of argument, but...well, to me at least it was the economics that did it, and indeed had ethics been the start for me I probably would not be posting here, so I assume other people are the same way.