Sasan, you're right on target with the responses I hear when playing the constitutional angle. I then present examples of what it might be like for THEIR cherished rights if the Constitution is ignored. I intentionally tailor the examples to show them how right wingers could gain if the Constitution is not followed. Also, I refer them to Article 1, Section 8, or whatever else is relevant, and ask them to find authority for healthcare or whatever government policy they advocate. It's far from perfect, but the key thing is keeping the discussion mainstream and civilized. Our libertarian principles are superior and solid, but they usually don't play well with mainstream voters.
From: sasan.sadat Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 10:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Libertarian] Arguments that work (was "Selfish libertarians") I make an effort to avoid the more conventional arguments for Liberty simply because there are plenty of defenses in place against those arguments. For example, you could argue that Government health care is unconstitutional, but many people have been trained to vilify those who mention the Constitution as right-wing fringe extremists, and your words will fall on deaf ears. Some may also retort that the framers of the Constitution "could not have foreseen" the problems of modern health care. You may be tempted to cite statistics in your arguments for Liberty, but you will be walking into a trap. For every poll and statistic you use, your opponent will provide a poll and statistic that contradicts yours. Different methodologies will produce different results, which is why those that argue by throwing statistics at each other will never get anywhere. Analogies are commonly used tools for debate, but since they are NEVER accurate, I try not to use them. In fact, I usually wait for my opponent to use a false analogy so I can then dissect it. Instead, control the debate by simplifying it. Discuss issues in terms of person-to-person interactions, and the myths of the State will fall apart. The easiest way to do this is to call actions by their proper names instead of State "double-speak". For example, "arrest" = assault and kidnapping, "taxes" = extortion, "regulation" = coercion, etc. When they dispute your definitions of those terms then show them the dictionary definitions of the crimes. They won't be able to deny that the most common state actions are actually just crimes re-branded. When they claim that these actions are not crimes as long as they are being committed by State representatives, ask them "WHY?". They will not be able to answer you in a satisfactory way, and you will have started them down the path toward libertarianism. This method has worked for me repeatedly, both on television and in person. When you appeal to a person's inner humanity they will begin to see the State for what it truly is: a murderous, deceitful parasite on the Human Experience. ---Sasan --- In [email protected], "Bob Giramma" <evil_sp...@...> wrote: > > I'm having similar labels thrown at me. An interesting accusation is that I'm > actively denying people healthcare by opposing the bill in Congress. So > they're equating a non-action with a harmful action. I see that a lot. > > The word "selfish" implies an individual act; your friend is applying it to a > collective scenario. > > In response to the "majority agrees" claim, I use the constitutional > response. There is no constitutional authority for government control or > provision of healthcare. While I realize the US Constitution does not > describe a libertarian paradise, it's liberty-based and far more mainstream > than the arguments we'd use in this or similar libertarian forum. > > The majority of Americans oppose the healthcare bill, and something like 85% > are satisfied with their current healthcare plan. > > > From: sasan.sadat > Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:54 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Libertarian] "Selfish" libertarians > > > I recently had a spirited debate with one of my friends in which she asserted > that I was "selfish" for not wanting to pay taxes. > > My response was this: "Call me selfish if you want to, but at least I'm not > the one forcing my will onto others at gunpoint. Which is worse?" > > She responded "it's not 'force' as long as the majority agrees." > > I asked her "why?". > > She couldn't answer me. > > Checkmate. > > ---Sasan > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
