Fuuuuuuuuck!

[FreddyFreeman]

It's so absolutely frustrating to argue with my statist friends. Recently I made a post here about 'bridging the gap' between the Volunyaryist position and the Statist position. I got some very good feedback and tried approaching my friends with the NAP. The argument I tried to use is 'it's never right to use force or the threat of force against anyone who hasn't used force or the threat of force against you.' That is, i believe, a very sound argument to use with people who i generally believe  use logic and reason to come to conclusions in all other parts of their lives. They try to bog it down with the argument that while they agree that force is wrong in this situation, the NAP is too black and white. They try to use examples of instances where the threat of force is vague and that my idea of the threat of force is subjective. I don't agree with them and believe that the 'threat of force' is completely objective but can't seem to convey this point to them. Any suggestions?

[BonerJoe]

Stop arguing with them.

[FreddyFreeman]

Ha ha ha! You're probably right. It's just so frustrating because I used to think like they do and feel that if they'd just use logic and reason, they'd come to the same conclusions that I, and many others here have.

[BonerJoe]

I've never seen these kind of relationships last once you have woken up. You can only tolerate willful ignorance so much.

You can try, but they'll never 100% get "it".

[Dalebert]

You can't really argue that it's consistently and objectively wrong to engage in aggressive force. I personally believe in objective morality but there's a leap of faith involved. What you have to do is convince them that this moral path is better than others for achieving their goals. Most of us have instincts to care about and work with other human beings for our shared objectives (which helps to fuel my faith in objective morality).

Basically, any debate is futile until you back up to the point where both parties already accept something and agree on it. That's your foundation. Then you work up from there. That's your context of discussion.

For instance, get someone to agree that slavery is wrong. That's usually not hard. Then talk about property rights from that perspective. Stealing is retroactive enslavement. If I take something from you that you labored to produce with a specific goal in mind when you labored for it, then I have effectively enslaved you for the time you spent producing it. If they won't agree that slavery is wrong, just make sure they make that statement publicly. We are social creatures. They will feel some significant pressure to change that POV.

[hen567mcb]

There's probably no wrong or right answers in every argument because both parties have their own beliefs.

[FreddyFreeman]

Thanks for the help. I think I'm going to go with CaptainObvious' suggestion and just not argue with them. Even though I feel that I came to Voluntaryism through critical thinking, logic and reason, whenever I argue these points I get frustrated and emotional. Not a good way to be a messenger for liberty.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

You know, I still don't have a good idea of what the NAP is because everyone who espouses it doesn't articulate their views on what it means very well. I listen to podcasts, ask around, looked it up in wiki. Still doesn't make sense to me.

But I tend to argue well, and one thing I've found is that you make a point to your strengths, and not your weaknesses. If you're going for the NAP before your family can wrap their heads around smaller government, you might as well be debating in different languages.

My suggestion is to instead chip away at the basis of their own belief systems. If they're conservative, ask them who has to pay for a massive military. Keep pounding on it, because if they think conservatives are for less taxes, they shy away from having to explain why were spending money on a military presence in Italy, and the Philippines. If they're liberal, ask them if its racist to give money to individuals on the basis of race. Ask them if they're marginalizing white people from society. Again, peck away at the weak points of their own belief systems at the points where its difficult to defend.

[Dalebert]

I don't know about that. I think a lot of people already believe in the non-aggression principle... in principle. They just don't realize how it ties into their views on government. And even when they are made to realize it, they'll call it a necessary evil because they see government as the only way to deal with certain problems because they're just indoctrinated to think that way.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

I don't know about that. I think a lot of people already believe in the non-aggression principle... in principle. They just don't realize how it ties into their views on government. And even when they are made to realize it, they'll call it a necessary evil because they see government as the only way to deal with certain problems because they're just indoctrinated to think that way.

I'm not attacking you, or anything, and I don't want you to get defensive about this, but that was not a well articulated view.

[Dalebert]

I'm saying people can have principles but not abide by them very strictly. It's called "unprincipled".

[alisium]

You know, I still don't have a good idea of what the NAP is because everyone who espouses it doesn't articulate their views on what it means very well. I listen to podcasts, ask around, looked it up in wiki. Still doesn't make sense to me.

But I tend to argue well, and one thing I've found is that you make a point to your strengths, and not your weaknesses. If you're going for the NAP before your family can wrap their heads around smaller government, you might as well be debating in different languages.

My suggestion is to instead chip away at the basis of their own belief systems. If they're conservative, ask them who has to pay for a massive military. Keep pounding on it, because if they think conservatives are for less taxes, they shy away from having to explain why were spending money on a military presence in Italy, and the Philippines. If they're liberal, ask them if its racist to give money to individuals on the basis of race. Ask them if they're marginalizing white people from society. Again, peck away at the weak points of their own belief systems at the points where its difficult to defend.

I think your example is more of a destination rather than the start. If you're going to argue about the military, start small, with things like waste, fraud and abuse in the DoD. It's easier to hate an alphabet soup government agency than start talking ill of the US Marines.

Then bring up examples of things like the Marine who was recently arrested for desertion, even though he was honorably discharged four years prior.

I personally take a positive approach and talk about "stream-lining" the military, of which I am a huge fan. Mix in privatization and market solutions. They can't help but agree with you.

But, come at them right at the start with proposals to collapse the military, is going to turn them off of your message and you're talking to dead ears. 

[alisium]

It's so absolutely frustrating to argue with my statist friends. Recently I made a post here about 'bridging the gap' between the Volunyaryist position and the Statist position. I got some very good feedback and tried approaching my friends with the NAP. The argument I tried to use is 'it's never right to use force or the threat of force against anyone who hasn't used force or the threat of force against you.' That is, i believe, a very sound argument to use with people who i generally believe  use logic and reason to come to conclusions in all other parts of their lives. They try to bog it down with the argument that while they agree that force is wrong in this situation, the NAP is too black and white. They try to use examples of instances where the threat of force is vague and that my idea of the threat of force is subjective. I don't agree with them and believe that the 'threat of force' is completely objective but can't seem to convey this point to them. Any suggestions?

I feel you,

My little brother just moved up from Portland, Or. He's broke, on state health insurance and food stamps. Whenever I talk to him I can hear the youthful-elitist-metro-liberal echo chamber coming out of his mouth. At first he hardly actually debated me. Instead he would just repeat catch-phrases and talking-points. Not a single idea of his own.

I started slowly with little topics here and there and instead of getting emotional, I weaved a web of logic, tiny bit by tiny bit. A lot of what I had to say, he's never heard from his leftist friends or my right wing parents. I use a lot of real life examples and teachable moments. I back track on his logic (he's very socially liberal, but a statist in everything else) and show him the flaws in his argument and his posistions defeat his own desires.

I think the idea that actually got through to him with the most effect was the idea of being a "Sovereign Citizen" that I am a nation unto myself. He actually dug that.

Good luck.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

You know, I still don't have a good idea of what the NAP is because everyone who espouses it doesn't articulate their views on what it means very well. I listen to podcasts, ask around, looked it up in wiki. Still doesn't make sense to me.

But I tend to argue well, and one thing I've found is that you make a point to your strengths, and not your weaknesses. If you're going for the NAP before your family can wrap their heads around smaller government, you might as well be debating in different languages.

My suggestion is to instead chip away at the basis of their own belief systems. If they're conservative, ask them who has to pay for a massive military. Keep pounding on it, because if they think conservatives are for less taxes, they shy away from having to explain why were spending money on a military presence in Italy, and the Philippines. If they're liberal, ask them if its racist to give money to individuals on the basis of race. Ask them if they're marginalizing white people from society. Again, peck away at the weak points of their own belief systems at the points where its difficult to defend.

I think your example is more of a destination rather than the start. If you're going to argue about the military, start small, with things like waste, fraud and abuse in the DoD. It's easier to hate an alphabet soup government agency than start talking ill of the US Marines.

Then bring up examples of things like the Marine who was recently arrested for desertion, even though he was honorably discharged four years prior.

I personally take a positive approach and talk about "stream-lining" the military, of which I am a huge fan. Mix in privatization and market solutions. They can't help but agree with you.

But, come at them right at the start with proposals to collapse the military, is going to turn them off of your message and you're talking to dead ears. 

I hear you. But even debating all the conservatives I've met over the years, I have yet to find a single one who can articulate a good argument for why we are in the Philippines. I also ask them about the threat we are facing from the USSR. I keep asking questions, instead of making arguments to put the burden of argument onto the other person.

But I don't advocate things they wouldn't be able to understand. I wouldn't say we should dissolve the military, but would say it should be shrunk.

Then you gotta keep asking them why they want taxes so high. They hate that. Then you mention the drug war, and they hate spending money on that too.

[alisium]

I think that arguing for a smaller, more nimble military is a very tenable posistion. And you should gain traction with that.

As to why we're in the Philippines... we largely left it back in the 1990's. We may visit from time to time for liberty or joint forces exercies, but there really aren't any significant forces stationed there anymore. However, since 9/11 we have had special forces units there assisting local forces with the Philippine version of Al-Queada. 

One reason why we have so many "sea bases" and over seas naval stations is because our US Navy polices the shipping lanes and keeps them open for commerce. It's at once both stategic and economic solution. That is one thing you'll have to deal with if we successfully remove the Navy from international waters. We are going to have to pay, in the front end, for security on the high seas. That may or may not be a good thing. I can't say.