Achieving FREEDOM! > Activism projects/Strategy/Winning Converts

Logic deniers

(1/2) > >>

the_Trev:
I live in a town of socialist hippies in North Carolina. The people here have always been Democrats. It's like a natural political machine. I don't usually engage people about politics because they're not willing to listen. They say i'm naive for thinking a free market will work. They however, are quick to express their opinion. "I love Bernie. He's just so honest. He's been consistent for 40 years. I'd vote for Hillary if she gets elected (sic). She's the most qualified out of anyone." I have a knack for fast comebacks so I usually say something like "if a restaurant has consistently bad food, would it be open for 40 years?". Or for Hillary, "If a CEO lost $6 billion dollars for a company, would they remain CEO?". For those who don't know, the state department lost $6 billion under Hildawg because of wrong filings and mistakes. I'm sure some of it went to some pockets. Anyway, it's always just blown off as political ammo or they change the subject. My point being, some people won't change until it's cool to. No amount of of logic can change that.

Adam Kokesh:
Trev,

Thanks for raising this problem here. Hopefully, my experience can be of some help, but I know that there is no perfect answer to this question and I hope others will add their input.

When someone raises such an irrational objection to freedom, the reason is rarely a failure to see the logic. You can put the logic in front of them, they see it, get it, aaaaannnnddd go back to the same objection while your forehead gets ever bloodier if you are unfortunate enough to have walls around. Pointing out the logic more eloquently, forcefully, or with better memes will rarely if ever help. Have you noticed that turning up the logic actually usually makes things worse?

If you have someone who is seeking the logical answers, they may keep asking frustrating questions and (sidebar) it's very important to be very patient with these people. Do not get upset with them. They may already be on the path and this can only slow them down. They may be playing devil's advocate in their own mind, and in those cases, slowly, patiently, showing them around your worldview will make them more comfortable there. However, your question was not about those people, but about someone who is running away from freedom with open arms (and perhaps spread cheeks) to the state.

You're correct in pointing out that no amount of logic can change something that is not caused by a lack of capacity for logic. In these cases, there is some emotional hook to statism that requires either therapy, or stepping way back to see a bigger picture. You may eventually be able to fill in gaps in their logic, but first, they must be receptive to it.

Part of this problem may come from the approach taken by the messenger. Most of us have been fooled into thinking of this beautiful philosophical ethical message as a political message, and therefor we need to argue with people. Most people never change their minds during arguments. Of course, we are sharing something we find beautiful, and therefor we shouldn't have to be arguing with anyone! This is critical to having a productive conversation to help someone get the message: IF YOU'RE ARGUING WITH SOMEONE ABOUT FREEDOM, YOU'VE ALREADY LOST! If you take the approach of sharing something beautiful, you will always have a positive, "Hey, check out this awesome idea!" kind of attitude.

In order to get to this point with someone who is already throwing up emotional attachments to the state in defense of irrational ideas, you have to LISTEN to them, and understand where they're coming from. I often joke that a lot of people will need therapy before they're ready to embrace a new worldview, but that's a lot more than just sitting on a couch in an office. Some of them just need you to listen to whatever way they have mentally enslaved themselves and feel understood before they'll trust you to show them a potential way out. For example, if someone just had their life saved by a cop from someone who just killed the rest of their family, just you saying that there should be no cops is extremely terrifying. (Most people get some of this vicariously from watching the news.) When you've discovered what their hook is, you can address it in the form of, "You're right to be concerned about people being able to ____. (protect each other, provide for the poor, build roads, keep you waiting in line at the DMV) Would you be interested in hearing about a better way to achieve that which would eliminate the unfortunate side effects of using government to do that?"

Now I know that sounds like a lot. It is. It took me ten years from going from "I'm a Libertarian because Republicans and Democrats are lame!" to actually understanding the philosophy of freedom. Practice patience. Practice polite persistence. Practice Nonviolent Communication. (Communication without judgement. See the book by Marshall Rosenberg or one of his seminars on YT.) If there are about a million of us now, and we rub off on just one other person per year on average, the paradigm shift will be here within a couple decades. I know we all want to end the violence of statism sooner, but the only other thing you can do is go after the more receptive people first, like in triage. This will also make the more stubborn ones easier because they'll see others embracing freedom first. Fortunately, we still have millions out there for whom just reading FREEDOM! will be enough, so I'll be focused on getting it out to them! Hopefully, this helps for those who you can't convince to read a free 100 page book/free 3 hour audiobook.

the_Trev:
That is really helpful! Like you said, I think my problem is trying to argue that point rather than just plant the seed. State the facts in a philosophical "I think X is a better alternative than Y." Instead of "X is definitely better than Y and here's this, this and this data point." I'm 19 and I tend to try to jam facts and reasoning down their big fat mouths instead of a more nuanced way. Thanks for the help, dude!

Adam Kokesh:
WOW! Your self-awareness and openness to improvement is impressive! Keep it up!

Magnaniman:
I think it's also important to keep in mind that a large part of this debate is about opinions.  One fact of life is that two different people can be presented with the exact same facts, understand them in similar or identical ways, and still come to different conclusions about what they mean or what should be done.

One debating strategy that I've found effective, when dealing with individuals, is to keep coming back to issues that we agree on so they don't think of me as an enemy.  When I feel like I'm starting to lose them, I'll go back to emphasize our common ground and rebuild my arguments from there, trying to draw parallels between issues we agree on and issues we disagree on.  My goal is not to point out their inconsistencies to prove them wrong, but to help them understand their inconsistencies so they can improve themselves.

Another thing to keep in mind is that you can still be friends with and love someone with whom you disagree.  If you ever make people feel like your love and respect is contingent upon their agreement with you, you're not living your life correctly.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page