Blood from a stone?

[DoubtingThomas]

Working with statists and being in a classroom with them on a daily basis is slowly eroding my will to care about or debate with them. I did a stellar job convincing my family to renounce their statist tendencies (for the most part), but those who aren't so close to me are clearly impervious to the against-me line of argument. To say that I have made no headway with my classmates and coworkers would be too generous. In-fact, I would say that most of the (liberal) statists I work with in-particular now hold a special antipathy for anyone who quesitons the validity of taxation, morality of spanking children, etc.

I have two more years to finish my engineering degree and it is hard work. Other than my daily bike commute to campus, work, and back home, I don't have much time to think, let alone socialize; so the isolation that has come from being an outspoken "libertard," has brought me a bit of grief in the form of having little to no social outlet. At this point I am strongly considering roleplaying the most caricatured of statist that I can come up with just to see if they notice the absurdity. In any event, I have all but lost the will to dish on the subject now. It all seems like pissing into the wind.

Am I alone in thinking that convincing statists not to hit their kids is like trying to convince a biblical literalist that the world is more than a few thousand years old?

[Jose Perez]

What part of your family were you unable to convince?

Why do you want to convince statists so bad?

Have you contemplated the possibility that wanting to convince them might be defeating the object?

[Joey M]

 

Am I alone in thinking that convincing statists not to hit their kids is like trying to convince a biblical literalist that the world is more than a few thousand years old?

 

I believe Stefan said himself that the against-me argument only has a success rate of less than 10% in his own experiences. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. I think it's far more important to convince, stop, people from being violent towards children compared to convincing a theist of the age that the world is. A child raised peacefully will have the brain capacity to think far more logically and morally to the point of where it'd be very easy to demonstrate to them that the world is more than a few thousands of years old if they even believed that. I would recommend to concentrate your energy and efforts more into convincing people of peaceful parenting and the non aggression principle, because the children are the future. If they learn and follow the basics of the NAP they'll probably realize that statism is immoral on their own.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

What part of your family were you unable to convince?

 

I wouldn't say I was unable to convince them so much as some of them are still in statis conundrums through employment either within the state or in a state monopoly.

 

Why do you want to convince statists so bad?

 

That is a good question. I don't know if I can identify the root cause. I am averse to irrationality and immorality in myself and others. I would prefer that people try to convince me that some illogical or immoral action I undertook was wrong and should be corrected or discontinued, therefor I extend the same courtesy to others when I can.

 

Have you contemplated the possibility that wanting to convince them might be defeating the object?

 

That seems to imply that going to any length to prevent a murder defeats the purpose of protecting human life. I don't find that to be a very compelling argument.

[Jose Perez]

 

 

What part of your family were you unable to convince?

 

I wouldn't say I was unable to convince them so much as some of them are still in statis conundrums through employment either within the state or in a state monopoly.

 

You are not in a statist conundrum getting an engineering degree? I have no problem with that, the state is everywhere, but your position seems contradictory. 

 

 

Why do you want to convince statists so bad?

 

That is a good question. I don't know if I can identify the root cause. I am averse to irrationality and immorality in myself and others. I would prefer that people try to convince me that some illogical or immoral action I undertook was wrong and should be corrected or discontinued, therefor I extend the same courtesy to others when I can.

 

I wouldn't call courtesy something that creates such feelings in you or that is motivated by aversion. In fact, giving people "good things" they haven't asked for – and considering oneself virtuous for it – is common collectivist (statist or religious) practice.

 

 

Have you contemplated the possibility that wanting to convince them might be defeating the object?

 

That seems to imply that going to any length to prevent a murder defeats the purpose of protecting human life. I don't find that to be a very compelling argument.

 

See the point before. In statism you have the best example that human life is not protected by going to "any lengths" to prevent murder. I am criticising your means, not your intellectual ideals (and I am ready for you to disregard my criticisms and not feel frustration about it )

[DoubtingThomas]

 

I am criticising your means, not your intellectual ideals (and I am ready for you to disregard my criticisms and not feel frustration about it )

 

So NAP is valid, but you shouldn't tell anyone about it who isn't already comfortable with NAP?

You must find Stef's podcasts highly irrational and offensive. It is clear from a lot of the negative commentary that he has statist viewers and by the logic you have presented me here, that makes his an act of evangelism. He is cleraly not being virtuous in your view, right?

[Jose Perez]

 

 

I am criticising your means, not your intellectual ideals (and I am ready for you to disregard my criticisms and not feel frustration about it )

 

So NAP is valid, but you shouldn't tell anyone about it who isn't already comfortable with NAP?

 

Where am I saying that you shouldn't tell anyone?

 

You must find Stef's podcasts highly irrational and offensive.

 

Another non sequitur. You are also not podcasting.

 

It is clear from a lot of the negative commentary that he has statist viewers and by the logic you have presented me here, that makes his an act of evangelism. He is cleraly not being virtuous in your view, right?

 

Right. Still he doesn't seem to show much frustration or personally seek to convince people. He contradicts himself a lot too and avoids the points that show or suggest it. 

 

[PatrickC]

so the isolation that has come from being an outspoken "libertard,"

I couldn't help but notice this comment. It seemed a rather harsh and insulting term to use against yourself. It really isn't your fault that people aren't listening to you.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Where am I saying that you shouldn't tell anyone?

 

You have insisted that my methodology, talking to my co-workers who may or may not appreciate NAP, was flawed. In the absence of a better expanation, I had to assume you meant that communicating NAP to a possibly unreceptive audience is wrong by your words.

 

Another non sequitur. You are also not podcasting.

 

What then is the fundamental diffirence between podcasting to anyone who happens upon your youtube videos and speaking to a captive audience in person? Stef admits to doing both himself. Furthermore, it's quite possible someone googling "parenting," and seeking nothing about NAP would stumble upon one of his videos. I really do not understand the supposed dichotomy here.

 

Right. Still he doesn't seem to show much frustration or personally seek to convince people. He contradicts himself a lot too and avoids the points that show or suggest it. 

 

 

My post described my personal frustration. Stef is, visibly, frustrated at times himself. Again, what does this have to do with my (our?) methodology of speaking to people on the merit of NAP?

 

Please clarify your position.

 

 

so the isolation that has come from being an outspoken "libertard,"

I couldn't help but notice this comment. It seemed a rather harsh and
insulting term to use against yourself. It really isn't your fault that
people aren't listening to you.

 

Their words, not my own, but thank you. I do probably blame myself at an unconscious level.

 

[Jose Perez]

 

Please clarify your position.

 

 Dude, you're the one retorting, making fallacies and avoiding my questions (you are not in a statist conundrum?). You clarify your position.

[PatrickC]

 

 

so the isolation that has come from being an outspoken "libertard,"

I couldn't help but notice this comment. It seemed a rather harsh and
insulting term to use against yourself. It really isn't your fault that
people aren't listening to you.

 

Their words, not my own, but thank you. I do probably blame myself at an unconscious level.

Ah, thanks for the correction. I didn't acknowledge the quotes around the word.

I wanted to add that you have my sympathies in this regard. I recall the huge urge to speak with anyone and everyone I met in my life. I think I convinced two people in total. The rest was just a bed wetting cluster fuck experience frankly. I decided some time ago that my own time and well-being was far more valuable than being wasted on these 'statards' (my words). Once I decided to focus on my own personal happiness and building great relationships with people that got it, life became much more fulfilling. As a result of concentrating on my own needs I have become more surgical in my approach towards others. Often people will now ask me questions and I decide whether I want to answer them or not. It's your life DT, not others. I hope that helps.

[Jose Perez]

Here is some fun music! it means: "the village cows have already escaped, riau riau..."

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf7YrrwTeAc]

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 Dude, you're the one retorting, making fallacies and avoiding my questions (you are not in a statist conundrum?). You clarify your position.

 

I don't know how that affects the rest of my post in its entirety, but if you insist:

 

What part of your family were you unable to convince?

Why do you want to convince statists so bad?

Have you contemplated the possibility that wanting to convince them might be defeating the object?

 

1. My brother is unconvinced that a society adhereing to NAP would work. He cannot clearly articulate why that is, and he seems to accept that voluntary exchange are the best means of accomplishing -most- goals, but like many minarchists he cannot get over the "what if we are invaded or if the mafia takes over," scenarios.

2. I would like to convince them "so bad[ly]," because it is the only non-political means by which a freedom-loving person can help to encourage a better future. Out-breeding statists and simply raising peaceful children one's self is obviously a statistical impossibility.

3. I find that to be a contradictory position. If I do not want to convince others then I cannot claim to have a strong conviction of those principles myself. I could sit on my sarcastic haunches and wax comic about the world around me like HL Menken, and oh how that does appeal to me at a time like this, but if I am to complain about the state of things I feel it is at the very least necessary to make a case as to why that is.

Hopefully that clarifies whatever you were hung up on. I look forward to your reply.

[Jose Perez]

First of all, I really appreciate that you take my questions seriously and honestly as you're willing to answer them. It really helps me believe you if you say you hold curiosity and such as virtues...

 

1. My brother is unconvinced that a society adhereing to NAP would work. He cannot clearly articulate why that is, and he seems to accept that voluntary exchange are the best means of accomplishing -most- goals, but like many minarchists he cannot get over the "what if we are invaded or if the mafia takes over," scenarios.

 

What you first said: "I wouldn't say I was unable to convince them so much as some of them are still in statis conundrums through employment either within the state or in a state monopoly."

Sorry, too much inconsistency here. I think you realise why. I'm happy to continue after you resolve it. 

 

2. I would like to convince them "so bad[ly]," because it is the only non-political means by which a freedom-loving person can help to encourage a better future. Out-breeding statists and simply raising peaceful children one's self is obviously a statistical impossibility.

 

Well, then I'm interested in why you want a better future so bad. I am genuinely interested in your answer.

 

3. I find that to be a contradictory position. If I do not want to convince others then I cannot claim to have a strong conviction of those principles myself. I could sit on my sarcastic haunches and wax comic about the world around me like HL Menken, and oh how that does appeal to me at a time like this, but if I am to complain about the state of things I feel it is at the very least necessary to make a case as to why that is.

 

The saying "the more you want it, the less you get it" has a lot to do with what I mean here. Again, I'd like to make sure we're both interested in understanding each other and being rational before proceeding any further.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

First of all, I really appreciate that you take my questions seriously and honestly as you're willing to answer them. It really helps me believe you if you say you hold curiosity and such as virtues...

 

You are welcome.

 

What you first said: "I wouldn't say I was unable to convince them so much as some of them are still in statis conundrums through employment either within the state or in a state monopoly."

Sorry, too much inconsistency here. I think you realise why. I'm happy to continue after you resolve it. 

 

No mutual exclusivity there. My brother and both parents are in medecine. They require a license to work. They are in a statist conundrum.

 

Well, then I'm interested in why you want a better future so bad. I am genuinely interested in your answer.

 

That's a good question. I would have to say it's because I don't want future suffreing for myself or my loved ones. I don't have kids yet, but I do have two nieces that are near and dear to me. Imagining them and future generations of children growing up under a more repressive statist regime is tragic.

 

The saying "the more you want it, the less you get it" has a lot to do with what I mean here. Again, I'd like to make sure we're both interested in understanding each other and being rational before proceeding any further.

 

Speaking from experience, I have the opposite mindset. I screwed around finding myself as a young adult and only recently found a path that I really wanted to be on. That drive has gotten me through some hellish physics classes. Had I not really cared for the outcome of this degree program, I would probably have failed out by now.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but it sounds very nihilistic.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Ah, thanks for the correction. I didn't acknowledge the quotes around the word.

I wanted to add that you have my sympathies in this regard. I recall the huge urge to speak with anyone and everyone I met in my life. I think I convinced two people in total. The rest was just a bed wetting cluster fuck experience frankly. I decided some time ago that my own time and well-being was far more valuable than being wasted on these 'statards' (my words). Once I decided to focus on my own personal happiness and building great relationships with people that got it, life became much more fulfilling. As a result of concentrating on my own needs I have become more surgical in my approach towards others. Often people will now ask me questions and I decide whether I want to answer them or not. It's your life DT, not others. I hope that helps.

 

Thanks. That was a very illuminating post.

[Jose Perez]

 

No mutual exclusivity there. My brother and both parents are in medecine. They require a license to work. They are in a statist conundrum.

 

But you said you had convinced all of them, and that this not being "for the most part" meant their still being in statist conundrums. I then asked you if you as an engineering student are not yourself in a statist conundrum. This is still not consistent. If that is the standard for convincing someone then you have not convinced yourself either.

On the other hand, you say that having not convinced them means your brother having problems letting go of the idea that the state is necessary. If this is the standard then I suppose your mentioning your brother only means that your parents are fully anarchists, is this correct?

 

 

Well, then I'm interested in why you want a better future so bad. I am genuinely interested in your answer.

 

That's a good question. I would have to say it's because I don't want future suffreing for myself or my loved ones. I don't have kids yet, but I do have two nieces that are near and dear to me. Imagining them and future generations of children growing up under a more repressive statist regime is tragic.

 

Does your care for the future of children thus increase with their closeness to you, or do you have equal care for all children?

You say you want to prevent your own suffering also, but you seem to be going through suffering in this process. How would you rate the trade off between current suffering and future reduction of suffering? Does a reduction of suffering of others in future generations count to you as a positive and worth your suffering now? 

 

 

The saying "the more you want it, the less you get it" has a lot to do with what I mean here. Again, I'd like to make sure we're both interested in understanding each other and being rational before proceeding any further.

 

Speaking from experience, I have the opposite mindset. I screwed around finding myself as a young adult and only recently found a path that I really wanted to be on. That drive has gotten me through some hellish physics classes. Had I not really cared for the outcome of this degree program, I would probably have failed out by now.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but it sounds very nihilistic.

 

We weren't talking about degrees but about (convincing) people.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

But you said you had convinced all of them, and that this not being "for the most part" meant their still being in statist conundrums. I then asked you if you as an engineering student are not yourself in a statist conundrum. This is still not consistent. If that is the standard for convincing someone then you have not convinced yourself either.

On the other hand, you say that having not convinced them means your brother having problems letting go of the idea that the state is necessary. If this is the standard then I suppose your mentioning your brother only means that your parents are fully anarchists, is this correct?

 

I used the qualifier loosely and my meaning was imprecise, true. As for myself, I would say I too am in a statist conundrum with my engineering work being a licensed affair. I don't think this is inconsistent so much as non-descript. I did not actually lay out what my standard for convincing someone was in great detail, but sufficed to say I think the most important thing is accepting NAP on a rational basis. That is to say, ancap in philosophy, even if bound by some state appendage. To the extent that I consider my brother unconvinced, you are correct. He is the lone minarchist among us and I can't even be sure he's a minarchist most of the time.

 

 

Does your care for the future of children thus increase with their closeness to you, or do you have equal care for all children?

You say you want to prevent your own suffering also, but you seem to be going through suffering in this process. How would you rate the trade off between current suffering and future reduction of suffering? Does a reduction of suffering of others in future generations count to you as a positive and worth your suffering now? 

 

I don't pretend to care equally for individuals with whom I don't share any kind of relationship, but I would say I view the future of all children as worthy of present effort. Since I can't possibly know the future or my direct impact on it, I don't make the latter question's calculus. I recognize there is a correlation between virtue in the present and future, so my goal is to pay that forward while I pursue my own life. Since I have remained employed and in school and not devoted myself entirely to the pursuite of enlightening statists, I would have to say this represents the contrasting value of my present to their future. My life is not a sacrifice, but my compulsion to point people in the direction of voluntaryism does usurp what most people consider their free time.

 

 

We weren't talking about degrees but about (convincing) people.

 

Yes, but we were both speaking in terms of dedication. Whether I am learning to speak Japaneese, compose an opera, plot the course of an asteroid, or tie my shoes I am still going to succeed or fail in the effort based largely on how much dedication is displayed in my preperation and execution of the task at hand. Rhetorical skills, as I understand them, do not present an exception to the rule. That is not to say that by sheer force of will one could make the entire world see reason, but if one is to convince more people of the validity of their arguments, some preperation of the material and practice at communicating would clearly be in order.

This of course, is what I called into question entirely in the OP. My experience leads me to believe a lot of statists are simply unwilling to approach reason, let alone follow it to a logical conclusion.

[tasmlab]

Personally, I find it challenging to just convince progressives to be good progressives and conservatives to be good conservatives.  Or just to get them talking about something other than the president.  Or just to get people to recognize that their cops and parks and libraries come from their town governments.

Like just getting past "You know, if I were a good progressive, I might be critical with how corporatey - and, really, fascistic - the affordable healthcare act is."  Or "If I were a progressive, I'd think I'd prefer a government that fights fewer wars."

Even these little dingbats can draw ire.

So, in short, your situation is hopeless.  You might need a new hobby!

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Personally, I find it challenging to just convince progressives to be good progressives and conservatives to be good conservatives.  Or just to get them talking about something other than the president.  Or just to get people to recognize that their cops and parks and libraries come from their town governments.

Like just getting past "You know, if I were a good progressive, I might be critical with how corporatey - and, really, fascistic - the affordable healthcare act is."  Or "If I were a progressive, I'd think I'd prefer a government that fights fewer wars."

Even these little dingbats can draw ire.

So, in short, your situation is hopeless.  You might need a new hobby!

 

While it does pain me to come to that realization, I think you're absolutely right.

 

This is both liberating and depressing.