Difficulty Pursuading Statists

[DSEngere]

I come asking for some advice.

 

My goal, like most Libertarians/Ancaps, is to convince people of the moral and practical advantages of anarcho-capitalism, and eventually come to our side.

 

I know I can't be the only one who feels like this is next to impossible. So I come asking you what I may be doing wrong (or not doing at all).

 

I spend a lot of time debating people on facebook and in real life. It usually starts with me posting some anti-government status (or comment in real life), article, picture, etc. I'm almost always very calm and respectful (unless my opponent is being an ass). I stick to the evidence and rarely if ever argue from emotion.

 

My suspicion is that engaging in arguments tends to make people cling to their beliefs even harder, simply because their ego is at stake. I certainly see this in myself when I am debating people, especially if they are being rude, because then I feel like I need to crush their arguments into dust. But the big difference between me and my opponents is that I will actually change my mind on a matter (if not during the debate, then afterward after giving it some thought). That's how I became an anarchist- I fought hard from the minarchist position and eventually caved due to the overwhelming evidence against me, even though it was uncomfortable. I can probably count on one hand the number of times people have admitted that I had a good point during a debate/argument/conversation.  That's what gets me- I realize that people naturally don't want to be wrong, but how is that aversion so strong in other people? I know the people I debate to be above average intelligence, with more or less the same upbringing as myself. These are people who I know were not abused as kids, to the contrary had pretty good childhoods. I have a hard time buying that they have some kind of deep mental scarring that is holding them back from the truth- I was raised in a conservative family and went to public school my whole life, and I overcame that mental baggage within about 1.5 to 2 years after hearing about anarchism. Other people seem to have a much more difficult time coming to the truth. I find myself saying the exact same things over and over to some people, as if they completely forgot the argument the last time I told them. I've been debating some of the same people for literally years. The funny thing is, people on this board are in a mad pursuit of truth, even at high cost. We LOOK for ways to crack our theories, and put them under high pressure to check for leaks. It seems that most other people are doing the exact opposite- trying to find any way to patch their broken worldview together to salvage their pride and comfort. Is it just that people have too much pride to admit they're wrong (but secretly know it)? Or is it something much deeper than that? Or is it just that I'm a shitty debater? I spend a lot of time trying to convince people and I don't want it to all be in vain. Does anybody have this same experience? If so, were you able to crack through anybody's shell? So far I realize that to remove someone's jacket, I need to warm them like the sun rather than beat them like the wind, so I try to be as un-confrontational as possible. But beyond that, I am at a bit of a loss.

 

Who knows- maybe I am making all kinds of good progress in peoples' minds and they just won't admit it. Maybe I've planted thousands of seeds and will get to witness the harvest at a later time. It's just a bit discouraging to essentially be debating a brick wall for years.

 

Any insight is greatly appreciate. Thanks very much,

 

-Dan

[Xtort]

If you haven't already watched it, check out Stef's bomb in the brain series and you will see why it's basically impossible to change most people's minds.  In fact by engaging with them you end up reinforcing their paradigms, even if you've shown their position to be absolutely false, factually.

 

I will say from experience that if you get good at using parts of people's arguments to make them argue with themselves, it can be entertaining and sometimes the people listening in will respond positively.  Every once in a while you find someone that hears these concepts for the first time and it's like flipping a switch.  Rare, but it happens.

[julian strauss]

we change their minds by using our heads and hands to show them through our actions and by our associations that another more civil and compassionate way exists. through our communities we create and our children and our business models that are effectual and moral and replicate able and every time we stop trying to change minds and focus on changing our own lives we are one step closer to a real, sustainable economy even if only on a micro level and then scaling and passive marketing will take care of the rest  first we have to choose to build communities and create some educational alternatives  and communities can be three people and scaleing will occur when we can show a net gain both morally and economically   I live in rural sask and the problem is like minded people but we are getting there any one from sask?

[LovePrevails]

it's important to regard whether people are showing genuine curiosity or just trying to shut you down

 

for example in UK people who are nto curious will be sarcastic or ask lamen questions like "you can't have roads or police without government" or "it would be a relentless mob" etc.

 

curious people usually ask "but how would people get NHS" or "free healthcare" which is our national health service - in the tone you recognise that they are interested in being convinced but have humanitarian concerns, and they consider ideas.

 

trying to convince people who aren't curious is a bit like bashing your head against a wall, then again you can't unhear something

so just choose how much effort you want to put in. don't bother unless you are enjoying it, don't get drained about it.

 

you'd do more good in the world spreading the world on peaceful parenting and upgrading your communciation and conflict resolution skills.

[dsayers]

I appreciate your desire to become a more effective communicator. The first thing to keep in mind is that people who did not arrive at a conclusion by logic, reason, or evidence will likely not be talked out of it by logic, reason, or evidence. What this means is that you'll have to do a bit of triage. Present the moral argument and if somebody rejects it based on excuses that aren't as important as the moral argument, move on.

 

For example, if you point out that spanking is assault and then they try to say that it's for the good, then they're saying that assault is acceptable so long as the outcome can be labeled good. Any criminal would agree! This is problematic in that people who think morality is disposable won't bother seeking peaceful solutions since immorality is an option to them.

 

My goal, like most Libertarians/Ancaps, is to convince people of the moral and practical advantages of anarcho-capitalism, and eventually come to our side.

 

I would advise against the use of labels. What matters is the truth. Different people have different ideas of what different labels mean and may reject what you have to say based only on the label you apply to it. Taxation is theft whether democracy or anarchy acknowledge it or not.

 

I spend a lot of time debating people on facebook and in real life. It usually starts with me posting some anti-government status (or comment in real life), article, picture, etc. I'm almost always very calm and respectful (unless my opponent is being an ass). I stick to the evidence and rarely if ever argue from emotion.

 

Composure is necessary even in the presence of an ass. If governments threaten paramilitary action for non-obedience and religions threaten hellfire for non-obedience, some guy who is similarly violent will not be able to sell these people something they haven't already seen in a more socially comfortable model. The beauty of trying to teach somebody that 2+2=4 is that you don't have to lose your composure. It shouldn't be important to you if they think that 2+2=5 and reject a simple proof to the contrary.

 

I realize that people naturally don't want to be wrong, but how is that aversion so strong in other people?

 

Momentum. If they accept the lies of religion and statism (another religion), they find no shortage of people who will pat them on the back for their "moral integrity." We need to make it uncomfortable to choose propaganda over the truth and the way we do this is to not associate with the violent. Including in verbal debates. Let it be known that your dissociation is directly linked to their willingness to use coercion to achieve their goals.

 

Make no mistake, there's only one way to meaningfully divide people: Those willing to use violence to get what they want and those who are not. Those who are live in a world where few people will hold them responsible for their actions. One way we can do this without using coercion ourselves is to withhold ourselves from them.

 

These are people who I know were not abused as kids, to the contrary had pretty good childhoods.

 

On what basis? The inability to reason and negotiate with others in a world where we are interdependent is dramatically crippling. It's no different than a parent chopping off their child's legs and treating them to an otherwise loving home in a world of people with two legs. If a parent circumcises, does not breastfeed, does not soothe, leaves children in daycares at young ages, subjects them to government schooling... the list of ways that parents can abuse their children without actually raising a hand or their voice to them is endless.

 

I hope that was helpful. What I would recommend is sharing some of your specific interactions for critique. I say this because in general (here), you make use of imprecise language. Which there's nothing wrong with. But if your goal is to influence others, you can add to your own efficiency and effectiveness by improving your presentation of ideas.

[DSEngere]

Thanks very much everyone for the insightful responses- they're all much appreciated!