bugzysegal Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 What's the best way to spread anarchy? Adversarial arguments? Explanations? Discussions? Socractic interrogation? Blogs? Burning trashcans through windows(j/k)? What kinds of arguments do you find most convincing? Pragmatic or moral?
Kurtis Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 By living it. Practice voluntarism and NAP in your family of origin, family, all relationships, etc. Doing this will make you happier. Happy anarchist makes for good advertising. You want people to come to you asking how you've become so happy and successful. Be that shiny beacon of light. 6
McBeer Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 Live your life and enjoy it. Don't waste your time on things and people that are not important to you. Be an example for others to follow. 1
bugzysegal Posted September 29, 2015 Author Posted September 29, 2015 By living it. Practice voluntarism and NAP in your family of origin, family, all relationships, etc. Doing this will make you happier. Happy anarchist makes for good advertising. You want people to come to you asking how you've become so happy and successful. Be that shiny beacon of light. Is anarchism the only way to be happy? When it comes down to it....do we not need to proselytize anarchy? I'm asking specifically what modes of communication do you find best for this task. For instance, Stefan debates, discusses, interrogates....which of these do you think has the most demonstrative value or is easiest to incorporate?
Wuzzums Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 I see myself as a very rational human yet Stefan's arguments didn't really have an effect on me even though I saw the logic behind them. What I'm trying to say is that I didn't consider myself an anarchist up until I noticed how happy Stefan was, how he didn't have to deal with all the annoying things we trick ourselves into believing we have to do. The "emotional" (or the benefits) argument is what worked for me in the end. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist because there's logic behind the arguments, I'm an anarcho-capitalist because I want what Stefan has. "What's in it for me?" If you can answer this question for people they will come to you for advice. 2
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 I see myself as a very rational human yet Stefan's arguments didn't really have an effect on me even though I saw the logic behind them. What I'm trying to say is that I didn't consider myself an anarchist up until I noticed how happy Stefan was, how he didn't have to deal with all the annoying things we trick ourselves into believing we have to do. The "emotional" (or the benefits) argument is what worked for me in the end. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist because there's logic behind the arguments, I'm an anarcho-capitalist because I want what Stefan has. "What's in it for me?" If you can answer this question for people they will come to you for advice. I wouldn't expect your case.
dsayers Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 do we not need to proselytize anarchy? No. Most of the people you would do this to already achieve their goals without initiating the use of force. This is what boggles my mind the most about the struggle we find ourselves in: People who live peacefully swearing to the death that we cannot survive peacefully. Gah! Kurtis and McBeer nailed it. The people in my life (including my most established abuser!) can see I'm happy, am able to think rationally, can articulate my thoughts and not get side-tracked by obfuscations. My life has conspicuously improved simply by accepting that I own myself, I have the capacity for error, and these are universal to all of us. If you're trying to make the case for somebody, try to identify where their mental block is. Are they afraid of being responsible for their own lives and decisions? Are they afraid of what their friends and family will think? Are they afraid of the "services" they will lose out on if they simply admit that violence is internally inconsistent? 1
regevdl Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 Living it first and foremost as others have pointed out. I am naturally a pragmatic person so that feels natural and easy to me to explain or convey anarcho-capitalist/free society ideas from a practical standpoint. But, occasionally I encounter those who are less pragmatic and need the 'feels' conversation so I touch on the moral principles or at least point out the immorality of existing structures. BEING consistent and a good representative of the idea is key. being as happy and successful or attempting to reach your success is the best example. I have encountered those who claim to be anarchist who are hurting the cause. They are miserable, condescending, resentful, angry, etc...this is not good. Until you have found your inner balance and goals and methods towards those goals, it's best to keep the discussion with potential newbies out of the air as you (not you directly) might be unintentionally giving a bad vibe/representation of the cause. That is part of the empathy. be empathetic to your audience, meaning, we have to understand that not everyone is open or will be open or will open up at the same pace that we did. We have to be a safe place for them to be honest when they are feeling resistant to the idea or principles, etc. This is where a lot of Libertarians and frankly anarcho-caps fail in my experience in witnessing them try to bring this idea to the table and in all honestly, I was guilty of this in the past. But I quickly learned to have more empathy when people resist and to give them a safe space for that resistance. In my experience (as I am still learning the hard lessons but have overcome a lot of faults in the process), I rarely use the term anarchism or other labels. I simple put the points out there, offer solutions and live by example. THEN, usually what happens is people ask me what religion I am or what political persuasion I am. From that point I get into labels and categories. They are less shocked in this way than if I just say it upfront. By refraining from labeling oneself upfront, it doesn't allow people to pigeon hole you and go on the defensive as they often do. After they have interacted with me, witnessed my consistency and witness my self-correction when I go off course or reaching out for feedback, etc, they might ask me. Then when they understand I am a political atheist/anarchist/voluntarist or whichever label I choose, they find it more comforting. Hey a happily married woman, mother, active in her community, sensitive, compassionate, smart, well spoken, hard working, etc....and anarchist comes off much better than putting the label out there before they get to know me. Many will tell me I should run for office and I tell them that is where good ideas go to die..that's a good icebreaker to introduce anarchy AFTER you have peaked their curiosity and obvious interest by them observing how you live for some time.
Very Ape Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 I don't think the movement can spread beyond those who already have some inclination towards it. Admittedly I am struggling with this but many people just don't respond to logic and reason. They respond to comfort, repetition, group think, acceptance of authority, etc. I am not sure how to break that cycle. I have heard somewhere that it takes about two decades to propagandize the public. If we wanted to lower the bar and use propaganda to spread anarchy like the Government, it would still take about 20 years to convert the majority of people. I think we all know we don't have that kind of tim. Cultural Marxists are making viral FB posts and twitter feeds about equal pay, gender neutrality, rape culture, etc. which get many people wound up and socially motivated/activated in a way that we can't with logic and reason. That said I find propaganda revolting. I see no solution.
regevdl Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 I don't think the movement can spread beyond those who already have some inclination towards it. Admittedly I am struggling with this but many people just don't respond to logic and reason. They respond to comfort, repetition, group think, acceptance of authority, etc. I am not sure how to break that cycle. I have heard somewhere that it takes about two decades to propagandize the public. If we wanted to lower the bar and use propaganda to spread anarchy like the Government, it would still take about 20 years to convert the majority of people. I think we all know we don't have that kind of tim. Cultural Marxists are making viral FB posts and twitter feeds about equal pay, gender neutrality, rape culture, etc. which get many people wound up and socially motivated/activated in a way that we can't with logic and reason. That said I find propaganda revolting. I see no solution. It depends on your expectation. I came from the farthest probability of being open to this and I found my way but i found my way by way of a popcorn trail or I think the phrase now is 'breadcrumb' trail. We have to see ourselves as an individual popcorn on a long path . it's a longer path for some, shorter path for others. There is a combination of MANY people who have gotten me to where I am. I went from a politcally religious right household to going LEFT on my own to nihalism and finally feel (in my mid 30s) I have found the proper balance and consistent, moral path. It's a process and that process is different for everyone and we, as advocates have to be nimble in how we pitch the message. It's hard work! So just because we don't see fairly instant results, we shouldn't be hopeless. I mean I am sure the ppl who try to wake me up 20 years ago were ready to give up....but in the end....they win...even if they are not here to be validated by me reaching the point they wanted me to see. You don't need a majority to change anything. That's proof in elections. the LOUD minority typically win. lol so in the case of philosophy, you don't need a majority. we need more than we have but we don't need a majority. That is a self defeating statement to deter yourself or others from trying or reevaluating new approaches (i agree...propaganda is NOT the way) but just keep on, change up the strategy, learn what works and what doesn't adn don't expect ANYONE to validate you but that doesn't mean you didn't get through to them. It only means they are too proud to admit you are right but they typically show their reformation down the road. Be patient. I WISH I could go back and thank every 'popcorn' along the way who planted even the tiniest challenging thought in my head no matter how hard I resisted at the moment. 1
RCali Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 I don't think the movement can spread beyond those who already have some inclination towards it. Admittedly I am struggling with this but many people just don't respond to logic and reason. They respond to comfort, repetition, group think, acceptance of authority, etc. Exactly. This exactly what I observe. Comfort is stronger than logic, for those intelectually challenged, or those who have been indocrinated. I've spoken to very smart people who just won't budge on this topic. I've presented very good arguments, went right to the fundament of morality, and there's no response. The usual nonsense about police, law, infrastructure comes up. Other people, who I also considered to be smart, are either super Rs, or super indocrinated. They can't even understand what the term capitalism means. All of this to say - this isn't the path. Stefan has said many, many times: the reason he doesn't persue politics, be it as career, as a youtuber, as a writer, is that it's extremelly unefficient. It would take all his lifetime to get somewhere, but most likely wouldn't have any sucess. No, the path is another. It is to show people the wrong of child abuse. Show people the virtue of peaceful parenting, of unconditional love towards your children. Teach them negotiation, teach them to breastfeed for years, teach them to stay the whole day with them and school them. Can you even imagine this as your childhood? How much more successful in life you could have been. How much I could have been. And if this were the reality for the majority of people, violence would diminish incredibly. Bullying gone, wars gone, and, eventually, governments would be gone. People would be confident on their own abilities to rule over themselves. They would be confident of their neighbors. They would trust that everyone could own private companies, that there would be no need for coercion. They would see the virtue of peace, and would despise anyone who would offer violence. This is the more efficient way, and with that said, it will possibly take longer than our lifetime. But we can definitely change the lives of millions, and that has all the value it ever needs for me to get off my ass and spread the message. 2
dsayers Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Comfort is stronger than logic I don't think perpetual war, economies collapsing all over the world, and the enforcer class constantly and violently attacking people makes for much comfort. Meanwhile, I personally find a great deal of comfort in the truth that humans are not fundamentally different in such a way that they can exist is different, opposing moral categories.
Waffles Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Well, anarchy isn't really a political or social state. it's just a state of mind, a belief that the people in charge are just that, people, and nothing more. So in a way, anarchy is individual empowerment,which is independent of the current state. So in order to encourage individual integrity (which is in my opinion the core principle of anarchy), the most important thing to do is to reveal the current state of affairs, and why we should not be content with it.
RCali Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 Sure thing. My opinion is the same as yours. Edit: was referring to dsayers' comment.
powder Posted October 19, 2015 Posted October 19, 2015 We are always reminded to the famous quote "all that is required for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing". I think it is more accurately restated as "all that is required for evil to prosper is for it to masquerade as that which is good and necessary". I think it is useful, in the simplest and most engaging way, to show people the blatant moral and rational contradiction that they are holding on to by supporting the state. We all understand the NAP and live by it in our day to day lives yet believe that society cannot function unless it is violated.
myclippedwings Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Exactly. This exactly what I observe. Comfort is stronger than logic, for those intelectually challenged, or those who have been indocrinated. I've spoken to very smart people who just won't budge on this topic. I've presented very good arguments, went right to the fundament of morality, and there's no response. The usual nonsense about police, law, infrastructure comes up. Other people, who I also considered to be smart, are either super Rs, or super indocrinated. They can't even understand what the term capitalism means. All of this to say - this isn't the path. Stefan has said many, many times: the reason he doesn't persue politics, be it as career, as a youtuber, as a writer, is that it's extremelly unefficient. It would take all his lifetime to get somewhere, but most likely wouldn't have any sucess. No, the path is another. It is to show people the wrong of child abuse. Show people the virtue of peaceful parenting, of unconditional love towards your children. Teach them negotiation, teach them to breastfeed for years, teach them to stay the whole day with them and school them. Can you even imagine this as your childhood? How much more successful in life you could have been. How much I could have been. And if this were the reality for the majority of people, violence would diminish incredibly. Bullying gone, wars gone, and, eventually, governments would be gone. People would be confident on their own abilities to rule over themselves. They would be confident of their neighbors. They would trust that everyone could own private companies, that there would be no need for coercion. They would see the virtue of peace, and would despise anyone who would offer violence. This is the more efficient way, and with that said, it will possibly take longer than our lifetime. But we can definitely change the lives of millions, and that has all the value it ever needs for me to get off my ass and spread the message. Wow, beautifully said. I honestly somtimes felt pessimistic about my chances with showing and explaining people things like anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism. Bt you are right, we won't see the change in our lifetime, but we are definitely the ones to influence change. Especially if we parent peacefully, we could have generations of our families be non violent/abusive, which is already a massive change on its own. Ironically chaos theory in maths states that a small change in variables can cause a massive change in your resulting variables. So small changes now, would have a massive impact later.
regevdl Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 I don't think perpetual war, economies collapsing all over the world, and the enforcer class constantly and violently attacking people makes for much comfort. Meanwhile, I personally find a great deal of comfort in the truth that humans are not fundamentally different in such a way that they can exist is different, opposing moral categories. I won't speak for RCali on his definition of this but I interpreted it as invidivudals' comfort is stronger than the individuals' logic...not necessarily the unintended negative consequences of their choice of comfort over logic. Meaning, if you bring up challenging issues to an individual, most likely they will feel uncomfortable and they will recoil to seek refuge from the threat they perceive (a logical conversation can be very 'threatening' to some people). Or even if they 'agree' with the logic, they won't take any moral courage to make practical changes in their own life to work towards that. They then become a private 'cheerleader' for you to do the work...they rarely even share with others of their new 'revelation' etc. That is what I understood his comment to mean. of course, we see the wars and these negative outcomes beCAUSE people are taking the easy road, the comfortable road of not speaking up or speaking up when it's too late to matter. (in 2015 it's not morally courageous to only now be against the Iraq war. (not saying because of that they shouldn't!! lol) In 2003, very much morally courageous ,etc)
dsayers Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Oh yeah. I understand all of that. It's actually a secret delight of mine that the whole thing is flying off the rails with such follow through that even the irrationally comfortable are starting to squirm. Where logic will fail to convince these people, reality is climbing into the ring. Meanwhile, thanks to the internet, the powers that be not taking it seriously enough soon enough, and the inherent inefficiency of coercion, the truth is out there, the process by which cannot be reversed. It's like Larken Rose says about State power and Stef says about the extension of personhood to children (paraphrased): You can kick, fight, scream, and threaten dissenters, but you can't stop it anymore than they were able to stop the truth about the Sun being the center of the solar system. It's like the frog in the boiling pot analogy. They think they're comfortable, but that's just because they don't yet realize they've lost sensation in their extremities. Okay, I think that's enough symbolism for one post
NoTime4marxists Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Start a business and only take cash. Pay as little as possible in whatever tax they impose. Don't play their game. You can't win. You must start your own game. Stay out of debt. Quit using their services, home school and grow your own. I started a candy pecan business by collecting cans and scrap metal. I used those funds and bought pecans and ingredients. I turned a modest $60 investment into $1600 in sales and $700 in profits. Whenever someone asks me why I don't get permission to sell my product I tell them,"I will have to charge you $10 more per pound and then the govt. can deny me the right to buy and sell. Also, I say,"I don't need some lazy bureaucrat's permission to sell something. If we are free, then we do not need permission to enjoy the fruits of our labor and production." Oh well, this is how I do it. Pecans anyone? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NoTime4marxists Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 "In order to be heard, one must have something to say. To have that, one must know one's case. One must know it fully, logically, consistently and all the way down to its' philosophical fundamentals/roots. One cannot fight or convert a self described irrationalists. The goal of an ideological battle is to enlighten the vast and bewildered majority." Ayn Rand As an anarchist, I must ask myself some serious questions, in order to prepare to go to battle. Here's a start: Am I well enough read/prepared to argue for Liberty/Freedom all the way down to its' core? How committed am I going to be? Stef touched on this in a video. He noticed the Leftists are committed heart and soul. They have to do it. They are parasites. It is life and death to them. It is their sustenance. The anarchists must see their Liberty/Freedom as their sustenance and any poisoning of it is DEATH. What is my long term goal? Do you and I have one?
Recommended Posts