The Married Convert Must Convert At Least One Person

[mishochu]

I am unsure of where to put this. I've only recently (less than about a year) really started to formalize my understandings of liberty, the legitimacy of the state, etc.

 

True to form I've taken the ideas and run with them. My transition from accepting authority to learning more about history (right now I'm dissecting the Kentucky resolutions) and the gradual loss of liberty in the US has helped me identify those who disagree adamantly with me.

 

I only have to live with one of these people.

 

 

Were any of you formerly adherents to statist ideology only to have a conversion moment while your spouse did not?

 

Were any of you able to bring about this sort of conversion in your spouse?

 

 

The reason I ask is that my wife is a board certified pediatrician who early in development received life-saving surgery for a congenital cardiac ailment paid for by Medicaid. She's the last child in a large family that was enterprising and poor and is the only child to have graduated from a university.

 

I am not extemporaneously witty, particularly verbally and often have difficulty conveying my beliefs. This results in any attack of a system (I might call the redistribution of wealth "immoral") being considered an attack on her morals. She believes that the taxes she pays for the rest of her life are morally obligated because of the assistance she has received in the past.

 

Pretty much anytime I open my mouth I'm getting it wrong and instead of my wife dispassionately considering the arguments she vows she will never agree with me. My hope is that my failure is in the delivery not the content. More importantly we have a 10 month old son that is so easy going and really such a joy to be around and I want to present a unified front in our parenting, peaceful example and education.

 

 

 

[algernon]

I am unsure of where to put this. I've only recently (less than about a year) really started to formalize my understandings of liberty, the legitimacy of the state, etc.

 

True to form I've taken the ideas and run with them. My transition from accepting authority to learning more about history (right now I'm dissecting the Kentucky resolutions) and the gradual loss of liberty in the US has helped me identify those who disagree adamantly with me.

 

I only have to live with one of these people.

 

 

Were any of you formerly adherents to statist ideology only to have a conversion moment while your spouse did not?

 

Were any of you able to bring about this sort of conversion in your spouse?

 

 

The reason I ask is that my wife is a board certified pediatrician who early in development received life-saving surgery for a congenital cardiac ailment paid for by Medicaid. She's the last child in a large family that was enterprising and poor and is the only child to have graduated from a university.

 

I am not extemporaneously witty, particularly verbally and often have difficulty conveying my beliefs. This results in any attack of a system (I might call the redistribution of wealth "immoral") being considered an attack on her morals. She believes that the taxes she pays for the rest of her life are morally obligated because of the assistance she has received in the past.

 

Pretty much anytime I open my mouth I'm getting it wrong and instead of my wife dispassionately considering the arguments she vows she will never agree with me. My hope is that my failure is in the delivery not the content. More importantly we have a 10 month old son that is so easy going and really such a joy to be around and I want to present a unified front in our parenting, peaceful example and education.

 

Is the assistance you receive when you are a child somehow make you indebted to others, do you owe your parents for all of the food they bought for you as children? "But they fed me, I have to repay them..."

 

If I steal your identity and purchase a house, are you required to pay for it? Of course you can live in a room of it if you wish, but according to government you are responsible for the mortgage...

 

My point is, you cannot be morally obligated to a debt you were never consulted with or agreed to. Just like if someone were to steal your ID and purchase something on credit, you are not morally obligated for that debt.

 

Do you think perhaps your relationship has turned into a bit of a win-lose scenario (or maybe has always been that way)? Sometimes the mindset develops in such a way where if one considers the other as winning, then they have to be the loser, and it can never be win-win for either party.

 

I am blessed and cursed, where as with my spouse she will easily conform to what I think is best. Once I came to the realization that peaceful parenting was the only option (luckily before our first child) she was relieved as she said she never wanted to hit our children, as we were both raised with "spanking" being the only option. The relief being she will easily conform to my opinion, the curse being she easily conforms to my opinion, I suppose if you can't have someone that is a strong self thinker, have that person be exposed to someone that is, and hopefully a good outcome will follow.

[LancierDombre]

I'm not in your particular situation, but I am in a situation similar to your wife.  I too was born with a congenital heart problem, and while it wasn't paid for by Medicaid, it was paid for by my dad's insurance, which he got through his union job.

 

One of the barriers in my mind in reaching this point was the knowledge that my standard of living, my very life itself, is and has been dependent on government redistribution programs.  However, there are very few people for whom this is not in some way true, which is exactly why I'm not afraid of a free society.

 

Suppose the state broke your leg, but then was nice enough to give you a crutch.  Would you be morally obligated to pay taxes to the state because it gave you that crutch?  I think not.

 

While the state did not give either me or your wife our heart conditions, it has affected the economy and perverted its structure through its interventions.  It may well be that if we had a perfectly free market in health care, the cost of the life saving surgeries that both me and your wife received would have been affordable through private charity - which does still have a place in a free society.  Could a guarantee that?  No.  I can guarantee though, that if we had a true free market in health care, there would be a lot more of an incentive to provide quality health care at an affordable price point.  I can also guarantee that a true free market in health care would not look like the current system in the US, sans Medicare or Medicaid.

[AccuTron]

Years ago I was in an ambulance and ICU.  For a loooooong time afterwards, I was extremely indebted to the staff for saving my life.  Years later, I still like the ambulance guys, who I saw for about one second.  The ICU staff, I've come to realize, were dolts, in what they didn't do.  It is very emotional, which is the antithesis of logic.  It took time for me to literally get around to that thinking, I had so much else to deal with.  Alas, the cringe factor:  I've given up on trying to engage women with rational thought.  Logic bounces off the brick walls of ego/emotion.  And I've never found a solution for that.

[Jer]

Have you asked your wife to call in to the show? Does she listen with you and explain why she disagrees? Obviously Stefan is better at explaining this stuff than most of us so instead of trying to articulate the ideas myself sometimes I'll turn on a podcast and we discuss it after.

 

My wife and I used to be Christian and Republican and we're now both skeptical libertarians. I'd recommend Peter Boghossian's book A Manual for Creating Atheists. The book isn't about religion so much as beliefs. You can use the methods he uses to talk a person out of faith in gods and apply them toward faith in the state.

 

Lots of the early podcasts are good too.:

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/1/the-stateless-society-an-examination-of-alternatives

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/37/what-is-libertarianism

 

http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1455402039&sr=1-1&keywords=a+manual+for+creating+atheists

[mishochu]

Have you asked your wife to call in to the show? Does she listen with you and explain why she disagrees? Obviously Stefan is better at explaining this stuff than most of us so instead of trying to articulate the ideas myself sometimes I'll turn on a podcast and we discuss it after.

 

 

I recall playing an episode where Stefan discusses the dangers of SSRIs and the trend of over-diagnosing kids with ADHD to which she promptly started asking for his credentials.

 

It sometimes feels like a consequence of attaining a graduate degree is a smaller circle of people from which one can absorb ideas. In her case it's an MD, and a pediatrician to boot.

 

Since I created this post she's actually challenged my assertion that "she will never agree with me". Instead she told me to look up "motivational interviewing" and "pre-contemplation". I have looked them up. I will admit that my past attempts have been less conversations and more soliloquy.

 

For instance, in the past I had sent her an email titled, "Representation is a Myth", which outlined why political representation (by design) doesn't work. After her recommendation to look up motivational interviewing I followed that email up with, "What Does Representation Mean to You?" The reason I send emails instead of discussing these issues verbally is because we both have a tendency to cut each other off when the discussion is political or philosophical and I wanted a medium that didn't have audible volume or interjections.

 

The idea is I'm meant to ask open-ended questions that increase dialogue and end up with her reasoning herself either into a corner (at which point she realizes what I'm trying to say) or validating her point of view (in which case I should also consider its merits).

 

The problem is I haven't received a response (to my email) in over 4 days. Dialogue can't start without her response and I think she's just using it to deflect or delay our discussion.

 

I'll have to lookup Boghossian. Right now I've been placing Michael Heumer's "The Problem of Political Authority" in various locations around the house hoping she would just open it and read a single page.

[tasmlab]

I would recommend looking up Non-Violent Communications so that even if it takes years of discussing issues you can still enjoy each other's company and avoid being in perpetual conflict.  You can make sharing these ideas fun.

 

My wife has always come along with me on ideas, but she doesn't treat it like a hobby like I do e.g., she has no interest in getting into the weeds with Murray Rothbard books and the like.

 

What was very important was getting on the same page with homeschooling.  That was easily a multi-year project. 

[Kurtis]

In my experience, much like how a childhood experienced under an authoritarian parent sets one up for an adult life under an authoritarian state, the path to understanding the violations suffered under the state requires starting with understanding the violations suffered during childhood.

 

Perhaps starting there might be more fruitful.

 

Also, have you read Real-Time Relationships?

https://freedomainradio.com/free/

[tasmlab]

Non-Violent Communication is the passive aggression handbook. I'd avoid it at all costs.

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2987/passiveaggressive-communication-call-in-show-may-30th-2015

 

 

Reading the source material, it doesn't seem to be.  The ideas of communicating with empathy, thoughtfulness to emotion and concern for other people's needs seems good on it's face. But I'll check out the critique, thanks for posting.

 

Anyways, regardless of the technique my main point is to not turn these discussions into harsh arguments to be productive.

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

I also have a spouse who is a statist. When we met, he would agree with me superficially on politics, but the more we discuss them, the more I see how committed he is to big government. He truly believes we NEED government to do everything for us. Even if I can get him to admit logical flaws in his position, he will still maintain his position stubbornly. Reasoning with him is impossible. He's not a dumb person by any means, but he does live in fantasy land in regards to a lot of things and is definitely not comfortable being challenged on any of his beliefs. If anyone has any pointers for dealing with a person like this, I'd be grateful!

[Carl Green]

...I am not extemporaneously witty, particularly verbally and often have difficulty conveying my beliefs. This results in any attack of a system (I might call the redistribution of wealth "immoral") being considered an attack on her morals.

 

 

I think that's because it is an attack on her unprincipled morals.

 

An 'attack' for a good reason, but an adversarial/opposing position to her current morals nonetheless.

[mishochu]

I think that's because it is an attack on her unprincipled morals.

 

How do I continue without attacking her?

 

So, after a week and a half of no response at all, I couldn't wait any longer (in hindsight this is a failing on my part). I opened up a discussion and asked (again), "what does representation mean to you?" I wasn't prepared for the answer, which wasn't an answer for my question.

 

She feels that I'm forcing her to see things my way, I'll admit that when I start off on a diatribe expanding on the topic, "representation is a myth", I'm trying to persuade her that no one really represents her politically (and it is unlikely that anyone ever will).

 

However, when I ask her what representation means to her, I'm trying to use motivational interviewing for her to realize, on her own, what contradictions might exist. I promised her never to make statements, but only to ask open-ended questions based on her responses.

 

She continued to feel attacked, wondering why I wasn't patient enough, but had to force the issue (is persistence force or just annoyance?). She brought up my past attempts to teach her to ski, snowboard, golf which ended up with my selling off prematurely purchased gear. I don't see my bad attempts at teaching athletic endeavors the same as trying to be united as a family in our ethics (which could affect the way we plan for the future, spend (or save) in the present, or even how we parent or educate our son.

 

I'm convinced this is passive-aggressive (which I don't readily recognize). I am at a loss, I chose representation as a starting point because it doesn't involve her profession (healthcare is in the news all the time right now and I see how many hours she puts in to caring for other people's children, saying "CHIP, Medicaid, and the ACA aren't effective" would hit too close to home). I changed medium (email), I changed approach (motivational interviewing), I tried (and probably failed) to give more time and space. I fear that left alone she wouldn't consult alternative media, mises.org or any outlet that might present an alternative view.

 

How do you engage the only person that really matters?

[myclippedwings]

In my experience, much like how a childhood experienced under an authoritarian parent sets one up for an adult life under an authoritarian state, the path to understanding the violations suffered under the state requires starting with understanding the violations suffered during childhood.

 

Perhaps starting there might be more fruitful.

 

Also, have you read Real-Time Relationships?

https://freedomainradio.com/free/

Hi Kurtis,

 

Could you please summarize what you fond you learned from Real Time Relationships?

 

I have read it like twice, but I feel like the overall lesson to be learned was that emotionally honesty is what determines the health of a relationship?

 

But I don't understand why a lot of FDR members feel it's an invaluable book, maybe it's just me because I tend to skim read a lot when I feel like I can't focus?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Your wife already vowed to never agree with you on this issue. Why are you ignoring her and continuing to pursue a conversation with her which she doesn't want to have? It would be different if this was an essential issue, but it's not. If your wife is a good mother otherwise, then pursuing this conversation in this manner is passive aggressive on your part, selfish, and petty. Sorry to be blunt. 

 

You already made a commitment to your wife for the person she was before you had a son with her. Arguing with her now is just a really convoluted way of arguing with your own decisions. If she doesn't want to be rational about this issue, you can't force her to. You can be passive aggressive, but that is only going to grow her colder to you for expecting her to change after you had a son with her for the person she was previously.

 

So you can argue with your wife which already is not leading to good results, or you can argue with yourself about your own values. I bet you will have greater results being self critical than criticizing your wife since you are directly in control of yourself. If this was such an important issue for you, why didn't you bring it up before having a child? Why did you chose a woman who would not be open to reason and evidence on this matter? What can you do better in the relationship now that you are more aware? Expecting your wife to change because you have, when it is more difficult for her and you already committed to her is not fair. It's like buying a chicken at the store, and expecting it to turn into duck when you get home. That decisions has already been made. Your wife being a libertarian might be important for you now, but you are now secondary in preference to your son, and if your insistence on this issue is creating a more hostile environment for your son then you should consider that and find a new approach based on controlling your own actions. This probably won't even be an issue for your son for years, so there is plenty of time to prepare. Good luck and thanks for reaching out

[etienneleclerc]

If you'd like to have a peaceful coexistence, have that peaceful coexistence. I know some anarcho-capitalists believe that anybody who disagrees with him wants to enslave him, therefore the two cannot peacefully coexist, but this is not my perspective. I don't hold negative emotions to statists, I just think they have not seen the truth yet. For example, my mother is a Canadian-born, green party, 81% democrat according to isidewith.com. Our relationship is not tainted because of our drastically different mindsets, but it makes for good conversation. Bernie voters are not below you or I, but I think if more people are exposed to our rationale in a emotion-free debate, the anarcho-capitalist mentality would at least be considered more readily by the public and not be seen as a radical, treason-inducing, lawless, terrorist mentality (which I think the mainstream would call anarcho-capitalism should it get big and at all aggressive).

 

Some rants I have personally seen, although I agree with them, would alienate common people. I understand the frustration that builds, but as long as you don't attack your wife personally or try to belittle her somehow, keeping it clear that you are just debating, I think you'll find enjoyable conversation with statists. I get my frustration out by attacking the ideas mercilessly, adding in plenty of "which disproves that point definitively," "And even if all that I said is untrue, your point still falls because blah blah blah  morals," but be sure to compliment their more logical points before delving into analysis, do not interrupt, and generally keep your temperament. 

 

I think you'll find that statists are not a gang of idiots, and from their premises can logically argue for what they believe, and do not think they are stealing or inefficient. 

[Carl Green]

How do I continue without attacking her?

 

Not sure if you can. Seems like it's the nature of debate.  Attack is a rather severe word for this context, but that's essentially what debating/discussing opposing moralities is I think. She has a belief, you're proposing she change her mind on her belief.

 

I might suggest making sure you preface any diatribes with questions about how and why she feels and thinks what she does.

 

And I agree with mellomama, if your wife matters most, where do you and your young son fit into the hierarchy of what matters most?

[mishochu]

You work on yourself, and reveal happiness that she will want to emulate. wwww.alturtle.com is my go-to for marriage counseling. It may be a stretch to say, but I think if you're really committed, he can help you save this. Read that website. You will never run out of material. All the best.

 

Wow, I'm just delving into what in the world the "lizard" is @ http://www.alturtle.com/archives/1239. Even my increasing heart rate makes sense after reading that.

 

 

Your wife already vowed to never agree with you on this issue. Why are you ignoring her and continuing to pursue a conversation with her which she doesn't want to have? It would be different if this was an essential issue, but it's not. If your wife is a good mother otherwise, then pursuing this conversation in this manner is passive aggressive on your part, selfish, and petty. Sorry to be blunt. 

 

I was hoping to have someone in my household I could speak to and with whom I could develop these ideas. I am still hoping not to send my son to public school. I was hoping to present him with a more realistic perspective on US and world history as he grows up. I was hoping to plan the rest of our future in such a way to limit government interference. I figured this was a first step in her understanding where I'm coming from on these sorts of issues that obviously matter more than our current conversations.

 

She agrees with me generally on not using spanking as a form of parenting so that isn't an issue.

 

I am selfish, petty, but probably also "actively" aggressive.

 

Is the alternative living quietly in one's own head and never venturing out (except maybe online) in order to keep peace at all costs? I can do that, but I will need a lot of mental preparation.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

 

I was hoping to have someone in my household I could speak to and with whom I could develop these ideas. I am still hoping not to send my son to public school. I was hoping to present him with a more realistic perspective on US and world history as he grows up. I was hoping to plan the rest of our future in such a way to limit government interference. I figured this was a first step in her understanding where I'm coming from on these sorts of issues that obviously matter more than our current conversations.

 

She agrees with me generally on not using spanking as a form of parenting so that isn't an issue.

 

I am selfish, petty, but probably also "actively" aggressive.

 

Is the alternative living quietly in one's own head and never venturing out (except maybe online) in order to keep peace at all costs? I can do that, but I will need a lot of mental preparation.

 

 

I didn't realize public school was on the table. That is definitely a serious and worthy matter, and I appreciate you thinking about it ahead of time. I think anything you can do to keep your son out of public school will be worthwhile. I guess I was confused since you were bringing up representation to your wife, and that to me seems like a trivial topic compared to something like public school. I think if you are pushing up against your wife's defenses on anything which isn't essential, that is risky because it will harden her to you and you will lose credibility with her. To me, it does not seem completely honest to bring up things in the manner you're doing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see what emails about political representation and motivational interviewing are but an unclear and misguided call for understanding. You have some significant concerns about your son's future because of new information you have learned. I think a quick reaction to something like that is difficult.  The new perspective will reveal a lot about your old self. Why are you only learning about such essential information now? I am not blaming you, but what I am trying to point out is that usually when we act on incomplete information we make decisions which are worse than we could have made. It is really important to taking time processing your history and even connecting with regret you might feel. I am not saying you should completely regret marrying your wife, but if you do have regret and you are trying to hold her responsible for changing based on your decision to marry her, that does not seem completely reasonable to me. 

 

With my clearer understanding of your situation I think marriage counseling or something as serious in nature is required for a resolution, if one is possible. If one is not possible, then you have a different issue to manage and it will be important for you to prepare for your son to know that your wife has chosen not to agree with you despite your efforts to do what is best for him. It will really be important if you are going to take the role of disagreeing with your wife, that your son can have credibility with you and understand why you are even married to his mom in the first place if she is not brave enough to sacrifice her emotional comfort for the benefit of her son. But I don't see how talking about political representation will be effective at all. That was what I was trying to get across in my last message, that you seem to be avoiding the issue with her and being passive aggressive. This is not to justify her denial or to say she is not being passive aggressive at all. I wanted to make that clear to you, since I think your considerations are admirable in the highest degree and I hope for you to be able to influence the safety and integrity of your son's environment. Thank you so much and I hope what I said is helpful. If it was not I am happy to try again after taking some more time to process what you have said.

[mishochu]

So my wife and I had a wonderful conversation recently. She couldn't sleep because she felt frustrated that I unilaterally decided to have one and only one child. She felt like I didn't listen to her.

 

I listened, and listened, and listened some more and could really see the biological imperative at play. I'll admit in public when asked if we were going to have more children I presented a pretty hard front. During this conversation, I directly asked her why she wanted another child. She just does (which made me think of the biological element).

 

It was weird but I guess what they say about persuasive speaking is true, don't spout facts and figures, make it personal. I was finally able to frame my concerns in terms related to our son. How important it is to me that we parent well, stay within our means, plan financially with our eyes open.

 

I definitely see the value in counseling, right now we are just going over "the lizzard" and becoming more aware of how we deliver and receive information in our conversations.

[mishochu]

Here's a question to all:

 

When evaluating relationship counselors, how important is the counselor's ideology? For instance, is it important to have a counselor who values liberty? Or is the approach more important?

 

I'm guessing it is most important to bring both my wife's values and mine up to the surface and see where they differ and add skills to work through future value and paradigm mismatches.