How to Maintain Friendships With Statists

[MysterionMuffles]

Should you do it? CAN you do it? I appreciate this fellow's thoughts and his Anarchist metal music that he makes with his band...

 

[Drew.]

This guy makes a great point. I am not going to listen to someone who is not my friend. If someone hates or despises me, it doesn't matter how truthful it is what they are saying, I am not going to listen to them. I think that's only reasonable, and most people will do the same.

 

I have had friends who are statists long after I was introduced to philosophy. I genuinely try to be friendly with everyone that I meet. Here and there, I might drop a "It just seems like every problem the government tries to fix, they end up making worse." I try to maintain the perspective that we're pretty much all on the same side, and statists are like battered spouses desperately clinging to their partner. To turn it into a me versus you situation is to entrench them in their beliefs even further.

[MysterionMuffles]

statists are like battered spouses desperately clinging to their partner. To turn it into a me versus you situation is to entrench them in their beliefs even further.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. Same with abusive parent apologists.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

The danger, in my opinion, in having personal relationships with statists, is the possibility that you are hoping you have a relationship with someone, when in reality that person would not stand up for you, even in a theoretical sense, to say that they do not support the use of force against you for following your conscience.

 

The against me argument has always been framed as an ongoing conversation, not a one time affair, so there hopefully are plenty opportunities over time to get to the core of what is being talked about, giving the benefit of the doubt that it can be hard to really grasp the non aggression principle, and how the state violates it in its nature.

 

At some point though, what is being talked about is going to be made clear. It might take years and many conversations. But at that point, if your friend is not willing to reject the use of force against you, then you have to decide if that is an acceptable belief for someone to hold in a personal relationship.

 

If someone blatantly does not reject the use of force against me, something I have proven is a consistent belief and a staple of my core values, then engaging personally with them would surely be at odds with my enthusiasm and self esteem.

[MysterionMuffles]

I don't think I've ever dropped the Against Me argument on anyone because I know that once I had to, there was no point to if I knew what the answer was going to be.

 

Treatment before ideology has become my new philosophy. 

 

It's usually people who treat me like crap who I defriend, their idealogical beliefs come second and usually logically lead to Statism.

 

Then there's some people who are still for government, but are my friends and treat me well. These are the people who actually give me the time of day as well as open my eyes to a few things such as appreciating cops to some extent. Same with military, only in so far as DEFENSE, not so much what we have the State doing with them nowadays enforcing unjust violence.

[dsayers]

statists are like battered spouses desperately clinging to their partner.

I prefer thinking of it like the agent training program in The Matrix. The people around you are victims also. But until you unplug them from the Matrix, they are a threat to you. It's a really important lesson because anybody who approaches them as if they're only victims or only enemies will fail the encounter. It's important to be mindful of both and shift accordingly to protecting yourself as needed and helping as useful.

[Will Torbald]

I don't have many friendships' to begin with in real life, but it's nearly impossible to avoid statists in socialist's paradise Ecuador. I do have a friend I've carried since High School, and the only things that we have ever fought and distanced about were about women. I feel that having friendships with people who you disagree in a philosophical sense is nothing wrong, and helps to maintain a connection with the world. Falling into hugboxes and only-people-who-think-like-me are my friends is isolating and rather boring.

[dsayers]

only-people-who-think-like-me are my friends is isolating and rather boring.

That's not what the topic is about. The topic is about statists; People who support violence against everybody. Giving people who think violence is an answer your friendship is allowing them to maintain such a position without consequence. THAT is what makes the topic challenging.

 

Many people maintain the statist position BECAUSE they fear losing their friends and family for not doing so. To show them that they risk losing friends and family if they DO support it is a voluntary way of pressuring others to take the high ground. It's what ostracism is all about.

[DaVinci]

This guy makes a great point. I am not going to listen to someone who is not my friend. If someone hates or despises me, it doesn't matter how truthful it is what they are saying, I am not going to listen to them. I think that's only reasonable, and most people will do the same.

 

I have had friends who are statists long after I was introduced to philosophy. I genuinely try to be friendly with everyone that I meet. Here and there, I might drop a "It just seems like every problem the government tries to fix, they end up making worse." I try to maintain the perspective that we're pretty much all on the same side, and statists are like battered spouses desperately clinging to their partner. To turn it into a me versus you situation is to entrench them in their beliefs even further.

 

I've seen people entrench themselves before, but it usually isn't during a one on one conversation. It's usually during a conversation where their friend comes in and disagrees with me, and the person I was having the conversation with now entrenches themselves because now there is a fear of losing a friend. Basically what dsayers said above me. 

 

Peer pressure seems to cause people to default to who the've known the longest, and not necessarily to who is making the most logical argument. I'm actually not sure what to do about this situation when I find myself in it. 

[Will Torbald]

That's not what the topic is about. The topic is about statists; People who support violence against everybody. Giving people who think violence is an answer your friendship is allowing them to maintain such a position without consequence. THAT is what makes the topic challenging.

 

Many people maintain the statist position BECAUSE they fear losing their friends and family for not doing so. To show them that they risk losing friends and family if they DO support it is a voluntary way of pressuring others to take the high ground. It's what ostracism is all about.

The amount of assumptions in this argument is distasteful to me. I do not grossly assume why people believe what they do, I ask them, and don't judge them for politics that are, quite frankly mainstream. Anyone who isn't a die hard a ancap would fit the definition of violence for everybody, too. Which leads back to how my interpretation of 'anyone who disagrees with me can't be my friend' is accurate.

[A4E]

I would go with this kind of guideline.

 

If you start talking about problems with statism, and the 'friend' says "Oh? What do you mean?" or something nicer, then you may proceed.

 

If you start talking about problems with statism, and the 'friend' says "Huh? What are you talking about?" or something more intimidating, then you are likely in for a long and tedious intellectual struggle that will probably go nowhere, besides perhaps finding out what kind of (non) relationship you actually have.

[MysterionMuffles]

You have to approach it like a salesman. I've had a high failure rate to debate with people when I didn't ask them questions to figure out where they were at first. Like a salesman, you want to find out if their beliefs are due to emotional and/or logical, or even practical reasons. 

 

One rule I've always lived by is to empty people's cups before I fill them. 

 

What that means is I want to allow people to open up to me about what they believe in and why, because you get nowhere simply telling people how wrong they are and the only space you give for them to explain themselves...is when you're already putting them on the spot and shoving truth in their face.

 

I've had much more success, not 100% but still better, once I've taken the time to understand people's thought structure before I try to work my way in with the truth and what I believe is true (there are some stuff I still think are subjective and have yet to be completely convinced of). Let's be honest, although it seems axiomatic to us that Atheism, Anarchy, and Peaceful Parenting are true--like Eric says in the video--we can't assume people think just like us. Everyone will come to the same or different conclusions in their own way.

 

This is the very same reason why I would rather be friends with a Christian than a Statist. At least to some degree, Christianity promotes virtues, most of which are in line with the NAP. Yes, I would love for this world to be completely rational and accept truth based on reason and evidence, but unfortunately that's not how the world works right now. A lot of people are still dominated by their emotions on things, and it is through emotion that I argue for what I believe in when it comes to certain individuals.

 

Hell, it's the reason why I review fiction on my YouTube channel, with a bit of a philosophical and slice of life edge to it. People connect through emotionality more than anything else, and a huge place they get it from is from entertainment. Instead of just viewing fiction as this fantasy land that's unattainable, I like to try and make the case that the bravery and vulnerability of our favourite fictional characters are created as a higher standard of human behaviour that IS attainable. 

 

Ayn Rand argued that that was the purpose of Romantic art; to emphasize an idealized state of man, but anyways I'm veering off topic here.

 

My point is, with the whole salesman analogy, is that you gotta meet people where they're at, and as Gandhi says, be the change you want to see in the world.

 

If you KNOW THE TRUTH and all...you want to live a life where you've made something of yourself and are happy with the results. Because even if you have all this superior knowledge, people could see you and be like "oh this guy's all about the truth and everything? He seems unhappy though and I'd rather believe in lies and be happy, than know the truth and be as miserable as THAT dude!"

 

Then on top of that, you have to meet them where they're at and remember we've also been there at one point our lives.

 

Sure I was always an Anarchist and against the State since I was a kid, but for most of my life I did believe in God or A God. Knowing that I've had the capacity for change allows me the hope that others do as well, but they need to show the signs.

 

How they show the signs and if they even decide to...is solely based on how much or how little you empathize with what they initial think and believe.

[aviet]

Has anyone here lost a friend because of political views? And was it because of pushing and forcing or just that they found them too far out?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I can imagine a relationship which I might find superficially engaging, but which I was unsure about the virtue and the intimacy of. One thing I fear a lot is being in the dark about how a person feels about my values. The thought that I might enjoy time with someone, but behind my back they might disagree with what I hold most dear, I would find pretty insulting. To continue in the relationship as if that wasn't the case would hurt my pride. That's why in some instances I would be willing to bite the bullet and have that sort of conversation, because the idea that I would be wasting time, when there is only so much time in life that can be spent with people that truly care enough to respect my values in a serious way, would be a sad thing for me. And the idea that I would only think so much of myself as to continue a relationship with a person who doesn't respect my values I find tremendously sad.

 

It's really about protecting my heart and choosing my friends diligently, since life is short after all. If I'm spending time with people who want me thrown in jail for following my conscience, that just seems to me a waste, especially when I have the knowledge to change the world, at worst it's cowardice given that people hundreds of years ago didn't have the opportunities to have honest dialogues like I have today. To waste what took so long to make room for seems a bit careless or devaluing of the progress it took to get where we are today.

[dsayers]

I ask them, and don't judge them for politics that are, quite frankly mainstream.

"Rape is mainstream therefore rape isn't violence" is not a philosophically sound conclusion. You're using a foolhardy methodology to make a prejudice fit.

 

Anyone who isn't a die hard a ancap would fit the definition of violence for everybody, too. Which leads back to how my interpretation of 'anyone who disagrees with me can't be my friend' is accurate.

Your use of the phrase "die hard" is poisoning the well. I've noticed that in your lack of integrity, you like to do this often and never address when you are called out on it. So know that I am rebutting this for the sake of those who might fall to such sophistry.

 

It is NOT accurate to strawman the topic into being about disagreements. Because here's the bottom line: It's not up to us. It's not up to you or me whether or not violence is acceptable. Violations of property rights are internally inconsistent. If you're so hard-pressed to have warm bodies in your life that you have to accept that, then by all means choose that path for the sake of your own support network. But don't stand on the world stage trying to make it sound innocent. The irony here is that you could be using that same world stage to establish a QUALITY support network, spreading the idea of peaceful interactions, and ostracizing toxic people who identify and support those who identify with (mainstream) violence.

[Will Torbald]

"Rape is mainstream therefore rape isn't violence" is not a philosophically sound conclusion. You're using a foolhardy methodology to make a prejudice fit.

 

Your use of the phrase "die hard" is poisoning the well. I've noticed that in your lack of integrity, you like to do this often and never address when you are called out on it. So know that I am rebutting this for the sake of those who might fall to such sophistry.

 

It is NOT accurate to strawman the topic into being about disagreements. Because here's the bottom line: It's not up to us. It's not up to you or me whether or not violence is acceptable. Violations of property rights are internally inconsistent. If you're so hard-pressed to have warm bodies in your life that you have to accept that, then by all means choose that path for the sake of your own support network. But don't stand on the world stage trying to make it sound innocent. The irony here is that you could be using that same world stage to establish a QUALITY support network, spreading the idea of peaceful interactions, and ostracizing toxic people who identify and support those who identify with (mainstream) violence.

 

Rape is not mainstream, and I never said that the state is not violence. You're using stupid strawman arguments. You accuse me of poisoning the well by saying "die hard" yet accuse me of not having integrity in the next sentence, which is also poisoning the well. Have or not have all the friends you want for political reasons if that's what you want - but the assumption that ostracizing will end the state is one I do not share, even if Stef taught you that, and I believe being nice to people and being a good influence to those who do not share the idea of liberty is the way to go - in effect, the opposite direction. No one likes an arrogant know it all who ostracizes people for their opinions. You change minds through persistence, not resistance. If that's so controversial, so be it.

[AccuTron]

Has anyone here lost a friend because of political views? And was it because of pushing and forcing or just that they found them too far out?

 

I knew a guy who was verrrry liberal, and I suggested the existence of a creature called a "ego-driven liberal."  This was a guy who I liked but over many years, now and then, he'd show a lack of core ethics.  For example, one day he was in this room here while I was typing my bank password, and as I started, I became aware that he was standing next to me watching.  Ahem!  

 

Anyway, in an email I suggested...gasp...that government screws up what it does.  Granted not in all things, but heck it's an opinion, and it has a good deal of foundation.  His sole response...if you are eating or drinking, finish swallowing before you read this...was to email a link titled "Stephan Molyneux is a cult leader."  I opened the link to find a bit of drivel, and four other links, all of which were dead.  So the site actually contained no information, and was slung like dung, because I dared to make him think.  

 

He then ceased all contact, except to hang out with the social circle that is soooo liberal and feminist that nobody can think, or God forbid be accountable for their actions.  The men are neutralized.  A big butt arrogant lesbian doctor considered buying (adopting) a defenseless young female, presumably in order to torture the girl's mind into becoming the abomination that the adult is.  

 

The women with one exception are grotesquely fat.  Not obese, which is technically correct but evasive.  Fat.  Personal accountability in health or mind is a joke.  

 

One in particular was good looking, got married (Guns Of The State!) then started eating like a hog, must've topped 300 lbs, scary to be around for fear my arm might be eaten, and sharp tongue kicked in too.  More on that group here:  Dear Abby, Dear Abby (Advice for Inheritance Woes?) - General Messages

 

I wonder about the couple of guys married into that group, one to the hog.  Can anything be done? Arrogant feminist fat makes strong defensive structure.  (I'm not talking about honestly dealing with a few extra pounds, which I'm doing right now.  I'm talking about really really big butts...and attitude!!)  Or write them off, like society in general?  I try to think of males in the group to start some accountability, yet the beginning Orders Of Battle* do not look good.

(*Military talk for "who showed up.")

[dsayers]

Rape is not mainstream

Mainstream is not a philosophically sound conclusion. You're using a foolhardy methodology to make a prejudice fit. Same as yesterday when I first pointed it out to you.

 

I never said that the state is not violence.

I never said that you said that the State is not violence.

 

You accuse me of poisoning the well by saying "die hard" yet accuse me of not having integrity in the next sentence, which is also poisoning the well.

You must not know what poisoning the well means. When you said "die hard," you were indicating that only a fanatic (negative connotation) could accept that violence is immoral. Even though "die hard" mathematicians accept that 2+2=4. To say that you lack integrity IS the claim, not the painting of something else. Also, I have never shied from pointing out exactly how you demonstrate this lack of integrity. You are with little effort or thought reaching for "I know you are but what am I," which is the approach of a first grader.

 

the assumption that ostracizing will end the state is one I do not share

Strawman. We have TONS of irrefutable empirical evidence that Statism--like all other beliefs and characteristics of culture--is merely the momentum of the past. When faced with the very obvious and simple claim that taxation is theft, many will recoil and emotionally react with resistance. While this can sometimes stem from a lack of willingness to be responsible for one's own actions, much of it IS because they are afraid of what their friends and family will think. In other words, they fear ostracism. Ostracism has been proven to have the exact same effect at a biochemical level of attack because from the perspective of our K selected self-preservation, it is tantamount to gene death. To say you do not believe in ostracism is just another example of your lack of integrity. Which in this case means a lack of sound methodology and a lack of willingness to accept your own capacity for error. 

 

I believe being nice to people and being a good influence to those who do not share the idea of liberty is the way to go

Moving the goal posts. Nobody was at any point talking about being nice to somebody. Also, since you've established how entrenched in your mental prison you are, I can also attribute this to Stockholm Syndrome; The desire to be kind to your captors.

 

No one likes an arrogant know it all who ostracizes people for their opinions.

3rd time: We are not talking about opinions. We are talking about violence. The fact that violence is internally inconsistent is not an opinion because it is not up to us. There's a reason why you cannot address these points head on.

 

You change minds through persistence, not resistance.

No, if all you have is a wooden spoon, the brick wall will not yield even through persistence. This is triage and efficient management of one's resources is how you make a difference. The really cool part is that BECAUSE ostracism is why so many people continue to cling to Statism, by using your resources to help those who actually will accept your help, you're ALSO helping those who won't by shifting the numbers in peace's favor.

Beware the man who rejects empirical evidence.

[Drew.]

I prefer thinking of it like the agent training program in The Matrix. The people around you are victims also. But until you unplug them from the Matrix, they are a threat to you. It's a really important lesson because anybody who approaches them as if they're only victims or only enemies will fail the encounter. It's important to be mindful of both and shift accordingly to protecting yourself as needed and helping as useful.

 

Ah the matrix, what a cinematographic work.

 

This is a good analogy too. I think it likely more clearly expresses the duality of victim and perpetrator than my analogy that I gave earlier. Some people are clueless and do harm--for which they are completely responsible for--some people are clued in and do harm.

 

I've seen people entrench themselves before, but it usually isn't during a one on one conversation. It's usually during a conversation where their friend comes in and disagrees with me, and the person I was having the conversation with now entrenches themselves because now there is a fear of losing a friend. Basically what dsayers said above me. 

 

Peer pressure seems to cause people to default to who the've known the longest, and not necessarily to who is making the most logical argument. I'm actually not sure what to do about this situation when I find myself in it. 

 

I definitely have seen people entrench themselves in a conversation, and it's usually an aggressive, angry fight. I definitely like to avoid those types of interactions. I've definitely seen flip-flops too. Those are tremendously frustrating.

 

I always try to look at the actions of people as opposed to what they are saying. I don't know about these people in particular who you are interacting with as there may be other factors involved, but people who conform are the normed and are placing a higher value on the tribe than the truth. If the freedom movement ever becomes mainstream and widely accepted, this would work in our favor. But, it's just human nature. To go against the tribe is to risk death and/or exile. It might not be worth it to push someone to face making such a decision. I don't really do it any longer.

 

Has anyone here lost a friend because of political views? And was it because of pushing and forcing or just that they found them too far out?

 

I have lost friends due to political views. Some of them were because I was too aggressive. Some of them were because they ridiculed my ideas and arguments--allowing me to discover that they weren't really good friends in the first place. Some of them slip away just because we no longer have much in common.

 

I can imagine a relationship which I might find superficially engaging, but which I was unsure about the virtue and the intimacy of. One thing I fear a lot is being in the dark about how a person feels about my values. The thought that I might enjoy time with someone, but behind my back they might disagree with what I hold most dear, I would find pretty insulting. To continue in the relationship as if that wasn't the case would hurt my pride. That's why in some instances I would be willing to bite the bullet and have that sort of conversation, because the idea that I would be wasting time, when there is only so much time in life that can be spent with people that truly care enough to respect my values in a serious way, would be a sad thing for me. And the idea that I would only think so much of myself as to continue a relationship with a person who doesn't respect my values I find tremendously sad.

 

It's really about protecting my heart and choosing my friends diligently, since life is short after all. If I'm spending time with people who want me thrown in jail for following my conscience, that just seems to me a waste, especially when I have the knowledge to change the world, at worst it's cowardice given that people hundreds of years ago didn't have the opportunities to have honest dialogues like I have today. To waste what took so long to make room for seems a bit careless or devaluing of the progress it took to get where we are today.

 

Has something like that ever happened to you, where you have shared with someone and they have betrayed you? I know that happen with my own family. I would both want to share my position on something and guard it. If they knew what I wanted, then I might receive it, but they also might use it against me.

 

I knew a guy who was verrrry liberal, and I suggested the existence of a creature called a "ego-driven liberal."  This was a guy who I liked but over many years, now and then, he'd show a lack of core ethics.  For example, one day he was in this room here while I was typing my bank password, and as I started, I became aware that he was standing next to me watching.  Ahem!  

 

Anyway, in an email I suggested...gasp...that government screws up what it does.  Granted not in all things, but heck it's an opinion, and it has a good deal of foundation.  His sole response...if you are eating or drinking, finish swallowing before you read this...was to email a link titled "Stephan Molyneux is a cult leader."  I opened the link to find a bit of drivel, and four other links, all of which were dead.  So the site actually contained no information, and was slung like dung, because I dared to make him think.  

 

He then ceased all contact, except to hang out with the social circle that is soooo liberal and feminist that nobody can think, or God forbid be accountable for their actions.  The men are neutralized.  A big butt arrogant lesbian doctor considered buying (adopting) a defenseless young female, presumably in order to torture the girl's mind into becoming the abomination that the adult is.  

 

The women with one exception are grotesquely fat.  Not obese, which is technically correct but evasive.  Fat.  Personal accountability in health or mind is a joke.  

 

One in particular was good looking, got married (Guns Of The State!) then started eating like a hog, must've topped 300 lbs, scary to be around for fear my arm might be eaten, and sharp tongue kicked in too.  More on that group here:  Dear Abby, Dear Abby (Advice for Inheritance Woes?) - General Messages

 

I wonder about the couple of guys married into that group, one to the hog.  Can anything be done? Arrogant feminist fat makes strong defensive structure.  (I'm not talking about honestly dealing with a few extra pounds, which I'm doing right now.  I'm talking about really really big butts...and attitude!!)  Or write them off, like society in general?  I try to think of males in the group to start some accountability, yet the beginning Orders Of Battle* do not look good.

(*Military talk for "who showed up.")

 

Gah, that sounds like a nightmare. I would not bother, personally. I don't know what the best path is for you, though. In my mind, these men have been neutered, especially if they have married themselves to fat, emasculating feminists. The effort to break them away from that would be way greater than what I would be willing to put in, especially as it would be destroying a marriage--for better or for worse--which would be a huge hurdle to leap. Even then, it might not stick.

[AccuTron]

Drew, thanks much for your reply.  

 

I notice how much time I will spend thinking about them, yet have known for years to avoid them.  The mate to the hog is fully cognizant and agreed of this need to avoid them.  That's what really bugs me; that great guy, and another one, and a few young males.  They are in a poison gulag and mostly or fully don't know it.  I feel like I need to raid the enemy prison compound and rescue them.  Which is unrealistic for the reasons you mention.  So it's good to have the advice to let it go.  

 

I have been doing that letting go to almost the full roster of people I used to know; always the same, the refusal to even discuss serious issues, the imperative to run away from honesty, like roaches from a room light.  

 

(On a technical note, that marriage is already well destroyed, just not on paper.)

[Drew.]

So it's good to have the advice to let it go.  

 

I have been doing that letting go to almost the full roster of people I used to know; always the same, the refusal to even discuss serious issues, the imperative to run away from honesty, like roaches from a room light.  

 

(On a technical note, that marriage is already well destroyed, just not on paper.)

 

It's one thing to have the intellectual understanding of something, but sometimes the emotions don't follow. In my experience, it's typically because the issue is far more complex than just what we see at the surface level.

 

It's hard to let go of old relationships. Some of the slip away with ease, but the most important ones do not. It's typically a much slower death, realizing that the relationship has an expiration date.

[MysterionMuffles]

I know this thread was many months ago back in the summer, but I just want to reiterate how effective it was to use that salesman approach I described before. I was at a party maybe a month or two after making that post, and I put it into practice. Needless to say, I got about 10 people to listen to me make my side of the argument, with about 5-7 of them changing their minds on government and/or parenting. The parenting one I think was even more important because there were a lot of young couples there, some of which were on the verge of getting married soon and starting families.

 

Everyone started off with the initial need for force in both cases, so I took the time to see if they had a moral stance on it, an emotional one, or a practical one, and then proceeded to make my arguments toward that vein.

 

Can I get a what what?!