How to Argue with Big Government Liberals?

[AmericasLastHope]

I was at work today and one of my colleagues was talking to another about how the U.S.A. was one of the last countries in the world where prostitution is still illegal. He was suggesting that we legalize it and regulate it. Later he brought up the war on drugs issue.

He knows I support Ron Paul, and he's always blabbing about how "Ron Paul is crazy" etc. Well since he brought up both topics back to back like that I couldn't help but say well now you're starting to sound like Ron Paul. That is, before he brought up the aspects of government regulation.

I'm a firm believer in States' Rights and personally believe it's up for the states to determine laws not specified by the Constitution, not the Federal Government. I got into an argument with my coworker in front of some people about regulation. I said when the government tries to regulate things, that's when we have problems. I said look at Australia, when they banned firearms, armed robberies increased by 44% in less than a year. I said only the criminals had guns. When you prohibit Marijuana, it's like alcohol prohibition, the Black Market controls the market. Same thing with prostitution, etc.

Well the liberal's argument is, he wants to decriminalize it, but then he wants to regulate it. He wants government testing prostitutes, controlling them, I imagine taxing marijuana, controlling it, etc. My argument is government can't determine what's best, that the market should decide. He thinks that's crazy. He thinks 90% of people need the govt to control their lives because they're worthless. He thinks we can lift the bans on all of these things and swiftly implement a magical government that all of a sudden does everything right.

My problem is figuring out how to argue with him and succeed. He agrees with me to a point, then runs far to the left. I tell him I'm not against ALL regulation just OVER regulation. I believe in SOME checks in balances but he wants total liberal nanny government.

So after some abstract general arguments he decides to get into specifics and brings up driver's licenses out of nowhere. He starts asking me questions about me having to get a license before I can drive a car. Well naturally I'm against real ID and Big Brother government monitoring etc. But he makes this argument where he tries to break it down and make me look crazy if I don't support driver's licenses. Well the argument got cut short, but I felt like bringing up topics like it should be up to an individual if he wants to wear a seat belt or not, or you don't have to get a license to ride a bicycle etc.

I guess my question is how do I argue with someone like this and win? To an onlooker I look crazy if I say well I'm against driver's licenses because Big Brother will have my picture, thumbprint, etc. I'm not necessarily against Driver's Licenses, but I'm certainly against Real ID, Big Brother, Nanny Government, so on and so forth. It almost appears as if he's using a straw man to change the subject from prostitution and drug laws and bring up something irrelevant to sway the onlookers.

Any thoughts, suggestions?

Thanks.

[nate895]

I'd have looked him straight in the eye when he said 90% of people are "worthless," and say that you didn't realize made him a superior being and that all must bow before him in his ultimate wisdom. These types of people think that they have it right and that they should be the ones raising the world's children, while, most likely, he has a teenage daughter at home who is pregnant because he's too much of a moron to figure how to run his own life, let alone the lives of others. The only way to win is to mock them, since people are unresponsive to facts, only to laughter and inspiration.

[gerryb]

Agree with him.

Then bring up all the things you will regulate.

I use this in drug criminalization arguments a lot... I want to regulate fat consumption, then caffeine consumption. Sugar is next on my list. Next, alcohol is getting prohibited again. Then I'm going to take your organs upon death. These are all for the public's health and safety. If they agree at this point I usually don't continue. For most others it gets them thinking where does it end.

Usually they argue about how much worse drugs are than all the things I listed.. I usually point them to something similar to this http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2563/25633101.jpg and ask them what the #1 cause of death in America is.

I also use that argument against a national health system.

[Anti Federalist]

I'd have looked him straight in the eye when he said 90% of people are "worthless," and say that you didn't realize made him a superior being and that all must bow before him in his ultimate wisdom. These types of people think that they have it right and that they should be the ones raising the world's children, while, most likely, he has a teenage daughter at home who is pregnant because he's too much of a moron to figure how to run his own life, let alone the lives of others. The only way to win is to mock them, since people are unresponsive to facts, only to laughter and inspiration.

+1

(although now I have this damn song stuck in my head)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPluDyDtQq0

[berrybunches]

I'd have looked him straight in the eye when he said 90% of people are "worthless," and say that you didn't realize made him a superior being and that all must bow before him in his ultimate wisdom.

Reminds me of the quote in my signature below.

Tell him if he believes that 90% of people are worthless then would that not include the people who run government? If people are selfish and can not be trusted to take care of themselves how can we trust congress to take care of us, they are people too.

Or I would suggest telling him that you really like and trust people and are sorry that life is so confusing for him. :p

[constitutional]

Been there, I have been branded crazy in front of people when trying to make a point to a liberal.

When arguing against liberal -- just take their position and exaggerate it that they back down. It works by taking their position to the extreme. Looks like that's what he did to you here.

[Primbs]

I am collecting stories of government incompetence.

Many liberals assume govt. employees biggest motivation is to do their jobs well. It is actually the opposite in govt. If you do your job well, you will get demoted because you make the other workers look slow. Many govt. employees spend much of their day planning social parties, working their 401K, planning retirement, worrying about their second vacation homes, marveling at how much the outsourced government contractors are getting paid for the same amount of work that they do.

Many govt. employees or contractors, with only a high school diploma are becoming millionaires and multimillionaires from govt. work.


Great quote.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - from The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

[Black Dude]

I have some very liberal friends that I converted/educated.

The key is sticking to State's rights. Make sure that they know, just because the federal government doesn't regulate something doesn't mean it isn't regulated. That power is merely given to the State and Local governments, where people can make the decisions on what they think is the best way to run their own lives. When the Federal government makes a law, it makes it for the entire country, and it nearly always goes toward serving a special interest.
Just keep pounding home that argument. They come around eventually.
Stay away from specific policies on how you personally would want the laws of your own locale.
Always keep an open mind to what they have to say as well, but make sure that you make the point of "not at the federal level"

[pdavis]

He thinks 90% of people need the govt to control their lives because they're worthless. He thinks we can lift the bans on all of these things and swiftly implement a magical government that all of a sudden does everything right.

His statement is completely contradictory. If 90% of the people are complete worthless idiots and whose every aspect of their lives should be regulated, ruled, and controlled by the government; wouldn't the government be a worthless entity since it is nothing more than a body of individuals, whom are elected by the worthless idiots?

As for drivers licenses, the market place could take care of that through an insurance company. In order to decrease their liability to pay for damages, they would require the consumer (driver) to prove that he/she is a safe and competent driver by taking courses and passing a drivers test.

[Black Dude]

His statement is completely contradictory. If 90% of the people are complete worthless idiots and whose every aspect of their lives should be regulated, ruled, and controlled by the government; wouldn't the government be a worthless entity since it is nothing more than a body of individuals, whom are elected by the worthless idiots?

As for drivers licenses, the market place could take care of that through an insurance company. In order to decrease their liability to pay for damages, they would require the consumer (driver) to prove that he/she is a safe and competent driver by taking courses and passing a drivers test.

So now the insurance companies decide who does and doesn't drive? A world without drivers licenses is also a world without requirements to carry insurance.
But if there was a law forcing people to carry insurance in this circumstance, that would give any rich man a license to drive as he pleases, and put the poor man at the mercy of the insurance companies.

[pdavis]

So now the insurance companies decide who does and doesn't drive? A world without drivers licenses is also a world without requirements to carry insurance. But if there was a law forcing people to carry insurance in this circumstance, that would give any rich man a license to drive as he pleases, and put the poor man at the mercy of the insurance companies.

No, I wasn't calling for anyone to be forced to have car insurance nor a drivers license (I am aware I used the words drivers license, maybe should have said voluntary course/ certificate since I don't believe in compulsory insurance; statistics show they don't reduce the numbers of the uninsured). I completely agree with your last sentence. In a lot states where insurance is mandated the premiums are tend to be much higher and the percentage of the uninsured in some states can be as high as 30%. In New Hampshire where car insurance is not mandated tend to have lower premiums and the uninsured rate is around 10% I believe.

What I was trying to say was that since most people would want to drive in a safe environment and be insured that most individuals would seek out and do business with insurance companies that would require their customers to take some sort of safety course, drivers test, or provide some sort of drivers certificate.

I am sorry if I confused you or am still confusing you or misunderstood your argument. I think your concerns are completely valid.

[PredatorOC]

He thinks that's crazy. He thinks 90% of people need the govt to control their lives because they're worthless

I have always found it funny how leftists claim to be for the people, when actually they are the ones who least trust the people.

[Rhys]

I'm looking forward to government provided heathcare where they make you be a certain weight and piss test, or you pay higher taxes or just die.

but about the nanny stater.... there's almost nothing you can do on a point by point basis. The socialist justifications are so thick, that it's "of course we need government" in most people's minds. I just wouldn't argue with him. Honestly, some people need deprogramming, not logic. Other's need leaders to think of it first, so the follower can say "i agree". We're the people who will lead. For many hundreds of years, hopefully in decreasing numbers, humanity will face the scourge govermentalists. Until them, just move around them and don't get sucked into arguments like that. Save it for the "how do you expect to pay for it?" Most people get that if you can show them that it's impossible to tax the rich enough. If you tell them that if we sold every spoon, fork, house, car, boat and t-shirt and acre of land in the country, we'd still be in debt... most people get that. If they say taxing pot will make the money, it wont. At black market prices, it's a 15 billion dollar market. At legal prices, slash that down to about a dollar a pound cause the shit grows in your back yard.

I just remember what Ron Paul does: he always says, "Well, that's where the debate is." Then he argues their side, and breaks down why it wont work. He's a genius at this though... so good luck! :p

[pinkmandy]

Leftists aren't for the little guy. They seem to think that the little guy is mentally deficient and can't possibly rise in the world on his/her own merits, thus we have to make things more equal for him. In that elitist viewpoint, people such as the enlightened leftist making the argument for more control don't seem to believe that they themselves need to be controlled. They don't want their own lives centrally planned, just everyone else's. For their own good, of course.

They also do not understand the premise of having rights. They believe they are born w/certain rights but that gov should regulate those rights. How does govt regulate liberty? You're either free or you aren't. I use the Atlas Shrugged line, check your premises.

[mczerone]

My suggestion: Start perusing general discussion sites, and use them as "war games" arguments. Hone your skills by arguing on the internet. God knows that you are not going to change anyone's mind, but its all about the practice of debating the ideas.

My Favorite is Fark. Very mixed crowd there, so it never feels that you are preaching to the choir if you try to make a point.

[micahnelson]

Ask him what he thinks of the Government right now. Then consider if he would like those elected officials to have more control over his life, personally.

Then- point to results. Government regulation in banking took minor ups and downs and turned them into national and global turmoil. Government regulation in schools has made our children fat, dumb, and unhappy. Government intervention in global politics has ruined the American "brand", and gotten us footing the bill for our 137 country military-industrial complex. Government planning in retirement has led to the Social Security collapse- a program that no politician believes will be solvent and yet has no way of solving the problem. Our government funded roads are collapsing, Our government protected intellectual property is becoming second rate, Our government regulated economic unit is the laughing stock of the world- and people believe that the government is our only hope for the Medical Industry? It isn't our only hope, its our only setback.