The "Against Me" Argument - Win Political Arguments in Two Minutes or Less

[mport1]

This is the New Hampshire Liberty Forum (http://www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum) Keynote Speech from Stefan Molyneux (http://www.freedomainradio.com). I think this a must watch for all libertarians because Stefan presents what I think can be a very effective debate strategy. We should really try implementing this within the liberty movement instead of trying the same old arguments with varying degrees of success. Showing people the "gun in the room (http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2006/11/gun-in-room.html)" at a personal level could really have them rethink what they currently advocate.

YouTube - New Hampshire Liberty Forum - Keynote Speaker: Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOTqRb5nvg)

Brief summary from someone at Bureaucrash (http://bureaucrash.com/2009/03/23/how-to-win-political-arguments-in-two-minutes-or-less/):


Stefan’s entire argument can be boiled down to: Against Me? As in, are you willing to initiate force against me.

The beauty of this argument is you don’t have to be an expert on every subject. You don’t have to have every convincing stat at your fingertips. You don’t have to have a Phd in Economics. It’s simple and effective.

Here’s how it works:

STATIST: I support [FILL IN THE BLANK, e.g. the Surge, Welfare, the War on Drugs, Homeland Security etc. etc.].

YOU: I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically (E.g. “You likey the surge? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Donnie Rumsfeld”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you?

STATIST: Er, yes? (What else are they going to say?)

YOU: Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me?

STATIST: Er, yes?

YOU: So, you agree that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the surge, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the surge?

The aim of this argument is to put the Statist on the defensive. They have to either agree with you and admit that statism is violence, or they have to argue that they do support the use of violence against you for disagreeing with them. Brilliant!

[silverhandorder]

I have used this argument very often. Most times they brush it aside. People of Machiavellian persuasion don't care as long as their pet goals are met.

[mczerone]

I have used this argument very often. Most times they brush it aside. People of Machiavellian persuasion don't care as long as their pet goals are met.

Molyneux addresses this situation, too, and I happen to agree:

Even if the authoritarian you are arguing with eventually says "Yup, I do support taking your money for this thing you don't believe in," you are pointing out to everyone else in the room how irrational, brutish, and dissonant Statists are. If you really want to win over "Americans" (people who believe in supporting the Bill of Rights), make sure that you play up the Right to free speech that's being infringed.

We can't hope to win everyone, especially at first. There are a ton of people that don't care about the objective truth, but only about what everyone thinks the truth is, and when we can start setting brushfires of groups of people influencing other groups, making them realize that its okay to think freely, the last authoritarian holdouts must give in, because, in a Machiavellian sense, the only way to regain their power is to play our game of Freedom.


ETA: Personally, I find it to be especially effective to start with something that puts you on the same side of your argument: If you are arguing with a typical "conservative" (I hate collectivism), pick Stem-cell research or Planned Parenthood clinics; if a typical "liberal" pick the war state, torture, war on drugs - whatever topic you know pulls the individual's heart-strings.

Make them hate having to pay for things they don't believe in, then ask why they want to keep you paying for the things that you may support that they don't.

[nate895]

In other words, it is the classic deontological libertarian argument. It works on the base level, and gets people's emotions on your side. However, in order to actually get their mind as well as the already attained heart, you have to defend it a bit with consequentalist ethics because there also many other deontological arguments out there, such as equality and order being the highest ends. If they understand that liberty can also equal greater equality and greater order, there is no obstacle.

[mport1]

In other words, it is the classic deontological libertarian argument. It works on the base level, and gets people's emotions on your side. However, in order to actually get their mind as well as the already attained heart, you have to defend it a bit with consequentalist ethics because there also many other deontological arguments out there, such as equality and order being the highest ends. If they understand that liberty can also equal greater equality and greater order, there is no obstacle.

I agree with this, but I think it is most important for people to see the violence behind the system they advocate. Once that is established the consequentialist arguments for libertarianism will be much more effective.

[nate895]

I agree with this, but I think it is most important for people to see the violence behind the system they advocate. Once that is established the consequentialist arguments for libertarianism will be much more effective.

Very true, this is how I started to believe, though it was much more self-revealed with aid from Paul's campaign, which I had sympathy for because I was already in the constitutionalist movement to a light degree. Hearts, then minds, it is hard to go mind and then heart. Skulls are thick.

[mczerone]

Hearts, then minds, it is hard to go mind and then heart. Skulls are thick.

Great quote!

[sevin]

This only works if the person you are arguing with is reasonable. Most statists seem to close their ears when other people are talking.

[acptulsa]

This only works if the person you are arguing with is reasonable. Most statists seem to close their ears when other people are talking.

It isn't about the statist. It's about the audience. If no one can overhear, why waste your breath?

[Conza88]

Well this is good... something that would have saved a fck load of time with Josh_LA / BKV / scum...

[mport1]

This only works if the person you are arguing with is reasonable. Most statists seem to close their ears when other people are talking.

That is one of the major advantages about this method. If a person is completely unreasonable and does advocate violence against you, then the person is a lost cause and you should not waste any more of your time with them. Turn to the next prospect.

[FSP-Rebel]

That is one of the major advantages about this method. If a person is completely unreasonable and does advocate violence against you, then the person is a lost cause and you should not waste any more of your time with them. Turn to the next prospect.
Good point.

[CUnknown]

That is one of the major advantages about this method. If a person is completely unreasonable and does advocate violence against you, then the person is a lost cause and you should not waste any more of your time with them. Turn to the next prospect.

Agreed, but there are so many people like this. A real statist would say, yes you have the right to disagree, but no you do not have the right to act on that disagreement. If you fail to pay your taxes, yes, violence will be initiated against you and I will have no sympathy for you at all. The way to act on your beliefs is to vote a certain way, etc. But once the votes have been cast you must obey the government.

I have a feeling that most people not already with our movement will end up arguing that way. They're not violent people, but they have been trained to obey authority.

[heavenlyboy34]

Saw the vid this morning, and I highly recommend it. :cool::)

[Feenix566]

Good argument :) Thanks for posting.

[Elwar]

I heard an argument against gun control where you basically say "why would you want to shoot me?"

The argument being that most gun control people think that "people out there" will use their guns to shoot someone. But he says that's merely transferrence in that the gun control person actually doesn't want a gun to prevent themselves from shooting someone. Kinda like a lot of people against porn are those who have been addicted to it and want it gone so that they don't have to deal the the difficulty of controlling themselves.

[mport1]

Agreed, but there are so many people like this. A real statist would say, yes you have the right to disagree, but no you do not have the right to act on that disagreement. If you fail to pay your taxes, yes, violence will be initiated against you and I will have no sympathy for you at all. The way to act on your beliefs is to vote a certain way, etc. But once the votes have been cast you must obey the government.

I have a feeling that most people not already with our movement will end up arguing that way. They're not violent people, but they have been trained to obey authority.

You are probably right and with these people you can try to explain the logical contradiction in this line of logic.

If this doesn't work and you have some balls, you can ask them if they themselves would initiate force on you. Bringing it down from the abstraction of state actors to the personal level may cause them to realize that what they are doing is wrong. Take out these large concepts of government actors and bring it down to the level of what individuals are actually doing.

[RevolutionSD]

This is the New Hampshire Liberty Forum (http://www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum) Keynote Speech from Stefan Molyneux (http://www.freedomainradio.com). I think this a must watch for all libertarians because Stefan presents what I think can be a very effective debate strategy. We should really try implementing this within the liberty movement instead of trying the same old arguments with varying degrees of success. Showing people the "gun in the room (http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2006/11/gun-in-room.html)" at a personal level could really have them rethink what they currently advocate.

YouTube - New Hampshire Liberty Forum - Keynote Speaker: Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOTqRb5nvg)

Brief summary from someone at Bureaucrash (http://bureaucrash.com/2009/03/23/how-to-win-political-arguments-in-two-minutes-or-less/):

Thumbs up for this post.
I've been listening to Freedomainradio for over a year now and highly recommend it. This is the real red pill and the "against me" argument is the best way to deal with statists, IMO.

[nate895]

Agreed, but there are so many people like this. A real statist would say, yes you have the right to disagree, but no you do not have the right to act on that disagreement. If you fail to pay your taxes, yes, violence will be initiated against you and I will have no sympathy for you at all. The way to act on your beliefs is to vote a certain way, etc. But once the votes have been cast you must obey the government.

I have a feeling that most people not already with our movement will end up arguing that way. They're not violent people, but they have been trained to obey authority.

They don't know that they think that way. They just do. The American people are libertarian at heart, and they just don't understand what that means.

[Andrew-Austin]

I've used this strategy on a neocon once, and it threw him off balance, but I didn't pursue it enough to get an admission from him.

I can see a lot of liberal statists simply resort to ranting about how great Democracy is. They would say they personally don't want to initiate violence against you, but that you are politically represented and the will of the majority is right.

[Conza88]

:)