easy way to hone your libertarian discussion skills and convert people to the cause

[economics102]

there's a site called http://politicalscreamingmatch.com/ that seems like it would be right up our alley.

The site lets you anonymously debate by phone/microphone with random Americans on political issues.

This seems like a good opportunity for those who need to build up confidence and skill at talking up the libertarian cause, debating and honing skills of persuasion, etc.

Also in theory a good way to convert more people to our cause.

[RonPaulRevolution!]

Interesting.

Something I've learned from Ron Paul that I think would help others...

Talk about the ideas of freedom and liberty (and free markets) in relation to how people naturally think and act; no need to go into confusing statistics if your argument is sound in this aspect. Talk about things like motivation vs demotivation, risk vs reward, how do people learn best (free to make mistakes or is big brother there to tell you how to live), etc etc...

I can go into more detail if needed but you'd be better off listening to Ron Paul debate footage first.

[blabam]

This week's topic: Romney's Bain departure date

I'll pass.

[romancito]

Perfect timing and great contribution. Now Ron Paul delegates that are going to the RNC, bound to Romney or not, can go there and have no excuse for not being prepared to diminish Romney's recent policies on his finances and love for Obamacare and love for trillion dollar deficits and be able to convince Romney's hard core supporters that he must be chopped. A shouting match on the floor of the RNC for the duration of the Convention would be delightful and very Egyptian-like, which is the type of democracy that we need. Enough with politeness for generational slavery. It took the Egyptians more than 40 years to get rid of tyranny and welcome democracy and lots of dead people too. Pray for an Egyptian-like RNC.

Now we need a site where delegates can practice holding shoulder to shoulder jumping up and down shouting "God is great." I think that at the August 26th. Ron Paul rally delegates can practice shouting "God is great."

[Danan]

There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.
- Daniel Dennett (or Rose Kennedy).

I think improving your discussion skills is a vital exercise if you want to fight for the cause of freedom. To point out that an argument of a fellow freedom fighter is incorrect is especially important, imho.

And I hear a lot of bad arguments from libertarians. For instance, "You can't increase production through government spending or monetary policy", "Public schools don't work because teachers don't have an incentive to work hard", "Increasing taxes is bad because job creators will stop doing business" and so on. Every one of these examples argues for the right thing but for the wrong reasons and is easy to counter. If your opponent is very skilled he can crush you in front of a neutral audience. Jon Stewart does this regularly. He can show data that proves that increased government spending or loose monetary policy can indeed increase GDP, argue that teachers don't do their job because of their paychecks but because they love their job and that he is a job creator and he won't end his show just because taxes go up 5%. And when neutral listeners hear that they will see that his reasoning makes more sense and ignore libertarian ideas.

That's why it's dangerous to go out there with unvetted arguments and why playing devil's advocate is of such high importance. Because you can defend the same libertarian ideas with better arguments, like "While government spending and loose monetary policy can increase production in the short run (boom) it causes a distortion in the market place, it changes prices across the board and thus the flow of information doesn't work the way it's supposed to work and wrong signals are sent to market actors which creates a huge mess in the long run (bust)", "Public school teachers might be as motivated as private school teachers. However without a free market there is no effective way to determine the best teaching methods for every given demographic. It might be that some private school models would be worse than todays government schools but competition will sort them out. The same is true with individual teachers. A principal (or owner) of a private school sees the direct impact of bad teachers (however motivated they are) immediatly because his customers (kids and their parents) leave if the service is bad which increases the overall quality of teachers", and "Increasing taxes might not depress business owners so much that they end their businesses but it will deprive them of capital they could otherwise invest more productively than the government will. Some of them might fail and eventually go bankrupt because of that, but even if all of them survive resources will be used less efficient than with lower tax rates."

Always question the reasoning of the people who fight for the same cause as you too. It can't hurt in any way.

[Feeding the Abscess]

- Daniel Dennett (or Rose Kennedy).

I think improving your discussion skills is a vital exercise if you want to fight for the cause of freedom. To point out that an argument of a fellow freedom fighter is incorrect is especially important, imho.

And I hear a lot of bad arguments from libertarians. For instance, "You can't increase production through government spending or monetary policy", "Public schools don't work because teachers don't have an incentive to work hard", "Increasing taxes is bad because job creators will stop doing business" and so on. Every one of these examples argues for the right thing but for the wrong reasons and is easy to counter. If your opponent is very skilled he can crush you in front of a neutral audience. Jon Stewart does this regularly. He can show data that proves that increased government spending or loose monetary policy can indeed increase GDP, argue that teachers don't do their job because of their paychecks but because they love their job and that he is a job creator and he won't end his show just because taxes go up 5%. And when neutral listeners hear that they will see that his reasoning makes more sense and ignore libertarian ideas.

That's why it's dangerous to go out there with unvetted arguments and why playing devil's advocate is of such high importance. Because you can defend the same libertarian ideas with better arguments, like "While government spending and loose monetary policy can increase production in the short run (boom) it causes a distortion in the market place, it changes prices across the board and thus the flow of information doesn't work the way it's supposed to work and wrong signals are sent to market actors which creates a huge mess in the long run (bust)", "Public school teachers might be as motivated as private school teachers. However without a free market there is no effective way to determine the best teaching methods for every given demographic. It might be that some private school models would be worse than todays government schools but competition will sort them out. The same is true with individual teachers. A principal (or owner) of a private school sees the direct impact of bad teachers (however motivated they are) immediatly because his customers (kids and their parents) leave if the service is bad which increases the overall quality of teachers", and "Increasing taxes might not depress business owners so much that they end their businesses but it will deprive them of capital they could otherwise invest more productively than the government will. Some of them might fail and eventually go bankrupt because of that, but even if all of them survive resources will be used less efficient than with lower tax rates."

Always question the reasoning of the people who fight for the same cause as you too. It can't hurt in any way.

Nailed it.

[economics102]

- Daniel Dennett (or Rose Kennedy).

I think improving your discussion skills is a vital exercise if you want to fight for the cause of freedom. To point out that an argument of a fellow freedom fighter is incorrect is especially important, imho.

And I hear a lot of bad arguments from libertarians. For instance, "You can't increase production through government spending or monetary policy", "Public schools don't work because teachers don't have an incentive to work hard", "Increasing taxes is bad because job creators will stop doing business" and so on. Every one of these examples argues for the right thing but for the wrong reasons and is easy to counter. If your opponent is very skilled he can crush you in front of a neutral audience. Jon Stewart does this regularly. He can show data that proves that increased government spending or loose monetary policy can indeed increase GDP, argue that teachers don't do their job because of their paychecks but because they love their job and that he is a job creator and he won't end his show just because taxes go up 5%. And when neutral listeners hear that they will see that his reasoning makes more sense and ignore libertarian ideas.

That's why it's dangerous to go out there with unvetted arguments and why playing devil's advocate is of such high importance. Because you can defend the same libertarian ideas with better arguments, like "While government spending and loose monetary policy can increase production in the short run (boom) it causes a distortion in the market place, it changes prices across the board and thus the flow of information doesn't work the way it's supposed to work and wrong signals are sent to market actors which creates a huge mess in the long run (bust)", "Public school teachers might be as motivated as private school teachers. However without a free market there is no effective way to determine the best teaching methods for every given demographic. It might be that some private school models would be worse than todays government schools but competition will sort them out. The same is true with individual teachers. A principal (or owner) of a private school sees the direct impact of bad teachers (however motivated they are) immediatly because his customers (kids and their parents) leave if the service is bad which increases the overall quality of teachers", and "Increasing taxes might not depress business owners so much that they end their businesses but it will deprive them of capital they could otherwise invest more productively than the government will. Some of them might fail and eventually go bankrupt because of that, but even if all of them survive resources will be used less efficient than with lower tax rates."

Always question the reasoning of the people who fight for the same cause as you too. It can't hurt in any way.

+rep

This is very important and why it's important to get lots of practice in debating our positions.

I too regularly hear libertarians make incorrect arguments, or, when debating, allow wrong-headed premises from their opponents go unchallenged.

One thing I've found is that many people like to talk about deregulation. Ron Paul is good at pointing out that the market is a harsher regulator than the government. But another aspect of this debate -- and an often-overlooked opportunity to build common ground with liberals -- is pointing out that not all "deregulation" is actually deregulation, and that taking the view that more laws = more regulation and less laws = less regulation is overly simplistic.

For example, the repeal of the affiliate restrictions of the Glass-Steagall Act is often cited as a damaging example of "deregulation." But I argue that this is a distorted point of view: If you create the FDIC, that is a huge regulation -- a huge interference in the market. If you had a rule saying "banks can't do X, Y, and Z with government-insured depositor accounts" and you then repeal that restriction, that means the government is now insuring an even WIDER variety of depositor accounts and in particular that the government is now distorting and interfering even more substantially by providing insurance to riskier financial instruments. It's actually completely backwards to call the Glass-Steagal repeal of the 90's "deregulation" -- if depositor insurance is a regulation, the repeal act removes a restriction on the scope of the FDIC regulation, therefore it is a net increase in regulation, if you defined regulation as the level of government interference and activity.

[economics102]

So I've been using this site a bit and I have to say it really is both a great way to persuade people on issues and a great way to practice your libertarian discussion skills.

Also a lot of fun!