Libertarians have the potential to be the best people in the world. It is because our core philosophy, when followed, will just about guarantee that result. If we aren't it is because we are not living up to our potential.
Other groups have conflicted "principles" in their core beliefs. Things like stealing is wrong, unless it is government stealing for a cause they happen to support. Or murder is wrong, unless it was government doing it and it was an "honest" mistake (or "they deserved it").
Of course, it is considered very impolite to point out the inconsistencies in the beliefs and philosophies of the "mainstream" groups. That makes libertarians somewhat unpopular at times. It makes those other people uncomfortable, and makes them want to blame libertarians instead of examining their own inconsistencies. Happily, they don't have to agree with us for us to be right.
So, remember your potential, and strive to live up to it. You can point out the inconsistencies, but don't dwell on them since those who do not want to see, won't see. A good example is more persuasive than winning debates any day.
............................
Kent,
ReplyDelete"Happily, they don't have to agree with us for us to be right."
Sadly, too many "libertarians" don't realize this, and rather than engage in Socratic dialog and the true labor of educating that is the constant burden of the radical or revolutionary, take up the petty swords of ad hominem and non sequitur. In doing so, they stab you and I in the back, and grant succor to the enemies of freedom.
It's for this reason that in conversation of late I use any term but libertarian-if I sense that I'm dealing with someone of rightist affinity I'll say I'm a free-marketeer, and a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist, and I'll question them on their beliefs(this tends to go nowhere with "conservatives".
And if I sense I'm with someone of a leftist origin, then I'll say I'm a Common Law-Anarchist(essentially Rothbardian anarchism with a commonly rather than privately held judiciary and enforcement structure-Feudalism without the Lords, essentially-my true philosophy) and make arguements from those points. Both points of view are essentially the same, of course, the negation of the initial use of force, or the non-aggression principle(though common law anarchism does permit common-a small community, neighborhood or town-imposition of force in retribution against force, such as, enforced restitution, outlawry or even execution, in the cases of murder, theft or other serious trespass-though the impetus of defense is focused more on the victim than is familiar in modern thought)
I ask them questions, and refuse to be drawn to rhetorical bait.
It is surprising(particularly if one is willing to buy a few rounds...)how quickly people lose track of who they are. Conservatives tend to disconnect from the arguement..but Liberals, of the right temperament seem quite willing to accept the notion of liberty-particularly if it is couched in the notion of a lack of force.
Indeed, I had a long conversation over the holidays with the avowed "Liberal" wife of a friend from High School who must have called me a racist at least a dozen times because I don't believe in public education..but because I did not rise to the bait, and because I kept challenging her beliefs with questions based in individualism, I got a drunken hug over the holidays, and gained an e-mail friend. And I'm no longer a racist...she supposes.
Indeed, the last email from my "liberal" friend asked what SKS was of more value, the Yugoslav model, or the Chinese. That and a few questions on PVC and cosmoline. God love her.
Michelle Malkin, I wonder if you know the difference?
Sorry to blather.
I try very hard to not get drawn into the rancor that accompanies many debates. If asked a question, I try to answer it to the best of my ability. If insulted, I try to ignore it. It isn't always easy, but the debate over at the Stand Up for America blog (look in my links on the side) has been helping me exercise my civility muscles.
ReplyDelete