I'm pretty young (20 years old) and quite new to political debates. I educate myself as much as possible reading books on economics and politics that support my moral philosophy (libertarianism.) Often my good friend/housemate (who's much older) and I have political discussions. He describes himself as a "moderate" and it is quite clear that he is. Particularly of interest was a discussion on the necessity of central planning with zoning. He was once a part of a zoning board for his municipality, and because of this he strongly supports the central planning that goes on in the board. I politely, one day, said that I don't believe central planning is a good solution because it has negative affects on the economy and the property rights of individuals and consequently I can't sympathize with his stories involving his time on the zoning board. We got into an elevated argument in regards to this discussion. And I ended it by noting that it is likely a difference in our philosophies and forms of knowledge that add to our dissension, and that we will get nowhere in such a discussion. So the other night, on the news, there was a story about a man being bothered by the flashing lights of a shop close to his house. The man tried to ask the business-owner to turn off the flashing at night time, so that it wouldn't bother his and his wife's sleep. The business owner refused. Then the man went to several of his local government's meetings pleading his case. Nothing came out of it. In the end, the man went outside with a sign telling people to boycott the business. Instantly, my roommate said that this is why central planning and regulation is necessary. There should be an ordinance that says a sign within a few hundred feet of a residence should only be so bright. I chose to not discuss it with him. The next day he inquired again, because somehow we got onto the topic. I said that I don't want to share my opinions because I feel as if it would be a waste of time, which he took as me not wanting to talk with somebody I disagree with. He kept asking what MY "solution" to this man's problem would be. I kept telling him that if I gave him my ideas of a solution right there, off the top of my head, he'd pick and pick at anything it doesn't address, and unless I wrote an essay my thoughts would not accurately be expressed, fully, so I'd rather refrain from doing so. Eventually my efforts to refrain from entering the conversation failed, and I started providing my points. Eventually the attacks became personal:
I was told that "you don't care about others", " you're antisocial", and "you think that people should only care about themselves", which he knows are not true, but he says that when it comes to politics I have these behaviors.
In addition to that, there is a constant belief of his that my arguments are too abstract and that they have nothing to do with the real world. He devalues the books I read as just "on paper" theories, and that they might or might not be able to work. He also thinks I go off-topic when I explain the foundations of my reasoning, and he can't connect the foundations and general arguments with the specific discussion. For example, often I talk about spontaneous order when he professes chaos without regulation, and he thinks of it as an abstract concept rather than a real one.
On the other-hand, whenever I mention something that I read online, he instantly assumes that I hadn't checked the sources for reliability or my bias is inhibiting my ability to check the sources accurately. It doesn't matter if my sources are the mainstream media, or some other more obscure credible ones: he'll write them off as biased because of my views.
In every other aspect of life, we get along perfectly fine and do not argue, but when it comes to politics I feel as if I am attacked personally. I've recently tried to avoid such discussions, but it does not seem to work. How does one deal with such negative attitudes toward libertarian views, particularly those that affects one's views of your personal character?
I was told that "you don't care about others", " you're antisocial", and "you think that people should only care about themselves", which he knows are not true, but he says that when it comes to politics I have these behaviors.
In addition to that, there is a constant belief of his that my arguments are too abstract and that they have nothing to do with the real world. He devalues the books I read as just "on paper" theories, and that they might or might not be able to work. He also thinks I go off-topic when I explain the foundations of my reasoning, and he can't connect the foundations and general arguments with the specific discussion. For example, often I talk about spontaneous order when he professes chaos without regulation, and he thinks of it as an abstract concept rather than a real one.
On the other-hand, whenever I mention something that I read online, he instantly assumes that I hadn't checked the sources for reliability or my bias is inhibiting my ability to check the sources accurately. It doesn't matter if my sources are the mainstream media, or some other more obscure credible ones: he'll write them off as biased because of my views.
In every other aspect of life, we get along perfectly fine and do not argue, but when it comes to politics I feel as if I am attacked personally. I've recently tried to avoid such discussions, but it does not seem to work. How does one deal with such negative attitudes toward libertarian views, particularly those that affects one's views of your personal character?
