You cannot reach some people.

[cska80]

..

 

[TCE]

The title is just a blunt fact. Take for instance, my girlfriend. We cannot talk politics. Why? She gets angry as all hell. I've tried to figure out why. I think I have. We're complete opposites politically and philosophically. She believes socialism is great, and some aspects of communism are amazing. I'm basically libertarian.

Discussing health care the other day, she almost ripped my head off. Her final response, the conversation ender, was "...I know nothing about economics. I don't want to know anything about economics, and I don't want to argue about economics." I asked her how can you do anything you'd like to with government and society if you don't understand or care about economics? At that point I thought she was going to gouge my eyes out so I stopped.

I really do believe that a lot of liberals live inside a bubble politically and philosophically which they will defend at all costs. They DO NOT want that bubble broken, or their entire existance will come into question. I've heard many talk show hosts, blogs, etc. talk about this before but to have someone speak honestly, to your face, about socialism and communism, positively, and become physically angry when trapped in their own arguments by logic, reason, and fact is very disturbing to me. It reminds me of trying to tell a friend that his girlfriend, who hes madly in love with, is cheating on him. They will get mad at YOU, and ignore the reality to embrace the false reality in order to avoid confrontation with themselves and the problem at hand.

Your girlfriend might be a fool. When I talk to mine about politics, she typically agrees with me, even though she is a far left liberal. Some people won't turn on a guy until the msm turns on him. That will be what happens with Obama.

 

[cska80]

..

 

[Scofield]

Some people are terrified of the status-quo changing. These people are, like you said, stuck in a bubble of fictitious beliefs that they will cling onto until the end. It is what suits them the best, it is in their best interest and provides them with the security and happiness they desire.

While things may not be perfect, most people are generally content with their lives. They are content with going to school (or work), coming home to their family or friends, relaxing, partying, and so on and so forth. To expose them to the realities you and I understand would crush their bubble and drastically alter their life, and these types of people will do anything in their power to avoid such changes. People fear change.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves." - Dresden James

 

[cska80]

..

 

[TCE]

It's true, but it's even more terrifying when it comes from someone you personally know. You can see it on television or hear it on the radio...these ridiculous arguments and false logic...but when it's coming from someone you know is being truely honest and they believe in this garbage as if it's a religion, it really forces you to realize how big of a fight we have ahead of us.

Nobody said we need the ignorant. The people who are completely apathetic about politics don't tend to vote anyway. I would rather have one person who is completely for Dr. Paul and is willing to work/donate for the cause than five people who like Dr. Paul but are completely apathetic politically. What this board represents are hundreds of people who love liberty and are willing to work to achieve a goal. The average American is apathetic and couldn't care less.

As long as we frame the arguments in a way that any position except ours is strange, we're good as far as the apathetics go. For instance:

* Never pass an unbalanced budget - Who wants one that is unbalanced? **

* Congress must declare war. The President cannot send our troops wherever he feels like whenever he feels like. - Who thinks it's okay for a President to wage war on anyone and everyone? **

* Corporations should never be "bailed out" with taxpayer money to keep them afloat, if they fail, it is their fault. - Who wants to give money to rich CEO's and executives? **

Those are some to get started with. I don't think she could necessarily disagree with you on any one of those points.


**Answer: The Democrats or Republicans, depending on which party controls the Presidency.

 

[pacelli]

Dumb it down. Instead of economics, use the terms "money", "pay".

 

[mport1]

The title is just a blunt fact. Take for instance, my girlfriend. We cannot talk politics. Why? She gets angry as all hell. I've tried to figure out why. I think I have. We're complete opposites politically and philosophically. She believes socialism is great, and some aspects of communism are amazing. I'm basically libertarian.

Discussing health care the other day, she almost ripped my head off. Her final response, the conversation ender, was "...I know nothing about economics. I don't want to know anything about economics, and I don't want to argue about economics." I asked her how can you do anything you'd like to with government and society if you don't understand or care about economics? At that point I thought she was going to gouge my eyes out so I stopped.

I really do believe that a lot of liberals live inside a bubble politically and philosophically which they will defend at all costs. They DO NOT want that bubble broken, or their entire existance will come into question. I've heard many talk show hosts, blogs, etc. talk about this before but to have someone speak honestly, to your face, about socialism and communism, positively, and become physically angry when trapped in their own arguments by logic, reason, and fact is very disturbing to me. It reminds me of trying to tell a friend that his girlfriend, who hes madly in love with, is cheating on him. They will get mad at YOU, and ignore the reality to embrace the false reality in order to avoid confrontation with themselves and the problem at hand.

If she doesn't want to talk economics, I'd suggest taking a different angle. Try to explain the non-aggression principle and how all you are proposing is that individuals interact without initiating force on one another. Explain that there is always a gun behind the action of everything the government does. You are merely advocating peaceful interaction.

 

[ClayTrainor]

If she doesn't want to talk economics, I'd suggest taking a different angle. Try to explain the non-aggression principle and how all you are proposing is that individuals interact without initiating force on one another. Explain that there is always a gun behind the action of everything the government does. You are merely advocating peaceful interaction.

I was trying to enforce this argument with someone over the past week, and they kept throwing back the "you have the freedom to leave and go to another country, if you don't like it, therefore it's moral".

What do you think the best way to refute these types of people are?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Take for instance, my girlfriend. We cannot talk politics. Why? She gets angry as all hell. I've tried to figure out why.

Let me make a politically incorrect gross generalization (i.e this does not apply to women on this forum, or many women not on this forum).

In general, evolution has made women more dependent on other people for some things, usually material things like food and shelter. In the last 10,000 years, that purpose has usually been served by a father or husband. In today's society, government often fills that role, especially if there is a void. And as you have noticed, there is no desire (and for the last 10,000 years there has been no need or even freedom) for women to know the details. Bottom line is that she wants to be taken care of, and doesn't want to know how that is achieved.

Once again, that's a big gross generalization, and does not apply to everyone (either gender).

 

[TCE]

I was trying to enforce this argument with someone over the past week, and they kept throwing back the "you have the freedom to leave and go to another country, if you don't like it, therefore it's moral".

What do you think the best way to refute these types of people are?

If everyone did that, there would be no liberty left. Why should we have to leave the country if our view differs from that of the mainstream? In Nazi Germany, was it okay for Hitler to do what he did because if the people didn't like it, they could have just left? Same thing for Stalinist U.S.S.R. It must have been okay for him to indirectly kill seven to eight million people because people could "just leave if they didn't like it."

The stupidity of that argument really gets to me.

 

[Objectivist]

The title is just a blunt fact. Take for instance, my girlfriend. We cannot talk politics. Why? She gets angry as all hell. I've tried to figure out why. I think I have. We're complete opposites politically and philosophically. She believes socialism is great, and some aspects of communism are amazing. I'm basically libertarian.

Discussing health care the other day, she almost ripped my head off. Her final response, the conversation ender, was "...I know nothing about economics. I don't want to know anything about economics, and I don't want to argue about economics." I asked her how can you do anything you'd like to with government and society if you don't understand or care about economics? At that point I thought she was going to gouge my eyes out so I stopped.

I really do believe that a lot of liberals live inside a bubble politically and philosophically which they will defend at all costs. They DO NOT want that bubble broken, or their entire existance will come into question. I've heard many talk show hosts, blogs, etc. talk about this before but to have someone speak honestly, to your face, about socialism and communism, positively, and become physically angry when trapped in their own arguments by logic, reason, and fact is very disturbing to me. It reminds me of trying to tell a friend that his girlfriend, who hes madly in love with, is cheating on him. They will get mad at YOU, and ignore the reality to embrace the false reality in order to avoid confrontation with themselves and the problem at hand.

How does she come to terms with her immorality and poor character on the matter of forcing other people to provide her wishes at the point of a gun? I'd love to know why she thinks government stealing in her name is any better than her stealing from her neighbor.

Then I'd have to question your morals to associate with someone willing to force others to do her bidding. Doesn't say much about the strength of your character come to think of it. I don't associate with people of poor morals because it reflects on my judgement, would you hang out with Michael Vick or Michael Jackson? They both represent immoral people.

 

[Objectivist]

I was trying to enforce this argument with someone over the past week, and they kept throwing back the "you have the freedom to leave and go to another country, if you don't like it, therefore it's moral".

What do you think the best way to refute these types of people are?

If it's a free country then you have no right to force anything on anyone. Pointing a gun at me to make me fear you or conform to your ideals is not freedom and is also immoral. Is that what they are trying to represent? That is what they are representing.

"you have the freedom to leave and go to another country" MY ASS!

 

[mport1]

I was trying to enforce this argument with someone over the past week, and they kept throwing back the "you have the freedom to leave and go to another country, if you don't like it, therefore it's moral".

What do you think the best way to refute these types of people are?

Yes, I am sure many of us have gotten this response over and over when talking with people. I think Stefan Molyneux makes some good points in his article about this.

There are a number of approaches you could take on this and I'm not sure which one works best. You can bring up the fact that America was founded on the fact that people didn't just leave when they disagreed but actually did something about it.

You can ask them to explain how the government has dominion over everybody's person and property. Because if this legitimate ownership cannot be proven (and it can't), individuals should not have to leave when it is their person and property that is being infringed on.

I think this is easiest to approach from a voluntaryist point of view, but I'm not sure if you are there or a minarchist. I would explain how even at the outset of our government, their rule over this area was illegitimate so they have absolutely no legitimate authority over anything.

I think somebody on the Freedomain Radio forums also had a good response:

If a shopkeeper owned a shop in which a violent Mafia extorition racket operated, taking a percentage of his profit every week, would you tell him to love it or leave it? Of course he can sell his shop and move somewhere free of the Mafia, but why should he? Does he consent to the extortion by deciding not to move?

David Hume also gave a good response to this line of questioning - does a man conscripted into the Navy against his will consent to his servitude by not jumping overboard?

Another thing to bring up is to mention that you cannot even leave without having your rights violated. You are taxed heavily when leaving the country now. And where would you even go? You would just effectively a slave moving from one plantation to another.
YouTube - True News 13: Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix

 

[cska80]

..

 

[Objectivist]

That's an awful thing to say. Politics isn't everything. People relate on other things in life. If she lived her life in a way consistent with her political philosophy, then I'd understand your point, but your assumption is uncalled for. She lives her life in a complete opposite fashion of her 'beliefs'. This post was about confusion and refusing to understand truth, not personally attacking someone.

The truth is that forcing people to do your bidding is immoral. You suggested that she holds these values... then she'd be immoral.

Love makes one blind, I can see.

On a side note, I left a GF that I found stealing from her employer, it wasn't much but she was in fact stealing and saw no problem with it. She too tried to justify her position but she was the immoral one. Her boss was just an asshole, like me I guess.

 

[Objectivist]

"She believes socialism is great, and some aspects of communism are amazing. I'm basically libertarian."

Your words make her immoral, because these two ideals forced on people are immoral. That's reality.

 

[Natalie]

The title is just a blunt fact. Take for instance, my girlfriend. We cannot talk politics. Why? She gets angry as all hell. I've tried to figure out why. I think I have. We're complete opposites politically and philosophically. She believes socialism is great, and some aspects of communism are amazing. I'm basically libertarian.

Discussing health care the other day, she almost ripped my head off. Her final response, the conversation ender, was "...I know nothing about economics. I don't want to know anything about economics, and I don't want to argue about economics." I asked her how can you do anything you'd like to with government and society if you don't understand or care about economics? At that point I thought she was going to gouge my eyes out so I stopped.

I really do believe that a lot of liberals live inside a bubble politically and philosophically which they will defend at all costs. They DO NOT want that bubble broken, or their entire existance will come into question. I've heard many talk show hosts, blogs, etc. talk about this before but to have someone speak honestly, to your face, about socialism and communism, positively, and become physically angry when trapped in their own arguments by logic, reason, and fact is very disturbing to me. It reminds me of trying to tell a friend that his girlfriend, who hes madly in love with, is cheating on him. They will get mad at YOU, and ignore the reality to embrace the false reality in order to avoid confrontation with themselves and the problem at hand.

That sucks. I'm glad I have a liberty boyfriend, since my political beliefs are such a huge part of who I am. I remember I got into a argument with one of my old boyfriends because he thought the N word should be banned, and people who said it should be punished. I was like, what about free speech? I guess he thought some speech needed to be restricted.

 

[Objectivist]

" She lives her life in a complete opposite fashion of her 'beliefs'."

This is called living a lie.^^ also immoral and not right thinking.

I don't see a personal attack when you asked for an assessment of the situation YOU laid before us. I don't know her or you for that matter but I do sense some confusion in thinking on both parts.

 

[mport1]

"She believes socialism is great, and some aspects of communism are amazing. I'm basically libertarian."

Your words make her immoral, because these two ideals forced on people are immoral. That's reality.

Exactly and the cognitive dissonance that will result when you explain that her views are not just wrong in their effects but immoral will be very strong. It is hard to come to terms with the fact that you advocate violence when that fact is presented to you.