Freedomain Radio

I'm sure many of you, after expressing your beliefs, have had them dismissed as naive or worse.
As a person who is overly concerned with the opinions of others, I rarely talk about my beliefs for fear of this. 
Yesterday, however, I had a very good day.

Conversation 1:

An Obama fan, a liberal, a mostly-athiest-kinda-agnostic girl and I were hanging out after our class.
I said I didn't vote, and got the "Shame on you" scold.
So, I told her why.

We talked about how the government is a violent monopoly, and she agreed.
Her problem, she said, was, "Who's going to keep all the fucked up, violent people in check?"
"Hypothetically speaking," I responded, "would people not pay for protection?"
"Uhhhhh..."
"Well, people appreciate the protection they're getting now, and it's done by a monopolistic group who they HAVE TO pay. Don't you suppose people would be even gladder to pay for the same service from a non-monopolistic company? I mean, just by the nature of monopolies, the service will be provided better and cheaper in a free market, so...."
"Yeah, I suppose so."

Of course, she didn't agree 100%, and I may have annoyed her a bit.
But, I felt I had a pretty good conversation there.

Conversation 2:

"Did you vote?"
"Nope."
"That's bad. You should vote."
"DISPICABLE! Why is it that Americans promote voting sooner than they promote rational thought? Fuck 'Vote or Die'. I say, THINK OR DIE!"
"I understand."

Conversation 3:

"I heard you didn't vote."
"Yup."
"Why not."
"The state is disgusting."
"You mean, having 50 states with their own laws?"
"No, haha, the state, ie, the government."
"Ohhh....you're not a crazy punk-rock chaos anarchist, are you?"
"No."
"Well, what's wrong with the state?"
"It's a violently maintained monopoly."
"Explain."
"If you don't pay them for their services, whether you like the services or not, they throw you in jail."
"Ahhh. I've never thought about it like that."
"If that sounds rational to you, visit freedomainradio.com."
"Ok, thanks, I will."

 

When I write essays, I'm fairly eloquent.
For some reason, when I speak, I'm at best okay usually.
I usually get nervous and studder.
Yesterday, FINALLY, I broke out of that shell!

Congratulations!

AESTHETE:

I said I didn't vote, and got the "Shame on you" scold.
So, I told her why.

Next time I get a response like this here's what I'm going to do my best to remember to say:

"You know, I find your response kind of interesting... you chose to scold me instead of being curious as to why I chose not to vote."

I could stop here, or I could continue...

"I could infer from your response that you think that there could be no possible reason that would make any sense at all for not voting. That would suggest that you have spent at least a fair amount of time researching and analyzing the various reasons people don't vote. Have you?

"If not I could also infer that you assumed that I didn't think this through, or that I'm somehow unintelligent."

Aesthete - I'm postulating that it was her initial response that was the real issue to talk about. It was her response that to me indicates that she is not interested in truth, therefore would not be persuaded. And therefore it would be a waste of time to start talking about gov = violence etc...

Come to think of it, I wonder if some of her annoyance (subconsciously) was that you didn't respond to what was really going on (which could have annoyed her even more, but in a more productive way).

What do you think?

Very well said, Uncle Bob. It would be interesting to see you take part in the FDR Boot Camp, as you seem to be a great communicator. What happened to the Boot Camp anyway? Are there gonna be more episodes?

 

AESTHETE:

Her problem, she said, was, "Who's going to keep all the fucked up, violent people in check?"

You mean like George Bush?

 

Uncle Bob:

Come to think of it, I wonder if some of her annoyance (subconsciously) was that you didn't respond to what was really going on (which could have annoyed her even more, but in a more productive way).

I agree with your post.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by this.
What "was really going on"?
Are you talking about her not being interested in truth?

 

Stefan Molyneux:

AESTHETE:

Her problem, she said, was, "Who's going to keep all the fucked up, violent people in check?"

You mean like George Bush?

 

AHHH!
I could've used that.

Oh well.
Maybe I'll have another chance tomorrow.

 

AESTHETE:

Uncle Bob:

Come to think of it, I wonder if some of her annoyance (subconsciously) was that you didn't respond to what was really going on (which could have annoyed her even more, but in a more productive way).

I agree with your post.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by this.
What "was really going on"?
Are you talking about her not being interested in truth?

Yes -- basically, that she had some sort of emotional reaction to you saying you didn't vote, and subconsciously she wanted to talk about that. This might be a bit of a stretch though... it's just a theory.

 

It actually seems pretty credible.
Perhaps she had this nagging suspicion in the back of her head that her initial response was irrational.
And, deep down, she wanted me to comfirm that suspicion.

I know, for me, if I make a mistake in an argument and recognize it, it bothers me when it's not pointed out.
I, of course, let it go if it goes unnoticed, as it doesn't harm me
But, it is an interesting question: Do people generally prefer to be corrected when they're wrong?
I believe so.

 

AESTHETE:

But, it is an interesting question: Do people generally prefer to be corrected when they're wrong?
I believe so.

That's really interesting. I don't think I've thought about it in quite this way before... If the psychological theories we talk about here are right, then people do know the truth--at least subconsciously--and they desperately want us to correct their irrationalities and confirm the truth for them.

Great thinking on your feet Aesthete!  It's quite a difficult skill to master.

Stef's response made me laugh out loud. 

Milo:

Great thinking on your feet Aesthete!  It's quite a difficult skill to master.

I always think of comebacks right when it's too late.
I'm getting better, apparently.
Or maybe I just got lucky.

There's one interesting point I left out:

AESTHETE:

Conversation 1:

An Obama fan, a liberal, a mostly-athiest-kinda-agnostic girl and I were hanging out after our class.
I said I didn't vote, and got the "Shame on you" scold.
So, I told her why.

We talked about how the government is a violent monopoly, and she agreed.
Her problem, she said, was, "Who's going to keep all the fucked up, violent people in check?"
"Hypothetically speaking," I responded, "would people not pay for protection?"
"Uhhhhh..."
"Well, people appreciate the protection they're getting now, and it's done by a monopolistic group who they HAVE TO pay. Don't you suppose people would be even gladder to pay for the same service from a non-monopolistic company? I mean, just by the nature of monopolies, the service will be provided better and cheaper in a free market, so...."
"Yeah, I suppose so."

Of course, she didn't agree 100%, and I may have annoyed her a bit.
But, I felt I had a pretty good conversation there.

Towards the beginning of the conversation, she said something about the state being desirable because it's easy.
It's so easy to just pay taxes, and get the police and the army and whatever other jobs they fail at.
(She left out the "fail" part)
And I said, "Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death, huh?"

And I think that's an important aspect to people's acceptance of the state.
They don't care that it's immoral; the question is, Is It Easy?
I think that making that belief more explicit, telling them that they seem to value convenience over morality, may bring them to perhaps re-evaluate their priorities.