conservative and libertarians we have to think differently

A while ago I came to the realization that our logic and way of thinking will not win over voters and are argument have to be different.

I came to this realization when a few months ago I was arguing with a friend of mine we call him DH. He is an extremely intelligent man, a physicians assistant that many people say could be a Doctor but he likes where he is. he is also very smart mathematically. However he is a socialist borderline communist and a pacifist. I on the other hand am an Austrian economist and a Libertarian.

DH loves to argue politics and economics. I like talking to him about it to because we do it in a civilized manor nobody gets angry and its all in good fun. Every time we talk I leave him befuddled and every thing he comes at me with I can counter. About a year ago I got him to a point where he had nothing else to say and his exact words were."C____ you are right but I just don't think it should be that way." from then on he wasn't so enthusiastic to debate with me.

It is literally a case of I reject your reality and submit my own. Because these people we argue against cling to an alternate reality even when it fails or is disproven we have to change the way we debate. Its a matter of clinging to an ideology and people like my friend will stay that way and cherry pick anecdotal evidence to support their claims.

we have to change our direction of attack. we can not attack an ideology anymore because that will get us nowhere we have to find what is it that makes them cling to that ideology and use that then once the no longer cling to the ideology we can attack the ideology.

 

Feelings. We have to learn to emote to them and get over logic and reason. The right is left brained and the left is right brained oddly enough. That is why they excel in fiction and creative works and we have the accountant vote.

 

my response to many libertarian thinkers is this

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” - Dwight Eisenhower

Now that is not to denounce libertarianism as a whole, I don't consider myself an Austrian, and I do support some things that most libertarians would not support (like single payer healthcare), but I am also a registered libertarian voter. I find the political leanings that mirror Ayn Rand to be problematic to the libertarian party.. who keep in mind was not a libertarian herself, and in fact denounced the entire libertarian party as a whole.. She was more in favor of the notion to remove all social safety nets, in contrast to libertarian thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, who went as far a supporting a guaranteed minimum income for all, whether they were employed or not

If libertarians want to be accepted to a more mainstream level, they must make it clear that they are in fact in favor of setting a minimum standard of living for our society

 

LMAO...All delusional windbaggery aside, right-wing ideology is repellent to most civilized people for a good reason.
You might profit from reading Aesop's fable about the sun and the wind and then learn to act more like the sun.

 

I wish people would not link libertarians and conservatives into the same group. Libertarians can't stand conservatives for the most part.

 

This.

If I have to hear one more person TELL ME I am a "stupid religious freak", hate gays, love the drug war, am anti abortion or any other social conservative memes I might scream.

I see people on here post regularly that Bo sides want to take your freedoms just in different ways. In my opinion this couldn't be more truthful.

It's all very frustrating, but it's good to see the huge number of younger people leaning towards libertarianism.

I have seen the sticker "The Left is Stupid, The Rig is Wrong" all over the place lately and that is here in SoCal!

Hopefully the future will be more to my liking.

 

I am in an even worse boat, I can't agree with the libertarians either on many issues.

I said this in my intro, political parties are just like religions. Even the conventions are like watching a religious service.

 

Social conservatives and others who want to order you around make the base of the Republican party down here in Dixie. And clearly they have nothing much in common with libertarians. Essentially, the two are polar opposites.

Both teams support a large, intrusive, powerful government. They actually differ very little when it comes to most things, despite their claims to the contrary. They tend to argue about small tweaks to individual things, but at the end of the day you end up with the same thing: A huge, deficit laden, freedom robbing Nanny state. Which is why the libertarians on here consistently ask folks to stop comparing them to conservatives. We have little in common.

 

I think that's the trouble with the libertarian movement, there is no single message being used. There are all kinds of libertarians and unfortunately they take some queues from either party.

I have seen the "I'm a libertarian but don't think gays should have equal rights" .... How is that libertarian?

Form what I can see it seems the one thing libertarians have in common is fiscal conservatism, the social issues can be all over the place.

Then of course you get the Neocons who don't want to be called a republican anymore so they say they're libertarian. It's all quite confusing.

 

+1. Great post.

As the Ragin Cajun said ....

"Oh... It... We... have no response. That was perfect"

 

This is exactly why I don't even bother trying to get through to these people much anymore. The reason they cling to their illogical ideology is because they didn't form their opinions with logic to begin with. They formed them with emotion and then backward rationalized them into logical explanations. Which clearly fall apart quite easily under cross examination from sound logic. You can't beat emotion with reason. No amount of reason, evidence, or logic will persuade someone to change an emotional stance. Your only two options are to emotionally sway them in your direction through their feelings or just to crush them entirely. Anything else will not work.

If you really want to change an emotional person's mind, point out all of the injustices that their views produce. Make them feel the oppression of their own ideas. Structure your argument in a way that makes them feel, not think. For instance; "How can you believe collectivism is a good thing? Don't you realize that communism has killed more people in history than all the world religions combined? I understand your desire for equality, but how can you punish someone for being successful? Imagine you worked your ass off from humble beginnings to follow your dream. And through years of hard work and dedication, you managed to achieve the improbable. You produced something that enriched people's lives the world over and they rewarded you for your efforts by buying your product and now you're a self-made millionaire. Through passion and dedication, you have built the life you always wanted. And now somebody else who made different choices than you.... somebody who had no dream.... somebody who never strove for anything.... wants to take your money away simply because you have it and they don't. They don't care about all the blood, sweat, and tears you put into realizing your dream. They only care about that little envious feeling in the pit of their stomach when they see what a nice life you have. And so they elect these politicians who say, 'Sorry you made such a strong effort to make an honest living, but we're going to take this away from you now.' Wouldn't you be pissed off? How is that fair? Where is the justice in that?"

That was just off the top of my head. You can tweak it and make it better. But you get the idea. Notice how I'm putting him in the position of the guy that's getting (*)(*)(*)(*)ed over by collectivism. I'm forcing him to feel the negative impacts of his beliefs. Notice how I'm asking a bunch of questions. Questions are important in debate. They're more effective than statements because they force the person to reach the conclusions on their own. And when they do this, they don't feel like you've force-fed them. Instead, they feel like they've just had a realization. A personal realization will always cut deeper than being clubbed over the head with someone else's dogma.

Hope that helped.

 

I've had fun debating politics online for well over a decade, and I feel I usually have a pretty good handle on the facts, but I doubt I've changed the mind of a single person in all that time. If that was the goal, I would have checked out a long time ago. I do enjoy matching wits with people who may be my equals in intelligence but who have a totally different ideology, Heh, it's fun!

In modern Western culture, the left has won "the argument" because it took control of the institutions, the media, education and so forth. They don't have to be right; they are the gate keepers of what's acceptable or what's cool. So I doubt there is an alternate track to winning the argument. Reason and facts doesn't work and those were the only things we had on our side.

 

yeah.. I'd actually say the Democrats and Republicans have more in common than the Republicans and Libertarians

they share the same corporatist views but with a different argument, in the end they're both strong supporters of our over crowded prison system, our too big to fail banks, and our over expanded military.

 

I am of a fiscally conservative nature and I detest gun-control laws to a certain extent. I detest the drugwar and all the financial waste and infringements on freedom that stems from it.
I hate that our government is a legislative body for those with enough money to buy service. I dont give two shiats about gays marrying and I find religion laughable at best and a disease at worst.

But I am not a libertarian. Even with what seems to be a laundrylist of libertarian ideals, I still think that we would be well served by universal catastrophic health insurance and that Heroin and Cocaine should never be legal to consume in public.

What I dont get is ... if I cant consider myself a libertarian... how the hell can social conservatives who are by nature, freaking tyrant's just like the extremist muslims they hate, claim to be libertarians.

 

I think the Left and Libertarians have a lot in common. The left doesn't recognize civil society or the family as legitimate institutions, they see individuals as cogs in the state. Libertarians only recognize civil society as excuses to avoid government. They don't regard civil society, religious institutions, and the family as having a legitimate role in society. Only the individual and the state.

Plus, libertarians share the same Marxian forward march of history. They don't see declines. They think everything is getting better every day and will continue to do so.

 

The 'problem' that you're talking about isn't exactly a problem. Libertarians tend to be politically well-read, and come off somewhat legalistic. Communists rarely do that, they usually come off all emotion, all feeling - and that's what's missing.

But don't get it wrong. The calm, logical arguments that feel legalistic aren't always ineffective. They work well for certain kinds of people, but you need to put in the emotion. People who aren't libertarians rarely make the connection that we're talking about freedom and liberty. Our aim is for that which people have fought and died for for thousands of years.

 

It didn't. You don't seem to have a problem with collectivism... you just seem to have a problem where the loot collectivism collects ends up, even though the great majority of the loot is going right where you like it too... but you don't seem to realize it since it isnt lining your pockets. Ergo it has got to be the communists and the poor folk robbing you blind. Because lord knows there aint no way you are one of the victims, you just haven't struck it rich yet.

 

Democrats and Republicans do have something in common, each party has the loyalty of nearly half the country, the Libertarians poll in the low single digits, and we have a first past the post system, which is why there are no Libertarians, in congress, not a single one.

If you are serious about politics, the way to actually make something happen is to join one of the big parties and argue for your ideas.
Because that is the way the idea gets on the stage and eventually may become law.

 

Ya, that's going to work against the deep pockets that own both parties.

 

I think libertarians would be a much more attractive alternative if they got rid of all the fools that are seemingly willing to let everything go up in flames as long as they have their (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) freedom. Id est, get rid of the anarchists and those who are unconfortably borderline. Nobody likes the extremists, and the anarchists are as good for you libertarians as nazis are for conservatives, or commies for the left. Id est, totally countra-productive, just blind ideologues that will scare away reasonable people.

Interesting observation. I think valuing civil society is a key feature of rightism, and it's a view that libertarians mostly sadly don't share, as they concentrate on the individual. I think libertarians really misunderstand what conservatism is. sad, really.

 

It's the most likely road to success.
Take a look at Elizabeth Warren, the deep pockets hate her, yet her Consumer Financial Protection Agency is law now, and in effect.
And her message, which is populist, and despised by the deep pockets on both sides, is being heard in the Senate.

 

Do we have to accept government by an American nomenklatura?

Do we have to accept an America where the majority mooches off the tax-paying minority?

 

I think that's one of the reasons that there could never be a real libertarian nation. Libertarianism, at least as it's understood today, depends on non governmental institutions (the church, charities, clubs ect...) to say, "see? We don't need government to perform these functions. We have [blank] that does it on a voluntary basis." But then, they don't recognize the legitimacy of whatever. The recent turn of libertarians against the idea of of actual legal courthouse marriages is a good example. That was their method of confronting the gay marriage issue; just get the state out of marriage! Problem solved - no more legal marriages! Why should the government tell people blah blah blah... but families, the traditional, uncool type, are the building block of society. They are the pillars that all of the other institutions sit on. Kick that out, and all you have left is government.

 

Never made that connection with marriage before, thank you.

 

What have I said that's given you that impression?

Uh, that's correct. It's how the system works. Everyone has the basic opportunity to get rich. If you don't take advantage of that, then that's on you. And if you don't recognize the reality of this, then you don't understand the system. Which might explain why you don't have any money. People who aren't good at things will always try to find reasons to blame external circumstances for their own ineptitude. Because admitting that they simply suck would require too much humility.