Source
r/GoldandBlack•
MayCaesar

Speaking a different language

Do you often feel that you are speaking a different language when it comes to economics and politics than many other people?

I find that one of the problems with promoting libertarian ideals is the corruption of language in the mainstream economics and politics, leading to people being confused about the meaning of the most basic terms. For example, I recently had a discussion with overall a fairly reasonable intellectual who, however, kept insisting that capitalism cannot exist without coercion. While dancing around the issue, it seemed to me that fundamentally his position was that "private property is coercion", because lack of coercion would imply that anyone can take any piece of property with no violent retaliation from others. It is not that hard to see how fallacious this position is (Ayn Rand would say that it involves a "stolen concept", as, by definition, property must belong to someone, hence cannot be taken without their consent by anyone). However, a person whose political echo-chamber promotes this idea would not see anything wrong with it, and it will be reflected in the terminology they use.

How can this problem be addressed effectively? It almost feels sometimes as if you are talking to a person in English, while they are talking to you in Chinese, and you cannot find a single mode of communication allowing you to understand each other.

People invoke such ideas as "right for free education", "social contract", "collective responsibility", etc. that are contradictions of terms, yet you cannot even explain to them why they are contradictions of terms, because they have been using them for so long that they have unconsciously developed very sophisticated mechanisms obscuring the contradictions. Trying to get them to see the essence of the issues is akin to slowly peeling an onion layers, one at a time, discovering deeper and deeper layers that need to be addressed before proceeding further.

Posted Aug 16, 2020, 6:14 AM UTC

2719
AdamasNemesis•

Fundamentally, you either have to introduce them to your language or translate libertarianism into their political language. Unless you are already fluent in the other political language, either way is a lot of work. You are correct to point this out as a primary obstacle.

9
Troy_And_Abed_In_The•

Let’s start a list of helpful translations for talking to progressives:

  • Capitalism ~ Voluntary Economy
  • Free Market ~ Cooperative Exchange
  • Trickle Down ~ Percolate Outward
  • Government Intervention ~ Interference from Authority
  • Taxation ~ Equity Reduction
  • Federal Reserve ~ Wallstreet Bailout Machine
9
Squalleke123•

Pretty good list. I can add some.

Rent control ~ Property supply reduction (both in quality and quantity).

Welfare ~ Trapping poor people in poor situations.

Corporate profit tax ~ Investment reduction.

2
SicSemperChalupa•

You are speaking a different language - Most of these people downright refuse to define their terms. The best definition if "capitalism" according to them is "everything I dislike about society." Corns subsidies? that's capitalism. Spitting gum on the side walk? That's capitalism. It's like the Marklar episode of south park except the word Capitalism subs for all literally any bad thing.

Ask them to define capitalism next time -- when it ends up being "something something corporations with money profit greed government corruption EVIL." Ask them how the USSR wasn't capitalism by their definition (Some would say that it is!). Once you find out that they're just using capitalism as a pseudo-intellectual bludgeon for a system not run the way they believe they could run it, tell them "oh okay, so that term is kinda useless, do you have any problems with free markets?"... or just bring up the Merriam Webster definition

Capitalism:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Free market:

an economy operating by free competition

9
bradley_cohen•

Aside from the more well-known corruption "anarchy = chaos", one of my pet gripes when discussing the NAP is that most people can't seem to disassociate 'aggression' and 'violence', treating them as synonyms.

If you corner a tiger or a snake, which then inevitably lashes out at you violently, that in no way means it acted aggressively. You sometimes hear things in nature documentaries and such like "these animals aren't aggressive, unless provoked.". That makes no sense at all.

And then trying to explain that there's nothing immoral about violence per se, because violence can be useful in defensive acts.

7
Squalleke123•

That's a pretty good point. NAP doesn't exclude violence, as you can use violence to defend against Aggression from others.

1
bradley_cohen•

Exactly - it's not the non-violence principle.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

5
[deleted]•

[deleted]

4
rtylr06•

I don’t get hung up on terms. I just say „yea“ a lot and have a positive demeanor that makes it seem as though I’m „on their side“ while I just keep adding more anarchist ideas into my argument. I do this with family a lot and it seems to work. Example: dad starts talking about militarism as a good thing. Me „yea I mean I can’t believe Obama started more wars like that in the Middle East. I mean he’s an Ivy League elite politician so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s a bunch of people in middle America who’s kids are dying. Not his.“ im Not too good with the left though. My patience for their total lack of morality has worn thin

3
Vmoustache•

Yes. For all intents and purposes, modern political discussion is a Tower of Babel.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
JobDestroyer•

practice is the only answer.

For that, ask if they are pro-theft.

1
jackstraw2156•

Yea when I was younger I used to argue for liberty and voluntarism frequently. I got so practiced using terminology and economic concepts that I basically would win any argument related to the benefits of economic and social liberty

I stopped discussing these things for years out of frustration, but now reengaging I have had to regain command of argument and terms .

So you like you said just practice and hold logical arguments

If a then b therefore c.... For the most basic of all arguments from there you can really start to have command over the subject on account of others stupidity

2
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
haestrod•

What did you say in response to the idea that private property is coercion? I happen to believe this I just support it.

1
MayCaesarOP•

Well, as I noted in the post, this interpretation of private property is a "stolen concept", as if a certain piece of property was coercion, it could not be considered private property. Private property is property that a person legitimately owns; property obtained through coercion is stolen property and is not a private property of the thief.

1
haestrod•

I don't find any conflict in the idea that private property is coercion. If someone enters my property without my consent I will definitely use coercion to get him off (or demand compensation). If I avoid the use of the word 'coercion' here it will be difficult for me to describe what I am going to try to make happen.

1
MayCaesarOP•

Not if you consider the fact that someone entering your property without your consent is an act of coercion. Retaliatory violence is not really coercion; it is more akin to self-defense.

Now, if you believe that private property should not exist in principle, that all property should be shared - then, indeed, you can call yourself chasing someone away from a piece of property "coercion". But in that case, again, you cannot say that "private property is coercion", since private property does not exist at all in that scenario.

1
haestrod•

Interesting. So you don't think that if a religious cult says that they have an obligation/duty to control a piece of land that you own and call it "self-defense" to remove you from it that they are coercing but you would not be for engaging in self-defense? Why or why not?

1