Help me introduce the noob to anarcho-capitalism

[Seth King]

I need help. I'm having trouble introducing the complete noob to anarcho-capitalism when they haven't even got the basics down for libertarianism yet.

Back when I was a minarchist I could answer with zeal all of the questions I get asked concerning foreign policy, state's rights etc. Now I find it extremely difficult to backtrack and answer those questions when what I really want to say is that those issues miss the point entirely...

The rabbit hole is very deep to get to anarchism. And I've got people who want to learn but I feel compelled to take them straight to the bottom immediately. But I don't know how to. Does anybody have any book or video recommendations that would be great for somebody who is a complete noob to libertarianism that will introduce them straight to the point of anarchism without all of the government gobbledy gook getting in the way? I just feel dishonest when I give minarchist answers to libertarian questions. HELP!

[Noaidi]

It’s easier to convince a sceptic than it is a minarchist who (by definition) still has some faith in the political process.

For newbies, I would recommend a course of satire before moving on to anything philosophical. Guido Fawkes and The Daily Mash are brilliant UK blogs; I’m not sure what their equivalent would be in the US.

At the end of it, they will have to concede that

'Democracy is a form of religion, it is the worship of jackals by jackasses' (Mencken)

and your task will be that much easier. 

[Rattlesnake]

I've had this same problem for a long time now. It can sometimes be very difficult trying to explain something that seems axiomatic to you, but is completely foreign to someone else. The best way I've found is to simply ask questions and allow people to reach the answers on their own, albeit with some gentle prodding.

You can also go Circle Bastiat style and make them defend their position to you. We shouldn't assume that this burden is on us, simply because we're in the minority. Make them justify the actions of the state, and in doing so, show them that what they argue is really unjustifiable.

And when they're ready, encourage them to bring their questions to the forum. They'll find plenty of well informed people here willing to answer their questions.

Best of luck.

[Seth King]

And when they're ready, encourage them to bring their questions to the forum. They'll find plenty of well informed people here willing to answer their questions.

That's a great idea. From now on I'm going to direct them to the register page for this forum!

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Wow, only the second thread I've read, and it is also on something that I've been dying discuss. I think that political philosophy, or "a"political philosophy is very path dependent.

If you get a socialist thinking about the evil of the state, they will likely conclude that it is the reason what they call "capitalism" continues to thrive, and will just get stuck in the ansyn/ancomm camp.

Personally, my development was: raised Republican, realized I didn't like it, so switched to Democrat, thinking there was no other option, then realized they were warmongering power-hogs too....then got into the whole Ron Paul movement, before finally reading Anatomy of the State etc and realizing that the libertarian party does NOT accept the NAP, because government is necessarily coercive.

I think the funneling of people from the two major parties into libertarianism has to come first for a couple of reasons:
1) Anarchy conjures an image of chaos to those who don't know anything about it
2) Republicrats are too confident in the benevolence of the state to reject it
3) Libertarians have already mentally defeated the idea that the state is valid on utilitarian grounds...ex: libertarians can explain why welfare doesn't actually SUCCEED in what it's supposed to do, and why public education doesn't WORK.
4) (result of #3) Libertarians have already had their FAITH in government shattered.

In sum, here's my strategy, but I'd love to hear from everyone else: Shatter confidence in government (read James Bovard or similar), allowing one to understand why government doesn't work, only then introduce someone to anarchist ideology. Use natural rights if they are religious, otherwise just keep focusing on history/economics/utilitarian argument.

[Seth King]

I used to sell Ron Paul books door-to-door. I love them. Perhaps I should continue to peddle Ron Paul books to non-libertarians first. And only after they've converted to libertarianism, peddle the anarchy books?

My only issue is that I have a difficult time exalting the Constitution now that I've come to regard it as anti-freedom. Plus, I have a sneaking suspicion that when people hear about libertarianism, but then see it get equated to Constitutionalism, that they smell a contradiction. I mean, they don't consciously get it, but possibly, deep down inside they are thinking "if the government can justifiably steal to pay for police, courts, and military, why not for health care and education, too?"

Have you ever read Healing Our World: In An Age Of Aggression? One thing I really liked about that book is that it tears down the state without promoting the Constitution or government in any way that I could recognize. Although, it seemed like it was more geared towards liberals, women, and the spiritual. Do you know of any books that are like that but are geared towards the red-blooded men that don't want feel good stuff?

[JustSayNoToStatism]

You are onto something there Seth. Now that I think about it, I do recall (in the middle of my liberal to libertarian conversion process) thinking that the justification for police is the same as that for universal healthcare. Some people need or will use it more, but we all pay.

So you may be right about building up the Constitutionalists. This can cause confusion.

I too used to push people to read Ron Paul. But most people won't read it, and the few who do will probably just look at the words and mentally recite some pro-government slogans to convince themselves that there's nothing wrong with their beliefs. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful motivator!! The first step always has to be to shatter their faith in government. I haven't read "Healing Our World," but one from my earlier days that I do recall was "Terrorism and Tyranny" by James Bovard. I remember being completely struck at how he could utterly obliterate the legitimacy of institutions that all "patriotic" americans are taught to love. The FBI, CIA, TSA and many other bureucracies would all have had a major PR crisis when that book came out (if people read books). Any book like that, which is just completely critical of government, and avoids promoting constitutionalism is probably better than a Ron Paul book.

We have to chip the armor in the view of the state as an infallible, invincible vehicle of justice before we can abolish it. And if we can avoid building the pro-constitutionalist viewpoint (like you suggested) as much as possible, then its a significant shortcut into anarchy.

Maybe we could have a sort of reading list for the Republicrats? Slowly add books to it as people suggest them?

I can't stress how important this discussion topic is. Since we have placed our bet on using education as a means of producing change (instead of politics, violence or other alternatives), we need to make sure that we figure out HOW to teach/prod/introduce people to the subjects. It's always fun just talking with people who share the same beliefs, but we really need to spread the mental revolution beyond the minority of people it now encompasses.

[Rattlesnake]

One of the best ways to change people's minds is to understand where they're coming from and what they're worried about. If you meet someone who's worried about rising poverty levels without state "charity", then assure them that you too worry about poverty. If they see that you share a common goal from the start, they'll be more willing to hear your idea for a solution. When arguing for private charities vs. the welfare state, I love coming at them with this question that I first read on Strike The Root:

How many people you know, including yourself, voluntarily donated to government agencies like FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers after hurricane Katrina? Contrast this with the amount raised by private charities like the Salvation Army and Red Cross, and you'll see how most people intuitively grasp the superiority of private charity.

The only things that worry me about handing out Ron Paul literature are 1) He's still a statist and 2) He's well-known enough that some people may shut down just after reading his name on the cover. Personally, I love Rothbard's "For a New Liberty." It's a great introduction to ancap, and Rothbard (quite strategically) avoids using loaded rhetoric like "anarchy." By the end of it, many will grasp the absurdity of the state without even realizing they've been reading anarchist literature! I'm currently on a college campus, and if I could find somewhere that would supply this book to me cheaply, I would spend everyday passing it out to students.

A final suggestion: Maybe it would be useful to create a board just for newbies and non-anarchists, separate from the general board. It would give them somewhere to have their questions answered, without turning every thread into an argument with the rest of us. I've seen it on other anarchist forums, and it seems to work very well. Just a suggestion. Love this forum 

[Seth King]

That's a great question you posed about where people donate their money. I'm going to use that.

When it comes to charity, one thing I like to mention to people is that there is accountability with private charity. If the charity I donate to gets top heavy or corrupt, I can donate to a different charity. If the government welfare gets top heavy, corrupt or inefficient, I don't have any choice, because if I refuse to pay taxes, I go to jail.

As far as splitting up the forum into sections goes, I probably will in the future but I'm not ready to do that for two reasons. #1 is that we get too little traffic right now to really worry about it and there is nothing worse than having a part of the forum look empty or blank. It will turn people off from sticking around. #2 the Daily Paul has several forum sections, but pretty much everybody posts in the DP forum section and there is really only one string that shows all of the topics. It seems to work really well and I suspect it has a way of promoting more activity.

So, I don't know what I'll do. I want to do whatever encourages people to spend more time here and contribute. That may mean creating subtopics like most forums do, although nearly every forum I've been to has spots that get no action and seems to be a drain. But even if I do split things up, I'll wait until we are getting a lot more action.

I'd love to hear what everybody else thinks would be best, split categories or just one big one?

[helio]

I really have an addiction to analogies, but here goes.

Really its like farming. Find some fertile soil, someone who cares about some large problem.  Hedonists and mediocre people are to be avoided as the ground is very infertile. Till the soil by building rapport with them first, hopefully over a long period of time.  See what nutrients there are by exploring what they care about without revealing too much about your own thoughts on those matters.  When you find something they are heavily emotionally invested in, plant your seed there, and wait, watering it once in awhile by bringing it back up once in awhile casually.  It will eventually sprout and they'll have their 'Ah Ha!' moment.  

An example.

The room I work in is large enough for 3 people and, they hired this new guy and stuck him in my office.  Some of the folks here joked that he was FBI as he had that federal agent look about him; tall, bald, clean shaven, always wearing a blazer and boots, speaking correct english.  He was an ex intel officer in the marines, and a mormon.

Turns out he was a Ron Paul supporter. Fertile Ground.  He was obviously interested in Economics and why everything had crashed. Rich Nutrients.  So I introduced him to Mises.org and mentioned that Ron Paul was an Austrian type. That was the seed I planted. We had many casual conversations about state intervention in economic affairs, but it became obvious that because of his religious views, he advocated the state to 'protect his children' from gay culture.  I argued that the state was unecessary to protect him because the whole gay marriage thing is Because of the state's taxes, intervention into marriage vows, and discrimination laws that caused the problem in the first place.   Thats when he had his 'Ah Ha!' moment.

When he left the company, he gave me a Canadian .9999 1 ounce silver coin to say thanks for introducing him to anarcho-capitalism.  

[Sima Qian]

I find that making an argument based on the NAP, without actually mentioning NAP by name tends to work very, very well, even when the person is a full-on statist.  For instance, yesterday I had a discussion with someone about public education.  After pussyfooting around the topic for a while so I wouldn't seem like an asshole I said, "I agree that public education is extremely important, but I don't see... why it should be supported by threatening people."  And then how things cited by the statist in the pussyfooting phase related to this, like how they thought education should be taught on a local level and how the fed. govt/state govt. interfered with that happening.

@Hello: I like your focus on on people who already mostly agree with anarchist principals, it's certain that we convert as many people "on the margin" as possible.  I'm not sure if I agree that we should avoid talking to "Hedonists and mediocre people."  Freedom is popular.  I find that literally everyone I talk to agrees with anarchism when it's couched in terms they understand.  I believe everyone is fertile soil.  I suspect the main problem could be what Hayek pointed out about the meaning of words.  The state has spent thousands of years to make anarchy synonymous with fear and destruction, so the main hurtle is convincing people to make a leap within their own minds.  The nice thing is that we have extremely solid arguments to present, no matter which direction the statist approaches thinking about what people should do.

[helio]

@Sima Qian

Now that I think about it, you are right.  Everyone does in fact have 'some' anarchistic view about some aspect of their lives. 

In war, always attack weakness, not strength.  Attack those areas where they already have sympathy for being left alone versus those areas where the state has its strongest bond such as neo-cons and their foreign policies.  Rather, religion neo-cons often want their churches left alone and their kids left alone by public schooling. 

Furthermore, you are also right about finding terms they understand.  Words are the weapons in the war of ideas.  If we go around saying Anarchy, Non-Aggression, Coercion, and so forth, those words have no real internalization in the minds of who we are talking to. We should use words and phrases that people are comfortable with in a way that they will respond positively to.

When I say hedonists, I mostly talk about people of all ages who spend their time interested in the latest fashions, which movie stars are dating, and how awesome the party was last weekend, etc.  I've had no success with those people because their level of self knowledge is non existant.  But one should always try to see what common ground there is before making that kind of judgement.

[Seth King]

Sometimes I think LRC usually the absolute perfect vocabulary to denigrate the state. Have you ever noticed? They write things in such a way as to brutalize the state's legitimacy. And they have a great track record at conversion. I think LRC is probably the number one site to convert people.

[Sima Qian]

@Seth:  I totally agree.  One conversation almost never is enough to convert someone, but if you can get them to start reading LRC it really lets them explore anarchism at a pace tey're comfortable with.  That's actually how I was converted. xD