One of the biggest ideological diseases nowadays, especially among people in the west, is the big state. Their believe in it goes deep, they are addicted to it. And a very common mistake to make among bitcoiners / Austrians, is to argue with them on basis of effectiveness, what works better.
Of course, we all know the free market is more effective, but it's not why most people believe in the government. Almost always it is rooted in moral superiority. 'Statists care about the poor and the sick, others do not', is the underlying idea. Even if you win the effectiveness argument, you still loose, because you don't care about those who are left behind without a roof, food or healthcare.
If that's the case, there's only one way to go about it. Forget about effectiveness or other arguments, attack them at the moral level and do it with as much force as is appropriate in that situation. Be on the offense. 'Why do you support the government stealing from the poor and handing it out to their rich cronies by printing money? That's terrible!'.
Take away their moral superiority and there's nothing left. Their believe system starts to crumble, they start to doubt themselves and that's exactly what's needed. The financial terrorism executed by the West through the IMF and Worldbank are of course great for that. 'This is modern slavery! Don't you want the poor people in Africa to have the same opportunities as we?' Specifically look for the words that they love to use themselves and turn it on them.
These are just two examples, the possibilities are endless. It may feel uncomfortable to do; in real offline life, bitcoiners are very nice and social people. But it's actually more fun and you'll get better results. Try it.
You're approach is not going to work psychologically. If you are on the attack, then they will be defensive and dig in or just tune you out. People are open to persuasion when they like the person they're talking to, which is why you're correct about the direction to approach them from. If they're operating on moral reasoning, then meet them on that level. Every point you make needs to be aligned with the morality they're starting from.
The problem you're going to run into is that many people will grant every point you put forward and still not change their minds. The issue is that many people aren't really thinking about the position, they're evaluating whether or not their position is socially approved.
The sad reality is that very few people are willing to hold idiosyncratic views and change their minds when presented with arguments. This is why Michael Malice often says that most people literally have no mind. The NPC caricature is quite accurate.
reply
Good points, mostly agree. Indeed, as we all know, most people don't like to think, most people don't change their minds. And almost never after one conversation.
What I've noticed is this strategy changes the dynamic of a conversation. I feel more empowered and I speak with more confidence. Most people have never been approached like that and it can trigger something. They will not soon forget the conversation. And if it happens more often...
An essential point I made was 'as is appropriate in that situation'. I really mean that. To meet people where they are is key. Eg. find and call out things that you both agree on can help. And you can follow my strategy in a lighthearted way.
Also, often other people are present who are not so dug in / opinionated. They just want to live their life's and don't stick out, but deep inside they don't like all the state interference. From hearing you speak they may be encouraged to speak up more the next time.
reply
often other people are present who are not so dug in
That's a really important dynamic. I've had several of these types of conversations swing my way because I was able to persuade the undecided people who were there. That's part of the tribal approval mechanism. Seeing someone else agree grants psychological permission to agree.
The other thing I thought of is that it's not really relevant what works best on most people, if they aren't going to be receptive anyway. Your direct/confrontational approach might actually be extremely effective on the set of people who can be reached. It's definitely what works on me.
reply
This is my experience. I don't think most people are interested enough in the state and its role to even consider it not existing and how that might be better or worse. Its like you are on another planet. The truth is, most people's opinions on these things don't really matter that much.
reply
When I'm actually talking to reasonable people, I don't try to give the full ancap pitch, unless they explicitly ask about it. Rather, I just talk to them about whatever they're interested in and try to move them a bit in my direction. My feeling is that bringing 10 people 10% of the way is like bringing 1 person 100% of the way.
reply
You're right, in a sense it is moral superiority, but I would say it is more due to tribalism than morality.
I'm (blessed/cursed) to interact with many well-educated "elites", or those who think of themselves as elite, and I would say that the most unified reason for why they support the bureaucratic state is because those bureaucratic state leaders come from the same educational background as them.
Thus, they think that the bureaucratic leaders must be smart and worthy of guiding everyone else. Anyone who distrusts them must be a dumb hick and not worthy of listening to. (Either that, or they are demogogues riling up the hicks for selfish profit.) So they don't even listen to what anyone else is saying, and simply trust the bureaucrats based on pedigree.
Really shit-brained thinking if you ask me, but that's what we get from an educational system that markets itself as meritocratic while not training people to actually think critically.
reply
I have a very similar impression, based on lots of interaction with people who work in the bureaucratic state.
reply
Yes, I was talking more about regular people you meet in daily life. It's probably best not to argue with bureaucrats at all. As the saying goes: 'it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it'. Or the salaries of his peers/friends. But if you do argue them, arguing on moral grounds is still probably the best way to go.
reply
How bitcoiners should argue big state believers? Don't.
I used to be that guy. Long before I was into bitcoin. If they aren't open it doesn't work. It is religious. At best you can drop seeds. Now if you are debating a statist with the goal of educating those that are on the sidelines then yeah I can see the value.
Sounds like you are basically trying to decide between the utilitarian vs moral approach. I'd say it depends on the person. I don't think there is one that is better than the other.
reply
Better to find people who argue with who are in the same page than you.
reply
Always attack the left from the left and the right from the right. I only really know American politics well but I'm sure there are good examples from each country:
For leftists: point out endless wars that torment & kill the poorest minority children all over the planet. The blatant, rampant, and unapologetic corruption. The fact that regulation screws over regular people by making everything way too expensive, especially in the housing market.
For right wingers: the ridiculous spending. The fact that Social Security is a government funded ponzi that holds 0 assets and is just one giant liability.
reply
They should argue them in the same manner atheists and gnostics argue theists. This will fairly challenge FIAT diehards IMO.
reply
Seriously, screw them. We have Bitcoin so we don't have to argue with them, just stack sats and watch them drown in self-inflicted poverty and slavery.
reply
Trying to establish a moral high ground in an argument is a great way to lose an argument. What you're describing is an example of anad hominem attack. Avoid these. It's generally what someone lacking command of an issue will do.
reply
I'd say don't debate statist. Let them HFBS - have fun being a slave :)
reply
Not worth the effort.
reply
How would you characterize "belief in the big state" exactly? In your definition, does anything more developed than crypto-anarchy count as "big state"?
reply
Big state is ideological diseases among people in the West? 🤔 🙈 How is in North Korea and Vietnam, then?!
reply