RE: [lpsf-discuss] Two systems of voting


I'm tremendously impressed with your diligence and openness in seeking ways to communicate your message. But I don't think this is the way to approach your socialist friends. Socialists care as much about money as anyone else, but they are committed ABOVE ALL to denying that. This essay will support all their worst views about capitalism, in terms of its being about special privileges for the rich. I'm sure they would reply that we should all have an equal number of economic votes, just as we are equal in political votes. The essay will make good sense to libertarians and probably conservatives, but not our liberal friends. But keep up the good efforts!

Am I missing something? I don't see any link to an article.

            <<< Starchild >>>

Acree, Michael wrote:

But I don't think this is the way to approach your socialist friends.

Michael, I'm afraid you are right.

It appears that the only way to win anybody over is to show them clearly and concisely, with references only to their own accepted mental framework (or with very slight twists towards our framework), that their actions are against their own self-interest, in sound bytes, and repeated over and over.

Appeals to fairness, consistancy, principles, kindness, authority, fact, logic, probability, past experiences, righteousness, or anything else appear to be utterly useless, even with very brilliant minds, if they don't clearly demonstrate the personal damage one will experience along their chosen path.

I'm quite enamored with Ludwig von Mises. I like his no nonsense approach to praxeology, and I admit to having lifted some of his ideas.

It is the sole job of a mind to benefit it's attached body. The mind can always find a framework which is the most personally beneficial. Virtues, principles, and even sometimes logic (e.g. Marxism) are then reworked and justified based on pragmatic self-interest. Most people don't realize that they operate in this way. They repress, subdue, and promptly forget the reasons for their belief systems. They then justify their actions according to their personal framework's righteousness, with disregard to the fact that the framework itself was chosen for their self-interest, and is personal, and not necessarily shared by everyone else.

Some people are more mentally limber than others, and can change their mental framework as it suits their best interest. Most people cannot, and often end up supporting self-destructive frameworks which have long sense stopped serving them. [By the way, The Landmark Forum (based here in SF) is a system which helps unhappy self-destructive people break down their mental framework, allowing them to build up a new one from scratch, and takes advantage of them as marketing tools in the process. I highly recommend against attendance in this style of dangerous brainwashing, unless you are really truly stuck].

As Libertarians, we sometimes argue from our own framework. Arguing solely from one's own framework is virtually useless against another's framework, except perhaps at the deepest level of contention, whether that be ethical, epistemological or metaphysical. But such arguments are necessarily long, and such mind shifting is overly disturbing and heavily resisted. If we want to stay shallow, at the political level (and we should) we must argue from *their* framework, and use soundbytes and repetition.

People don't want to work. They choose a framework that addresses this for their own self interest (e.g. socialism). In this case, even from our different standpoint, we see that their framework is working in their self interest, in the short term. It is a successful strategy for them. It is futile to call it wrong from their perspective. It is only wrong from our perspective. It is effective from their perspective. They work less, and get more. We cannot counter it effectively through persuasive means based on our framework. Statements like "that's coersion", "that's unfair", etc, have no effect on them unless we also threaten them with violence (the natural pre-government way which we cannot use in our current situation) because at the deepest levels, they don't care about being fair, they care only about their own self interest, and justify it with surface beauty like being "kind to the poor and elderly". Again, they don't admit to this, and they heavily supress it from their conscious minds -- so as to not accidentally give themselves away in their speaking.

To be effective, we must show them what will be the end result (Russia, East Germany). We must make that a present reality within their lifetime. We must address their real fears. They *are* fearful people, and they *are* often trying very hard to repress that. For instance, my socialist friends often post about how the government is doing things wrong, and expose their fears about it. This is where we can get traction.

If we do not realize this, we make several mistakes. Our argumentation will be poor as it will appeal to our own principles, but not necessarily those of the other frameworks. Our attitude will be even less appealing (no one likes to be preached at).

Influencing someone's mental framework is a long arduous task, and becomes more and more difficult the older that person becomes. Only if we can show them clearly, in short soundbytes over and over again, using their own framework that they are in fact hurting themselves will we have any hope of success.

And perhaps we should be focusing on young pliable minds?


Acree, Michael wrote: