The Consistent Human
The Usual Approaches That Work
There are two most common ways for a person who values freedom to articulate to others the philosophy of true liberty.
#1 What Is NOT Wanted
#2 What IS Wanted
Do What Works For You
Having been among the community of amazing people who are advocates of self-ownership and true liberty for some time now, I have been exposed to all or most of the varied conversational approaches/techniques that are taken with people who are brand new to the discussion.
There are those that focus on the word Voluntaryism (aka "What do we WANT? Voluntary interaction!").
There are those that focus on the word Anarchy (aka "What DON'T we want? A ruling class!").
There are even those that try to avoid either term in conversation, and just stick to a slow and disarming Socratic method, taking the approach of curiosity towards the statist in conversation, aiming to understand why they believe what they believe (knowing that if the statist tries to describe it or defend it, they may see inconsistencies in themselves).
All of these ways of broaching the topic are truly valuable, because each approach wins a certain kind of mind that the other approaches might not have won.
The Consistent Human
I will mention another thought approach to the philosophy of liberty that I recently found myself considering, though I'm sure it isn't new. It is too easy not to have been considered, but since I don't often see many people directing conversation in this manner, I will go ahead and throw up the idea for those who may make use of it.
{Note: I think some major liberty-minded philosophers have already put it rather similarly, a few Lysander Spooner quotes come to mind, but I can't remember more at the moment..}
Let's say you're in a conversation that inevitably leads to someone asking you "which way" you lean, politically. Some anarchists/voluntaryists hate when a conversation reaches this moment, some are filled with glee!
However it's said, however the conversation gets there, you've now plunged into the realm of politics (every freedom lover hates politics), so you've got an opportunity to now to say something that will get their gears moving.
Try this perhaps...
Avoiding the usual political circus jargon, and avoiding the false dichotomy of left vs. right, say something like:
"I wouldn't align myself with anything political, but that's because I consider myself to be a consistent human being."
Brows furrow, and you're likely to hear a "What do you mean?" sort of response.
"I believe it's wrong for me to steal, threaten people with deadly force, murder, or otherwise bully people who have a different life style than me. And so I believe it's wrong for any human to do that: titles, election rituals, badges and costumes don't grant superhuman rights. I apply the same rules of what I believe are right and wrong to everyone. I'm consistent."
Or, put another way, you could say:
"If it's wrong for me to go put a gun to my neighbor's head and tell him to give me all his money or else, then it is wrong for me to vote for someone else to do that for me. I recognize that no amount of voting or layers of hired government employees working to enforce the will of some humans on others, can ever make theft into something moral or good. I'm consistent."
And still another:
"I don't want my free will violated, I will defend myself if someone tries to attack me or use the threat of force to steal from me, and so I am a consistent human by recognizing that same desire to live free exists in all individuals. It's 'doing unto others as I would have done to me', on the most basic level."
Left, Right, Anarchy, Libertarian, Moderate... all the usual feels-inducing trigger words were side-stepped.
~*~
Some Ideas Work Better Than Others, It Varies Person To Person
I encourage no one to get too caught up in the "right way" to go about spreading the message of true freedom-- so long as the principles are intact, and uncompromising. Once you grasp the logic, there's many approaches to the discussion style, and what will work to wake up some will not work on others. I'm not here to show you any one correct way, I would say to be flexible in your approach and style, and adjust when it seems there's a better approach to be taken.
@dragonanarchist
It is hard to be intellectually consistent in a society that is anything but. What I found most problematic when I speak about anarchy or voluntaryism is the fact that most people have no idea what the concept is, or worse, they have brainwashed in such extent—it reflects something negative before you even start explaining yourself.
Much the same way applies to the word "atheism". Most people, just upon mentioning the word, think you are Satan's spawn. I avoid using "socially distorted" words and rather try to use terms that are perceived without misunderstanding.
I agree.
I think it will be incredibly important for the future success of our cause that we create a great enviroment and influence the popular culture in such a way as to make our ideas appear less dangerous.
People hide from and hate on those ideas, things or people whom they fear or can not understand; Fear itself is actually due to the perception that something is illogical or too hard to judge any other way but in self-defence.
@dragonanarchist
What do you think about "Cooperative Agorism"? The idea that society can be changed by volountary associations (CoAgs) working in white/grey or black markets to outbuild and outcompete the state from within by use of radical new technologies and social support systems.
(hint; blockchains, so far theoretical volountary systems of UBI, noncoercive "yellow/black" flag unions, catastrophy bonds, unemployment bonds)
well this was a fantastic read
~upvoted
Thank you very much! :)
That is a very nice thought. Consistency. To stop identifying yourself to people as an anarchist or voluntaryist or whatever, and to simply say that you're a consistent person. I need to think about this for awhile.
Yes. Food for thought.
At the risk of sounding like I'm telling people the "right" or "wrong" way to spread the message.... I think there can be a lot of value in abadoning the labels.
People will always have prejudices and hangups attached to labels. When they hear the word anarchy the might end up picturing roving gangs of murderous thugs a la Mad Max. There are probably less hangups with the term voluntaryism since it's less well known and sounds vaguely positive, but you never know what prejudices another person holds.
I like this idea of just telling people that I'm a "consistent human being." So thanks for that :)
I usually just try to plant a seed by saying something like - I believe in peaceful voluntary interaction and will always stand for liberty in the face violent coercion to do anything!
Awesome. More people in the liberty movement need this advice.
Good thoughts!
It's also valuable to meet people where they are, and adjust your method accordingly. Sometimes you just cut bait, maybe with a kind word or question that might provoke thought. Other times the socratic method is best, because they're good thinkers, but can't see their own inconsistencies (my favorite method of teaching). Some would rather just debate, which is fine too. I can engage on that level, if the other person is kind and avoids anger. As soon as there's animosity, I'm done.
Great presentation! Tied together several pieces I have had working in the back of my mind, thank you.
Great article. some people do get too caught up in trying to figure out how to say things the right way that they really drain themselves of all the fun in having the conversation to begin with. Great Idea too, though it is much like the Socratic method approach, it just begins with the conclusion and not the questions. :)