Re: Libertarianism Q&A
George Lee (gjlee@uclink4.berkeley.edu)
6 Feb 1998 10:17:16 GMT
I remember that when we were out on the tables answering people's
questions, we would often argue amongst ourselves trying to decide on an
answer. I think it's important to show to others that we understand our own
positions; bickering over details of libertarianism tends to weaken our
stance. People get turned off when we can't even agree with each other. My
suggestion is that we shouldn't dispute relatively minor differences in
opinion and instead focus on getting across the basic ideas of
libertarianism. It's okay to show different viewpoints, but often we lose
sight of the fact that we all agree on less government and more freedom.
Another idea: if you're familiar with the Advocates for Self-Government
you've already heard of the "Ransberger Pivot," but it's an important
technique. Basically, you let the questioner know you agree with his goals
before you state your approach to the problem. For instance, if someone
says, "How can you be so cruel? Ending Welfare would leave all those people
helpless and starving!," you should say something like, "I care about the
poor as much as you; that's why I want to reduce regulations and get rid of
the minimum wage to increase employment opportunities, etc."
What do you think?
George