Re: Libertarianism Q&A

Seth David Schoen (schoen@uclink4.Berkeley.EDU)
7 Feb 1998 20:38:02 GMT 

George Lee writes:

>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.

But those disagreements are important!

I don't know how many times I've heard libertarianism dismissed as cult-like
because of the tendency of adherents to "automatically" come to virtually the
same answers.  I think this is just because libertarianism is actually a
philosophy with substantive content, but some people are disturbed by it.
For this reason, I think it's nice that libertarians occasionally disagree.

I agree that in answering people's questions, it's important to present
"the basic ideas of libertarianism", and to try to make sure that we manage
to communicate these, but I don't think we should try to set aside or
overlook disagreements within the club for public relations purposes.

>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."

Although this is a very good technique, and although I already have difficulty
persuading liberal friends that I do aspire to care as much as they do, I
don't think it's always useful.

I still think there are instances of government "caring" which are not
readily compensated for by a market.  Overapplication of the Ransberger
Pivot to every single potential criticism invites ridicule and condemnations
for being unrealistic.

-- 
   Seth David Schoen L&S '01 (undeclared) / schoen@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Magna dis immortalibus habenda est atque huic ipsi Iovi Statori, antiquissimo
custodi huius urbis, gratia, quod hanc tam taetram, tam horribilem tamque
infestam rei publicae pestem totiens iam effugimus.  -- Cicero, in Catilinam I