Suppose you are amongst a group of friends discussing a an upcoming election, and one of your friends announces his support for a Bernie Sanders type socialist. As your other friends confirm their agreement, it comes to your turn to say your point of view. You tell them you are going to vote for the classical liberal candidate–and they scoff and sneer. They mock you as a rich toff who only cares about himself. They tell you how their candidate is going to help the poor, the sick, the homeless, the trees and the animals, and how the conservative candidate is a bastard who should burn in hell.
How do you respond?
It is common for libertarian types to respond on economic grounds; they might tell their friends how the socialist candidate’s policies will bankrupt the country, how the welfare system will encourage people out of work, how the saving of trees will result in the destruction of human standard of living, etc. etc. This is all true, but this type of argument almost never works.
The problem is this: for every moronic socialist idea one can think of, there are a myriad of facts waiting to be twisted to support its practicality. For every issue, from free education to anti-abortion, there are studies and figures that allow people to believe whatever they want to believe–not to mention the outright falsehoods that stain every inch of the modern day political battleground. Free education will bankrupt the country, you say? Why, no, investing in education increases innovation, leading to economic growth in the long run. Haven’t you seen the latest study in The Guardian? Against this sort of wilful make-believe, arguing with facts alone simply does not work.
The answer to this problem is to argue the fundamentals.
The reason why socialists never abandon their beliefs, despite the countless failures of socialist countries across the globe and the dazzling success of capitalist countries, is because their socialism is a result of their fundamental principles. One is a socialist not because of a study in The New York Times, but because of one’s belief in altruism and collectivism, and one’s jealous hatred of success. No amount of facts supporting capitalism will undermine these principles; only a direct attack can work. This is why Ayn Rand is so enduringly popular, and viciously hated at the same time; she always argued the fundamentals, which can only result in a smashing of a person’s philosophic principles – or their lashing out in defence of them.
To be clear, facts and figures can be incredibly useful as concrete examples of what you are talking about. But the bread and butter of any good explanation of a political question should be the fundamentals it takes into account; the facts are only the jam.
We now return to your friends awaiting your response. How should you respond?
You should tell them the rich earned their money with their own effort. You should tell them the poor have no right to steal from the rich, even if they vote to do so. You should ask them if they would accept you and your other friends to vote on how much money they should give you, and if they would happily give you half of what they earn simply because you voted on it. You should tell them that initiating force is wrong, no matter how many people you plan to save with the spoils of such an act. You should tell them you don’t believe another person’s misfortune is a mortgage on your time, money or life.
Finally, as the icing on the cake, you should tell them how under capitalism the poor of 19th century America sky-rocketed to wealth due to the economic freedom of the time, and how under a truly capitalist society the standard of living of the poor would be staggeringly greater than it is today.
This is nothing more than a primer for a fuller argument. Will it change your friend’s minds? Right there and then, almost certainly not–but maybe you will have sown the first seeds of doubt for their political beliefs in their minds.
Rational Observations 