Converting a Statist.

[NonEntity]

Don't waste your time.

- NonE

[Dionysus]

Such "arguments" usually degrade into an insistence from the pro-State troll that you're bound by the "social contract" if you live in a certain geographic area. Here are some articles totally falsifying the validity of the "social contract." You should be able to shut the pro-State troll down fairly easily with information gleaned from them.

The Social Contract Is Null and Void

The Myth of a 'Social Contract'

Check Your Premises

Our Shattered Social Contract – Children And The First Duty Of The Captured

On Social Contracts

Quote:When coercive social systems are revealed to be tools of exploitation by the elite, the masses must decide whether they prefer liberty or submission. Liberty is always the more difficult path, while submission to the status quo is the path of least resistance. Not just physically and intellectually, but spiritually. This is how the inevitable cognitive dissonance that individuals feel when they are ruled by others is soothed by emotional slogans and familiar forms. Psychological and social conditioning over a lifetime buttressed by constant media bombardment that some collective consciousness can better serve as your guiding light than what your own mind provides can seem insurmountable. But some always do and they serve as a reminder to others that they can too. Thus the light of liberty is in each of us, not in some scrap of paper or piece of cloth pretending to represent that light.

[AgoristTeen1994]

@NonE: I do believe I wasn't going to reply since the person I mentioned in the last post was a troll...I was more generally seeking for when I'm getting into a calm, rational debate, which is admittedly pretty rare when it comes to statist

@Dionysus Thanks for the links, I'll make sure to read those articles.

[AgoristTeen1994]

@NonE: I do believe I wasn't going to reply since the person I mentioned in the last post was a troll...I was more generally seeking for when I'm getting into a calm, rational debate, which is admittedly pretty rare when it comes to statist

@Dionysus Thanks for the links, I'll make sure to read those articles.

[NonEntity]

AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:I was more generally seeking for when I'm getting into a calm, rational debate, which is admittedly pretty rare when it comes to statist

Well then, mostly what I'd say is ... Don't Bother! :biggrinblue:

Actually, to try a more serious reply, if your correspondent truly is interested in thinking and in ideas and in communication, try asking questions. A good example is the question about what a citizen is. And then what about the part where the courts have (over and over and over) proclaimed that the government has no obligation to do ANYthing in your regards. And stuff like that.

My experience is that it takes a long time. I have a few friends who have come partially around, but for the most part it is a world changing event. Their entire structure of thought has to be rewired. This is not easy. So they have to have an open mind to questioning their own mind first (and so should you, of course). If that is not there then ... Don't Bother! :winkwink:

The most important thing that I seem to understand about it is that it must be fun. If you're beating them over the head with a dead tuna then they are not going to be receptive. But if the two of you are mutually pulling threads in a sweater and trying to see if you can unravel it together - THEN you have a chance at getting somewhere, and having fun, too.

So the best answer I think I might come up with is: ask questions. It's like Marc's approach to the [strike]men[/strike] humanoids in dresses (judges), keep asking questions which will force the issue, but don't badger. Be polite. If you're getting no where then walk away politely, maybe saying that you'll be happy to continue the conversation at another time but right now you want to change the subject or you have something else to do or some such. Then, if the questions you've asked have stirred something troubling in their head, maybe they will want to come back and see if you can help them resolve it later.

As I'm reading this I am coming to see that the most important part, the crucial part, I think, is the part about it being fun. Both parties have to WANT to try and solve a problem. Otherwise it's just another form of tyranny, no?

And don't forget the saying, "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." I can't tell you how many times I have looked at something anew and said, "Oh, THAT's what that meant!" Things that made no sense to me at one time suddenly (and I do mean suddenly, just like flicking a light switch) become crystal clear, sometimes after years have gone by. The brain is really complex, and not wired for reason, it's wired for survival and spreading the gene. Speaking of which, Richard Dawkins book, "The Selfish Gene," is spectacular, and I just finished reading one of his latest, "The Greatest Show on Earth," and cannot recommend it more highly. The man is fun to read and will change your understanding of lots of stuff along the way.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

Pondering this further, I remembered a point someone, I can't recall who at the moment, made which I found potentially quite valuable: Ask the person what he or she, personally, would do to you in a given situation. In other words, bring up a hypothetical situation which you know the other person feels requires the intrusion of government, and bring it to the personal, to you and he. "I have done X. You believe that there is a problem with the fact that I have done X, so what are you willing to PERSONALLY DO to resolve this problem that you perceive I am the cause of?" And then, of course, the other person will say something like, "society has the right ... blah blah blah," at which point you can ask if he believes that government derives it's rights and powers from the governed. If he replies in the positive then you direct him back to the original question... "What would you PERSONALLY do to rectify the issue you believe I am the cause of?" He will then try and evade the honest answer and so you keep bringing it back to where do powers derive from and so on, keeping it coming back to you and he PERSONALLY. Because, afterall, that IS what it is all about, isn't it?

- NonE

[AgoristTeen1994]

You made some good points in those last two posts, that I'll definitely have to think about. Oh also, I believe I mentioned it before in this thread but I have successfully converted the Statist friend, I mentioned in the original post of this thread, to anarcho-capitalism....I did it by focusing on it from the Christian perspective since I know that would be the best method to persuade my friend. So I'm feeling pretty satisfied right about now. Oh and those friends you have, that you mentioned, well you might want to try and convince them to read "But Who Will Build the Roads: Market Anarchy Explained" by Francois Tremblay...I ordered it on Amazon.com and just finished reading it...it definitely has potential for converting statists,

[NonEntity]

AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:Oh and those friends you have, that you mentioned, well you might want to try and convince them to read "But Who Will Build the Roads: Market Anarchy Explained" by Francois Tremblay...I ordered it on Amazon.com and just finished reading it...it definitely has potential for converting statists,

Thanks for the pointer.

One of them I gave Marc's book. He looked at it and wouldn't even read it as he knew it was all wrong. A year or so later I gave him Larken Rose's book, The Most Dangerous Superstition, and the same thing, he knew it wasn't worth reading and so he didn't.

Sigh. Like I said, they have to at least be willing to think.

- NonE

[AgoristTeen1994]

Marc's book was all wrong??!?!?!?! Okay. That settles it, you friend is beyond all help. Oh that just reminded me of something funny I've thought about in the past....whenever I refer to Marc, I am tempted to refer to him as "Mr. Stevens" since my grandma raised me with the Southern hospitality and manners, and thus it's a habit to refer to my elders as either "Mr or Ms" or "Sir or Ma'am" What's funny about me having to overcome the habit to call Marc "Mr. Stevens" is that one of the jailors at my local gov't juvenile indoctrination camp (or in layman's terms teacher at my public high school) is called Mr. Stevens, and he is one of the most firm statists, I have ever come across....at least in regards to economics and guns....so it's rather ironic in my opinion.

[inertia]

I'm in a weekly evangelism class at my church. You know what that is, it's is the place where we Christians learn how to give out bits of paper with the Gospel on it. Their favorite tract is one that is modeled after the FRN, the one that has $1,000,000 printed on the front and a tiny message around the border on the back.

Needless to say it's full of statists trying to convert other statist to Christianity.

So they were saying that basically the only time you should take a tract back is when the person gets physically violent. So naturally, I asked what the recommended situation is for when a police officer wants to hand it back. I was trying to point out that even though the cop has a holstered weapon, you might be accused of "disobeying a peace officer" if you don't take it back right away.

Their reaction was rather funny because nobody revisited the physical violence which prompted my original question. There were people who said the cops can't take any literature anyone offers. There were people who were adamant that one shouldn't give the cops anything to begin with. And one lady said that the best way to hand them a tract is to tell them that this material is being handed out, so they should know what it is (she's recommending that everyone lie about why they're handing the tract to the cops).

So here I am, talking about the cops because someone else mentioned physical violence. I'm trying to be consistent, but nobody else is seeing the connection any longer.

Another thing that struck me was that the leader wanted everyone to know that people getting angry over being given the Gosepl is to be expected.

Quote:John 6:60-69: Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

So they take this to mean that when someone gets angry for being given the Gospel, so be it. It's to be expected. Move on. But what I don't understand is that scripture also says this:

Quote:John 16:33: These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Meaning, if we Christians expect peace, we should have tribulation at the same time. Christians and Christian organizations experience zero tribulation, rather the opposite. But Christians in the US think getting flipped off for having a fish on his or her car is tribulation. Sorry it's not.

My fellow Christians live inconsistently. They expect to offend with the Gospel, but are aloof about why tribulation is completely non-existant.

The way I see it, one of the reasons is because they ask permission to do what their true master told them to do without permission. They ask for favors from the IRS then willingly follow the rules that the IRS hands down.

So either Jesus isn't their true master or they are trying to serve two masters. Neither situation is tenable.

[NonEntity]

inertia Wrote:They ask for favors from the IRS then willingly follow the rules that the IRS hands down.

So this makes me wonder about using this as a teaching tool. If you believe that the rules are correct and it is your obligation (from some god or whatever) to follow them, aren't you negating this same belief when you want a "favor" of CHANGING (or evading) those rules that this god supports? :biggrinblue:

Just a thought. :bootyshake:

- NonE

[Kel]

Dionysus Wrote:Here are some articles totally falsifying the validity of the "social contract."

Very nice. I enjoyed all of them. Especially the last one. Here's one I found with a fun introduction titled A Game Called "Countries". It leads into Spooners No Treason.

[inertia]

NonEntity Wrote:

inertia Wrote:They ask for favors from the IRS then willingly follow the rules that the IRS hands down.

So this makes me wonder about using this as a teaching tool. If you believe that the rules are correct and it is your obligation (from some god or whatever) to follow them, aren't you negating this same belief when you want a "favor" of CHANGING (or evading) those rules that this god supports? :biggrinblue:

I think I follow. E.g., if Caesar says he owns you, why would you ever vote for freedom? Caesar is God's servant, after all.

[NonEntity]

inertia Wrote:

NonEntity Wrote:

inertia Wrote:They ask for favors from the IRS then willingly follow the rules that the IRS hands down.

So this makes me wonder about using this as a teaching tool. If you believe that the rules are correct and it is your obligation (from some god or whatever) to follow them, aren't you negating this same belief when you want a "favor" of CHANGING (or evading) those rules that this god supports? :biggrinblue:

I think I follow. E.g., if Caesar says he owns you, why would you ever vote for freedom? Caesar is God's servant, after all.

Zackly! At least, that appears to be what their instruction manual (bible) says, so shouldn't they follow the instructions, if they believe them to be infallible - inerrant?

- NonE

[inertia]

NonEntity Wrote:Zackly! At least, that appears to be what their instruction manual (bible) says, so shouldn't they follow the instructions, if they believe them to be infallible - inerrant?

Yes, I think there are some who believe Christians are less likely to vote for this reason. I'm not too sure how true that is these days. I have gotten Christians to admit that they would have been against the Revolutionary War, which is an interesting position for them to take.

Granted, I would have been against the Revolutionary War as well, but not because I believe the King should be obeyed. I just think the revolution could have happened non-violently. All this is largely anachronistic, I know.

What Did Jesus Do? (WDJD?) He ignored government, according to the sources I believe. He didn't come under their authority and they killed him for it (at least, that's how they saw it when they killed him). That seems quite consistent with the anarchist position to me.

Ignoring government is one thing. That's an approach that employes zero damage control. I don't see it inconsistent to question government after ignoring it, as damage control.

Of course, my fellow (statist) believers say I'm doing damage to scripture by suggesting Jesus was an anarchist.