You seriously break the American taboo against discussing income to make people you argue with feel bad? I mean, I break it too, but only because I think it's retarded that people judge themselves by that metric. I'm happy to offer up my own income if I think someone else makes more. Doing the opposite to fuck with other people seems almost designed to convince them they should be cancelling your vote at every election until the end of the democracy.
I think I've only done it like twice against people who've really pissed me off. It's just to taunt them. It's not like I think it matters, but using it against people who do is awesome.
Umm... first principles are kind of the heart of the matter. If you're not talking about first principles, you're quibbling about details. Details are important, they do make the world go around. But it's only by discussing & engaging with first principles that you really come to understand an issue.
http://tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Profiles/DavidCayJohnston?OpenDocument This guy is one of my favorites. In there somewhere is the argument, from ancient Athens, that the rich pay more in taxes because they benefit more from a civil society.
In an academicized context or one where people agree on important litmus test issues, first principles are negotiable and a good starting point; this is especially true for environments where people understand the formats of philosophical, intellectual history, and even the more rigorous theological forms of discourse. It's far from obvious that first principles are very productive as a starting point elsewhere since those litmus test issues need to be accommodated in the discussion for many (ie well that's nice you believe in x but what does that mean about <pet issue of great emotional resonance where I have precious little evidence but a lot of feelings>). Understanding is a relative thing (ie the many things people take on authority or just in terms of "it works"); in many cases, it's really more about forming a narrative that connects things that are viscerally true to them to things that are intellectually defensible. Con men are really good at doing that efficiently with dog whistles and the like, but it's by figuring out the negotiables and the specific points of rupture between ideologues and ordinary people that I've made the most progress in discussions (and, again, been persuaded myself).
Not quite, they have more to lose from an uncivil society. You are correct, however, that it is a ridiculously fucking old argument that has been reformulated dozens of times and never really effectively countered unless you get into Theology where you ought not to be having a day of the rope or la Terreur no matter how rapacious the second estate is. Which, you know, doesn't get you very far when the mob simply doesn't give a fuck so long as they can see your ass twist in the wind before they bite it. [/pedantry]
Don't fret, you're in good company. Though Plato had some other strange ideas. Note: Plato uses the traditional definition of Democracy here.
It depends on what you mean by productive. You tend to take a relentlessly pragmatic approach to discussion, so "productive" for you means "able to convince the other party"... or possibly "be convinced yourself". And there's nothing wrong with that definition of "productive". But it's not my goal with discussion. Never has been. If I lay out clear arguments (from first principles, even) and the other person just reverts to their emotional pet issue du jour and starts flinging rhetorical feces, I've done my part in the discussion, and I'm perfectly content with the results, even if my chimp-like conversational partner didn't get anything out of it. Basically, the point of discussion as I see it is to uncover the truth, and to gain insight into the topic. The techniques that further that aim are often at odds with pragmatic techniques that result in one party or the other being persuaded. Persuasion for most people is an emotional affair, and honestly I don't really care about that. I'm not speaking in front of a jury, nor am I trying to get elected to office. I'm trying to find out what's true. Whether my conversational partner is persuaded is kind of irrelevant.
I think - as I'm in more or less the same boat - LK doesn't think the average one-on-one political argument/discussion is in fact an exercise in persuasion, he's just recognizing that most people act as though it is in some way - a point that could be supported by the various recent discussions here about talking to friends/relatives etc. As such it's fair to note that it's generally unproductive as one. Without, obviously, knowing quite what context you're talking about, I'm not sure about the whole "insight and truth" aim. For who? Are we talking about winning on points in front of a small group of third parties, or just finding new things out for yourself using an idiot sounding board, or just... aiming a discussion in the direction of insight and truth for the sake of a superior discussion? It could be interpreted in those different ways. Speaking for myself I see a one on one political discussion with a decided "opponent" as ultimately about either 1) persuading/communicating with the other party - in which sense it tends to be unproductive - or 2) an exercise for one's own edification, in which case, well, to each their own. Maybe 1.5) potentially learning from the other person, but honestly that tends to come up in contexts other than politics.
Generally I seek edification for myself, but if the other person (or people) seem receptive to new information, and I know more than them, I don't mind taking on the role of teacher.
That's kind of a Platonic ideal of a conversation, and it's one that I find is rarely achieved, especially in the context of your typical in-person or internet political discussion. As LK said, in a setting where people actually understand how philosophical and intellectual inquiry works, that might happen. In the real world, with actual libertarians, it just turns ends up being a waste of time. I'm simply not going to get anything out of yet another discussion about whether or not taxation is or isn't theft, and I doubt anyone else on Earth is either. :)
Right, that's what I mean ( Jason T and jeffd ). I think if you have a more formalized approach to knowledge generally, you can run down a list of reliability indicators for an argument that is far removed from your own stance and assess your response accordingly (think of how you would assess the quality of rhetoric in an essay in terms of sources and the like). Often, asking those questions gets you not at first principles but at rumor and demogoguery, and that's where you get opportunities to engage in the particulars. Once you know the quality of the argument you have a clue as to what will have traction, and then you assess what will provide you an in if you are interested in persuading people. For instance, what I was describing above would be use of authority. But because I'm not looking to deceive people (intentionally, at least), I try to inquire into their fields of expertise and reframe the situation in those terms rather than simply trying to find an authority of similar emotional value to them to replace their current sources. Like I said, I enjoy discussions of first principles but you have to have a lot of fundamentals clear before that gets you anywhere. As a point of departure,in my experience it's less likely to be a sincere means of engagement than a tactical move that presumes the opponent will have fewer big names and ideas at their fingertips (certainly the way that many libertarians use philosophers across history) so they will "lose" by attrition. Either way, to me the challenge is more about finding a way to talk to people that I don't agree with, especially if I find them infuriating off the bat. There are points of no return where it's clear you're talking to an idiot or someone who actually has abhorrent fundamental beliefs, but they are less common in my experience than superficial deal-breakers. For instance, talking about Obamacare with a relative who was an excellent nurse most of her life and moved into the insurance industry relatively late in life because she was frustrated with her career options. To no one's surprise, the prevailing wisdom between her work environment and her AM radio-listening husband had led her to some pretty silly specific beliefs that were easy to disprove or reframe, and that could be done within things that she understood well in terms of the power dynamics between insurers and medical professionals and patients. We didn't talk about first principles or socialism or any of that other stuff that was coloring the conversation, but we did make a lot of headway in generating good questions about many aspects of the narrative she'd adopted as a default position, and it didn't require me to use any exceptional knowledge of healthcare so much as basic assessment of the quality of her arguments. I don't ultimately know what the use of the conversation was, but it seemed relatively productive to me and it also got me to understand how even someone who by any reasonable measure of their expertise would *have* to believe some pretty terrible things to adopt the conservative line on it could arrive at those things simply by being relatively apolitical in day to day existence.
This is an excellent example. Your approach is, as I said before, relentlessly pragmatic. For me, this approach to conversation holds zero interest. My starting point & endpoint of that conversation would be "So the nurse is a fucking idiot. Got it. She has stupid first principles. We can discuss those if she wants." Most people don't want, so I don't bother talking about it with most people. Everybody wins. You mention that you didn't need exceptional knowledge of healthcare to have your discussion with her; you just assessed the quality of her arguments. That's even more true when you discuss from first principles. Actually, I get something out of it, usually. Not in that particular case, because Libertarians tend to be idiots. The problem in this case is the conversational partner, not the approach. Given Libertarians' general idiocy, no conversation with them will be particularly interesting. But at least when you discuss first principles, you're able to get at the heart of their stupidity much more clearly & quickly.
This is almost certainly not true, as I'll bet that most, if not all, of them benefited from an education in public schools, which is very much subsidized by other people that do not directly benefit (i.e. don't have kids). Sure, their parents contributed via taxes, but not nearly as much as the annual per-student costs of running a public school system. And if their parents owned a house, they got to write off a fair chunk of that contribution, too. Public school spend an average of $11k per student (and that's an average, mind you--here in New York it's more like $18k). Their parent's contribution to that was maybe ~25% or so, but possibly less, depending on where they live. So just by going to public school from K-12, they have personally received over $100,000 in redistributed wealth. But yeah, nobody ever gave them nuthin'. There are ample other examples of why it makes sense to distribute some of the costs of having a functioning society across all of society. Karen's health care example is a good one. We could go on and on, but if my experience is any indication, you've probably already lost their attention at this point.
My husband likes to use an argument in favor of welfare (ignoring the stereotypes, since that's a whole other can of worms) that basically reduces down to the fact that it's good for business, and in a capitalist society is in the best interests of businesses that sell products and services, because without it, those people would not be consumers participating in our economy (or would not be participating to the extent we need in order to keep our economy moving). Since our economy is still pretty shitty, I'd say that argument holds a fair amount of weight at the moment.
Surely, though... if you care about the success or otherwise of healthcare reform, then you have reason to care about other people's attitudes to it, and therefore, in terms of its outcomes for the world in general (rather than just you personally), the kind of conversation that LK had with her was just better than the kind of conversation you could have with her, based on your... rapid arrival at the conclusion that a disagreeing interlocutor is afflicted with stupidity? Wouldn't it be worth enduring a conversation that's not quite to your taste in its manner if there were a real possibility of actually changing the other person's mind? See, I have to disagree with you here. Libertarianism itself strikes me as profoundly, irredeemably logically inconsistent and morally bad in ways that jump out at me so vividly that it's somewhat amazing to me anyone could subscribe to it. I'm also certain, though, that any number of perfectly intelligent people are adherents. Plenty of very intelligent people believe extraordinarily "stupid" things. Intelligence is a tool, not an identity. In light of the possibility, then, that any given Libertarian you're speaking to could be a genuinely intelligent person, it seems there's plenty more potential there than just to quickly "get to the heart of their stupidity". If you can get to the heart of why any person really believes something, though, I think that's a real achievement, but I doubt it can often be done quickly.
I have to stop you right there, because I don't care. If the idiots with poor thinking want to shoot themselves in the foot, I'm actually in favor of that. I'm a white male with degrees in two high demand fields; I'll be fine no matter what they decide. And although I root for the right side, and I wish the minorities & the poor best of luck, it's not my fight. Sure it can. Talk to a libertarian for even a brief period of time, and their naked greed and self-centeredness comes right out. They may not admit it, but life is too short to wait around for bad people to admit the obvious when they don't want to.
