Candles In The Dark - Session 4 - The Void [Larken Rose] [Part 4 of 7]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QZedKD7zGi5v3d1zEJ4_bbVmHdVBT8aW/view?

^ Companion guide PDF

14) When bringing out his contradictions through questioning, don’t tell the statist
that he is a hypocrite, but do show him that he is, by asking questions that make
him contradict himself. And do gently “rub it in,” using clear and specific
questions to highlight and emphasize how what he says he really believes in—his
true values—don’t match his political positions. Because he is the one holding two
conflicting beliefs, he is the one who has to decide what to do about that.
15) Remember, when the statist becomes uncomfortable with his own position, you
have succeeded. Once they see the conflict inside their own head—instead of just
viewing it as a disagreement between him and you—be sure to sympathize, give
him time and room to think and ponder, and only continue the discussion if he
wants you to. The worst thing you can possibly do, when someone finally sees his
own contradictions, is to make him feel attacked. And if someone says, “I will have
to think about that,” usually the best thing you can do is shut up and let him think!
(Unless the person asks you to keep discussing it.)

THE VOID
1) Most voluntaryists and anarchists have spent a considerable amount of time
pondering ideas and principles. You can be frustrated and dumbfounded when you
try to talk to statists about ideas and principles, only to find that most statists
literally think nothing about authoritarianism. Most of them have no logical
foundation at all for their beliefs, and can’t justify or explain much of anything.
They accepted on faith the commonly accepted political mythology, without ever
questioning it or thinking about it.
2) As a result, instead of having built up any foundational philosophy or logical
arguments in favor of authority, most statists’ political beliefs sit atop a giant void
of nothingness. They can repeat terms and phrases they’ve heard before (e.g.,
“consent of the governed,” “representative republic”), but when challenged to form
a coherent argument for their position, or even to explain exactly what those terms
mean, they fall flat. They simply don’t know, because they’ve never actually
thought about any of it.
3) This makes it difficult to have any sort of substantive philosophical discussion
with a statist, and makes it all too easy for voluntaryists to get impatient and
frustrated, forever arguing against positions which consist of parroted words and
catch phrases, without real understanding beneath them. When voluntaryists get
impatient and frustrated, statists tend to become uncomfortable and defensive, and
rational discussion quickly breaks down.
4) To solve this, a voluntaryist needs to start from scratch, patiently building up
simple concepts and a logical structure to fill the “void” in the statist’s mind. In a
sense, you need to talk to the statist like you would talk to an ignorant child,
because when it comes to philosophy, almost everyone is an ignorant child. At the
same time, you need to avoid sounding impatient or condescending. (It can help to
imagine something you know nothing about, and how you would want it explained
to you.)
5) Statists routinely use words and phrases that they’ve never really thought about
and can’t explain. Terms like “the law,” and “crime,” and “taxes,” and “authority,”
and “government,” are just blurry concepts to them, with vague connotations. It’s
important to understand that political mythology has trained them to not
understand what those words literally mean. For example, “the law” and
“legislation” refer to formal written commands, backed by threats of force, issued
by a political ruling class. But to a statist, the term “law” represents some
nebulous, super-human imperative that everyone is morally obligated to obey… for
some inexplicable reason.
6) An important part of deprogramming statists is to use questions to show them
the voids in their thinking, and to show them the literal reality of what is
happening, and what they are condoning or voting for. For example, to most
statists the term “taxes” is a mushy notion of some magical debt that each
individual owes to “society” for the privilege of being allowed to live among other
people. In reality, the term refers to politicians demanding money from everyone
else, while threatening to punish any who don’t pay up. In one sense, every statist
knows this, and can be brought to admit it just by using simple questions (“Who
imposes taxes?” “What happens to people who don’t pay?” etc.).
7) Voluntaryists must be careful not to unnecessarily confuse statists with their own
unusual terminology. For example, talking about “voluntaryism,” or “self-
ownership,” or “the non-aggression principle,” without first defining those terms,
will further confuse the statist, and just add to the cloudy void in his mind. Instead,
you should explain the same concepts using terms the statist is already familiar
with and understands.