A few weeks ago—sheesh, where does the time go?—I promised I would blog about Stefan Molyneux’s talk at the Free State Project’s Liberty Forum. Being a polichick of my word, albeit late, here we go.

If you listen to his podcasts on Freedomain Radio, you know Stefan is a witty, engaging speaker (”We need to take the offensive, not be offensive”). His keynote address was titled: Against Me - How to Win Political Arguments in Two Minutes or Less. Another title might have been: Activists Armed with Talcum Powder Take Over Universe. Let me explain:

You know those movies with the invisible guys who, at some stage, get exposed through dust or talcum powder or bandages? Well, the statist system of violence and cohersion is the invisible man, and, according to Stefan, it’s our job to start tossing the talcum powder.

How? By showing people the evil. Stefan’s theory is you can’t fight evil, because the moment people see something is evil, it loses its power. He goes on to say:

We don’t fight evil, we fight evil that people think is good. If everyone understood that statism is evil, we’d be done… We’re trying to get people to see the initiation of force that is at the core of statism… The ‘Against Me?’ argument is designed to show the violence inherent to statist solutions.

Stefan’s entire argument can be boiled down to: Against Me? As in, are you willing to initiate force against me.

The beauty of this argument is you don’t have to be an expert on every subject. You don’t have to have every convincing stat at your fingertips. You don’t have to have a Phd in Economics. It’s simple and effective.

Here’s how it works:

STATIST: I support [FILL IN THE BLANK, e.g. the Surge, Welfare, the War on Drugs, Homeland Security etc. etc.].

YOU: I respect and acknowledge your right to support that program. I encourage you to support it economically (E.g. “You likey the surge? No problem. Take out your checkbook and write a check to Donnie Rumsfeld”). Will you afford me the same respect and courtesy I am giving you? Am I free to disagree with you?

STATIST: Er, yes? (What else are they going to say?)

YOU: Am I allowed to ACT on that disagreement? (Logically, free people must be able to act on their decisions, otherwise it is an illusory right, for example, having the right to free press but not the right to type anything.) Am I allowed to act on my belief without the initiation of force against me?

STATIST: Er, yes?

YOU: So, you agree that I’m allowed to disagree with you. And you agree that I’m free to act on that disagreement, just as you are free to act on your beliefs, so, by way of example, if I don’t likey the surge, am I free to not to write a check and not to economically support the surge?

The aim of this argument is to put the Statist on the defensive. They have to either agree with you and admit that statism is violence, or they have to argue that they do support the use of violence against you for disagreeing with them. Brilliant!

Now, there are some flaws. It doesn’t teach anything about voluntaryism. Secondly, some people will try to take the social contract road–you know, the “if you don’t like it run for office,” or the “why don’t you move” arguments. Some might even take the position that they do support violence against you. In this case, Stefan recommends stopping the conversation. “You can’t wrestle with someone who has a bazooka.” In this instance, he says there can be no civilized debate. “I’m not going to pretend to debate with someone who has a gun to my temple and whose final position is violence.” He says the best thing to do in this situation is to withdraw consent. Just walk away.

In any event, I’m not sure I’ve done this justice. It’s a lot cleverer than I may be getting across. Initially, I thought it was rather elementary, but the longer I ponder it, the better it gets. I believe it’s a very useful tool to stick in the back pocket.

Don’t quite get it? Then hear it straight from the horse’s mouth… Listen to Stefan frame the ‘Against Me’ argument here. Check out A Handout for Statists. Visit Bureaucrash Intel for more background information on why statism is evil and why Politics Hurt.

Next time you’re stuck in that argument you know you can win if you can just frame it in the right way, why not try the ‘Against Me?’ approach? People have a harder time initiating force when they can see the evil. Help them see.