Metaphors, analogies, or just really short-winded stories?
I'm a libertarian. Pretty die-hard, too. I read a lot, keep myself well-informed of current political happenings, economic moves, and the whatnot. Had I more money, I'd be investing. Alas, it is hard to find a free-market economist who wrote a book about investing for $1,000. With commodities being a hot item these days, that amount buys me a sneezeable quantity of gold. Not exactly something that thrills me...
Being a libertarian in NYC feels much like living the life of an underground railroad operator in border and Southern states during the mid 1800s. You know the actions and thoughts you've partaken in are demonized by a majority of the populace around you. You do it anyway because you know it's right, based on your understanding of civilization, society, and plain human decency. However, you're forced to go about your beliefs quietly. I work in a not-for-profit in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. How do you think it would go over were my coworkers suddenly to realize I demonize government intervention and advocate the abolition of state-supported... anything? Yeah, about that well.
One of the most annoying challenges, and probably the main reason I keep my economic and political beliefs to myself, is that people inevitably feel the need to try and shoot holes in my ideas for a political structure. I confess, this provides some pretty invigorating banter, until I realize I'm never going to be able to convince the other side of anything while simultaneously having to defend myself and respond to points made that grossly generalize information and are not backed by any credible historical or empirical evidence. Once I pass that point I generally just shut up and try to steer away from the topic. I pick my battles.
The most common tactic used in these conversations against me is picking one part of a system with which I have grevious issue, holding it up, and proclaiming "What about X?" If I stop to think, I'm usually assailed with the belief that X is inviolate and true and because of that, the rest of the alphabet (i.e., the entire system) is validated. If I'm going to repudiate the "infallibility" of X, I like to try and get my sources straight and my research done. I do my homework. I prefer to engage in a battle of wits with a Howitzer, say thankya. This ad hominem style of argumentation gets really dull, really fast.
Since the speed of my responses seems to gauge my apparent proficiency with a subject (and my all-around knowledge, studliness, and massive sex appeal), I'm adopting the following response as my boilerplate whenever I'm assailed with this tactic. For this example, let's pretend someone's daring me to refute minimum wage laws, arguing their benefits for society and ensuring a higher standard of living for everyone*. If I pause, I am clearly in the wrong, so without pause, my response is:
Let's move back for a second. Your argument can be boiled down to the following: "Stop being silly. It's just a few grains of sand. Eating sand won't kill you." You're right, in a sense. Anyone who's ever been to the ocean and had a picnic knows what it's like to get sand in your sandwich. It's crunchy, unpleasant, and bland, but it's not fatal. Sand-in-food morbidity rates aren't reported with any degree of seriousness. By that logic, you're asking me to eat X, in this case minimum wage laws, because it's apparently good, and even if it's not it won't do any harm. Well, X is part of the system. No, eating a few grains of sand won't kill me. You're not just asking me to eat a few grains of sand, though.
What you're asking me to do is eat the beach.
*As I wrote this, I realized that minimum wage laws were a TERRIBLE example. I already have responses to that subject of discussion ready to go and would, in all likelihood, respond quickly and fare quite well! I probably should've picked a more nebulous subject on which I'm not as well-versed, like intellectual property rights and copyright.
Being a libertarian in NYC feels much like living the life of an underground railroad operator in border and Southern states during the mid 1800s. You know the actions and thoughts you've partaken in are demonized by a majority of the populace around you. You do it anyway because you know it's right, based on your understanding of civilization, society, and plain human decency. However, you're forced to go about your beliefs quietly. I work in a not-for-profit in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. How do you think it would go over were my coworkers suddenly to realize I demonize government intervention and advocate the abolition of state-supported... anything? Yeah, about that well.
One of the most annoying challenges, and probably the main reason I keep my economic and political beliefs to myself, is that people inevitably feel the need to try and shoot holes in my ideas for a political structure. I confess, this provides some pretty invigorating banter, until I realize I'm never going to be able to convince the other side of anything while simultaneously having to defend myself and respond to points made that grossly generalize information and are not backed by any credible historical or empirical evidence. Once I pass that point I generally just shut up and try to steer away from the topic. I pick my battles.
The most common tactic used in these conversations against me is picking one part of a system with which I have grevious issue, holding it up, and proclaiming "What about X?" If I stop to think, I'm usually assailed with the belief that X is inviolate and true and because of that, the rest of the alphabet (i.e., the entire system) is validated. If I'm going to repudiate the "infallibility" of X, I like to try and get my sources straight and my research done. I do my homework. I prefer to engage in a battle of wits with a Howitzer, say thankya. This ad hominem style of argumentation gets really dull, really fast.
Since the speed of my responses seems to gauge my apparent proficiency with a subject (and my all-around knowledge, studliness, and massive sex appeal), I'm adopting the following response as my boilerplate whenever I'm assailed with this tactic. For this example, let's pretend someone's daring me to refute minimum wage laws, arguing their benefits for society and ensuring a higher standard of living for everyone*. If I pause, I am clearly in the wrong, so without pause, my response is:
Let's move back for a second. Your argument can be boiled down to the following: "Stop being silly. It's just a few grains of sand. Eating sand won't kill you." You're right, in a sense. Anyone who's ever been to the ocean and had a picnic knows what it's like to get sand in your sandwich. It's crunchy, unpleasant, and bland, but it's not fatal. Sand-in-food morbidity rates aren't reported with any degree of seriousness. By that logic, you're asking me to eat X, in this case minimum wage laws, because it's apparently good, and even if it's not it won't do any harm. Well, X is part of the system. No, eating a few grains of sand won't kill me. You're not just asking me to eat a few grains of sand, though.
What you're asking me to do is eat the beach.
*As I wrote this, I realized that minimum wage laws were a TERRIBLE example. I already have responses to that subject of discussion ready to go and would, in all likelihood, respond quickly and fare quite well! I probably should've picked a more nebulous subject on which I'm not as well-versed, like intellectual property rights and copyright.