- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 71,961
- Reaction score
- 58,542
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
More often than not, it seems that whenever I debate a Libertarian, they often talk about morality and the way things should be, based on that morality, but never talk about how their philosophy would make the world a better place. This, I think, is the source of the common stereotype of Libertarians being preachy.
However, one of the well known aspects of persuasion is that the person doing the persuading should emphasize the positives of whatever they wish to promote. Instead I tend to see negatives (such as, the economy sucks because we are not following Austrian principals, not "if we follow Austrian principals, there would be more prosperity for more people").
I guess my question is, why? Is it that I am perceiving these discussions to be a certain way? Is it because that's how the logic flows, most thought comes from certain core principals and perhaps the end result does not really matter? Or is it something else?
I am truly curious, so if you feel attacked, that was not my intent. I just want to know.
However, one of the well known aspects of persuasion is that the person doing the persuading should emphasize the positives of whatever they wish to promote. Instead I tend to see negatives (such as, the economy sucks because we are not following Austrian principals, not "if we follow Austrian principals, there would be more prosperity for more people").
I guess my question is, why? Is it that I am perceiving these discussions to be a certain way? Is it because that's how the logic flows, most thought comes from certain core principals and perhaps the end result does not really matter? Or is it something else?
I am truly curious, so if you feel attacked, that was not my intent. I just want to know.
Last edited: