The Usual Approaches That Work

There are two most common ways for a person who values freedom to articulate to others the philosophy of true liberty.

#1 What Is NOT Wanted

Anarchism: without rulers. A freedom advocate simply wants to be left alone to live his life in peace, without someone else trying to rule his actions with deadly force.

#2 What IS Wanted

Voluntaryism: the belief that all human interactions should be based on mutual consent, entered into on a voluntary basis.

---

Do What Works For You

Having been among the community of amazing people who are advocates of self-ownership and true liberty for some time now, I have been exposed to all or most of the varied conversational approaches/techniques that are taken with people who are brand new to the discussion.

There are those that focus on the word Voluntaryism (aka "What do we WANT? Voluntary interaction!").
There are those that focus on the word Anarchy (aka "What DON'T we want? A ruling class!").

There are even those that try to avoid either term in conversation, and just stick to a slow and disarming Socratic method, taking the approach of curiosity towards the statist in conversation, aiming to understand why they believe what they believe (knowing that if the statist tries to describe it or defend it, they may see inconsistencies in themselves).

All of these ways of broaching the topic are truly valuable, because each approach wins a certain kind of mind that the other approaches might not have won.

---

The Consistent Human

I will mention another thought approach to the philosophy of liberty that I recently found myself considering, though I'm sure it isn't new. It is too easy not to have been considered, but since I don't often see many people directing conversation in this manner, I will go ahead and throw up the idea for those who may make use of it.

{Note: I think some major liberty-minded philosophers have already put it rather similarly, a few Lysander Spooner quotes come to mind, but I can't remember more at the moment..}

Let's say you're in a conversation that inevitably leads to someone asking you "which way" you lean, politically. Some anarchists/voluntaryists hate when a conversation reaches this moment, some are filled with glee!

However it's said, however the conversation gets there, you've now plunged into the realm of politics (every freedom lover hates politics), so you've got an opportunity to now to say something that will get their gears moving.

Try this perhaps...

Avoiding the usual political circus jargon, and avoiding the false dichotomy of left vs. right, say something like:

"I wouldn't align myself with anything political, but that's because I consider myself to be a consistent human being."

Brows furrow, and you're likely to hear a "What do you mean?" sort of response.

"I believe it's wrong for me to steal, threaten people with deadly force, murder, or otherwise bully people who have a different life style than me. And so I believe it's wrong for any human to do that: titles, election rituals, badges and costumes don't grant superhuman rights. I apply the same rules of what I believe are right and wrong to everyone. I'm consistent."

Or, put another way, you could say:

"If it's wrong for me to go put a gun to my neighbor's head and tell him to give me all his money or else, then it is wrong for me to vote for someone else to do that for me. I recognize that no amount of voting or layers of hired government employees working to enforce the will of some humans on others, can ever make theft into something moral or good. I'm consistent."

And still another:

"I don't want my free will violated, I will defend myself if someone tries to attack me or use the threat of force to steal from me, and so I am a consistent human by recognizing that same desire to live free exists in all individuals. It's 'doing unto others as I would have done to me', on the most basic level."

Left, Right, Anarchy, Libertarian, Moderate... all the usual feels-inducing trigger words were side-stepped.

~*~

---

Some Ideas Work Better Than Others, It Varies Person To Person

I encourage no one to get too caught up in the "right way" to go about spreading the message of true freedom-- so long as the principles are intact, and uncompromising. Once you grasp the logic, there's many approaches to the discussion style, and what will work to wake up some will not work on others. I'm not here to show you any one correct way, I would say to be flexible in your approach and style, and adjust when it seems there's a better approach to be taken.

Whether you're socratic, pedantic, abrasive, blunt, charismatic, diplomatic and gentle, or otherwise... some of that is going to work to reach people. Part of your success in getting people to think is tied to how well you grasp human psychology. A clue: It starts with "know thyself"..

~*~

Take from this article what you will, use what you can, discard the rest.