When Arguing For Change

When arguing, in the sense of making a case, explaining something, there are a couple of people to watch out for...  those with no good will, they will defend their position to the death, they do not want to hear anything that contradicts their understanding of the world.  Another group listens and understands, and agrees, but will not make any change or even endorse the new idea. And then there are those you have to be very patient with.

The first group are those who are the most abused by the system.  The serfs in Russia was the group most resistant to freedom.  When both the intelligentsia and the royalty no longer believed in the Tsarist system, even when the tzar tried to reform the system, it was the serfs who resisted most.  Change means violence in almost all cases, and guess who suffers the most in widespread violence?  Those at the bottom.  Their resistance is rational.

To argue for a change in the system, even nonviolent, does not good, because at some point, things get violent.  It does seem that what pockets of peace and prosperity do form, it is almost always accidental, small in scale, and precarious.  Who hopes for that?

We are in tumultuous times, and as they say, "we ain't seen nothing yet..."  All those "social welfare safety nets" have only delayed the inevitable, and will make the crack up all the worse.  Afterwards, people will hate social welfare for centuries, like after the social welfare of Rome.  People will escape to anarchy rather than be "helped" by the powers that be.

The problem with the serfs are their protests are precipitated by the failure of the system that educated them.  Since that system has their minds, the show up on Wall Street demanding change, that is more of the only thing they know, and that is what they were taught.  They want more of the same, and now!  Harder! Harder!  And to whom do they appeal?  Why those who are abusing them right now.

Those who understand and agree but will not endorse are plentiful.  You take the time to help them understand, and they come to realize the wisdom of the ideas, but still vote for warfare/welfare, because they do not want to waste their vote.  Sigh.  These people have a certain body language that can be spotted immediately, hard to describe, but maybe "hounded" is close.  When I am questioned by such, the first thing I ask is "if I convince you of a good idea, will you then work for it?"  These people will honestly tell you no, so at that point, stop wasting your time.  And theirs.

And there is the group who are relentlessly obtuse.  they have to have it explained over and over.  Full of goodwill, they will carefully listen to explain why we do not need government police, and then they finally get it.  And then, thy ask, what about government fire fighters?  I am part of that group.  I have to have every part, every instance carefully explained to me.

Now, if and when that accidental opportunity for a haven of peace and prosperity appears, it only takes a few people to lead everyone to this promised land.  Once it starts working, everyone goes along anyway, since relative stability is the highest good.

So the questions are: how to spot these opportunities?  How to perform when the opportunity appears? It It is not a question of getting people to go along, it is a question of quickly demonstrating peace and prosperity, and then people will acquiesce.

If you want to be free you must secede in place, escape to anarchy.  Then you have some choices.  Since there is no safety net or employers in anarchy, you must become self-employed.

What people know and expect is violent change.  No one prepares for nonviolent change.  Capitalism has failed, because it was every bit as evil as communism.   Mustn't bother to try to convince anyone of that, that is the work of history books.  Right now we need to learn how to make nonviolent change work at the small accidental level.  Self-employment is good training.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post