I’m a libertarian/conservative. I was at a party recently and chatted with a leftist woman. Surprisingly, she didn’t call me names or insult me, but actually was interested in hearing how small government solutions might be helpful in different areas. Things like health care, education, the environment. I answered as best I could and since she seemed interested I asked if she’d like me to email her any other info about libertarian ideas. She agreed.
I already sent her a link to Thomas Sowell’s columns
I’m also a libertarian-conservative. Sowell is a bit too conservative for my tastes.
Walter Williams is one of my favorites. He’s an economist, and does an excellent job of repudiating the leftists’ love affair with high taxes, wealth distribution, big government, and government-run healthcare. What I like about him is that he isn’t a political mouthpiece… he’s from academia and uses logic and basic reasoning to explain how individual liberty can only be achieved by putting shackles on the government.
Howe about articles written by Ron Paul?
And then there’s Ayn Rand. I don’t know if I would classify her as a “libertarian-conservative,” but she was very anti-communistic/pro-capitalistic/pro-business. Buy her a copy of Atlas Shrugged. That’ll keep her busy for a while.
I suppose you could also get her a copy of Two Treatises of Government by John Locke. But that’s some pretty heady reading.
I found Harry Browne, the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, to be a rather persuasive writer. I was a liberal at the time and his writing helped to convert me. His campaign manifestos were Why Government Doesn’t Work (1996) and The Great Libertarian Offer (2000). Part of each book deals with specifics current to each campaign, so they’re a bit dated, but they include a fair amount of general philosophizing as well.
I’m not sure its best to use someone who appears to use non-peer reviewed science “reports” to convince anyone to your side. Either your political views stand on their own, or they don’t.
And yes, yes, it’s possible that peer-reviewed work just means that it is subject to the scientific community’s various conspiracies to hoodwink humanity so as to justify the continued existence of their jobs, but I’m not sure that’s the best foundation to proceed off of in establishing a new relationship.
Larry Elder’sThe Ten Things You Can’t Say In America is a very easy read. While I agreed with much of what he wrote, I found that his arguments with which I disagreed were presented in a manner which let me respect our different opinions.
My google-fu informed me that he officially ditched the Lib’s for the 'Pubs (paragraph two). I still recommend the book.
That is one of the nice things about Mr. Elder. He is always polite and genteel. His writing sometimes makes me wince, but he makes his points.
I had the chance to meet him once at a broadcast, and he was very nice afterwards, chatting with folks and signing photo cards until for a long time after the show.
Came in here to mention “Free to Choose” by Friedman, a great primer. I like his collaboration with Szasz on drug issues as well.
You mean an example of my opinion,which I can give politely.T.Sowell used to be on the Op-Ed page of the local paper almost daily along with Ann Coulter,but disappeared when she got chopped after voluminous letters to the editor re: the Edwards remark,so I haven't read him since.I am not implying he has any connection to her.
Reading from your link,his take on Global Warming starts off snidely by noting a conference on "Global Warming" attended by "scientists" is cancelled due to bitterly cold weather.Were that comment made here on the Dope there would be request for citation.He gives no actual date or titled meeting.His use of quotations is in the ironic sense- Was that your "wife" leaving the motel with you in the wee hours?
He goes on to say that it is a "cottage industry" to bilk money from the government,attention whore,and a chance for teachers to soapbox instead of teach.But we are assured that the true scientists and experts in their field are convening,giving details of sponsorship,date,place and attendees , to discuss " there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming".
In short,if I am inclined to consider there may be a case for global warming let alone anthropogenic causes or contribution to same ,I am easily bamboozled by quacks,since it has been decided by experts of his choosing.
Bloviation aside, I didn’t find the dystopian-ish government either plausible or abhorrent enough to warrant a believable argument for libertarianism versus (whatever you want to call the alternative). Then again I gave up before the monologue even started so I don’t know nor care how it ends.
I suppose when trying to convince a liberal of the merits of libertarianism, you’re basically trying to convince her of the merits of fiscal libertarianism rather than the merits of social libertarianism, but I’ll add this anyway in case it’s useful for others: when I was an ultraconservative teenager, I read a book called Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crime in Our Free Country that I found convincing enough to cause me to leave the Republicans and register with the Libertarian party. (A couple years later I figured out that that the people on the Libertarian Party mailing list were scaring me, so now I’m an independent.) The entire book is available online here.
I figured you were humorously exaggerating the overuse of scare quotes. Then I scanned the first ten or so articles (three of which use scare quotes in the title). Nope, he basically just puts everything he disagrees with in scare quotes. It’s one step above just punctuating every sentence with a dubious smiley.
Most “easy” to “mock” writing “style” ever! :dubious:
