This isn’t actually something he believes in, it’s just noise. He could just bark like a dog at a picture of a government building for 20 minutes and it would have the exact same meaning and effect on his audience. They’ve decided that “government bad” and any facts, evidence or reality against that two word statement is to be ignored.
The form of it being an argument using a hypothetical is important. The audience has been trained to think that if a message is delivered using that form, it is legitimate. They don’t necessarily know how to evaluate the truth content within that message, simply whether it comes in the right form and whether it confirms what they already believed.
i.e. say something in a way that reminds the audience of a smart professor and they’ll agree with you
That is a good analysis of it, I think because ours is a culture of “metaphor” and fiction, and as such, people trust an idea more when it is presented that way, especially when someone is like a smart (movie) professor, who uses analogy and big words to say things. I’ve never met a libertarian type who doesn’t love to overuse big words.
How do people come to adopt “government bad” as their axiom? I feel like I get screwed by private for profit companies way more often, so if I was going to just pick a foundational belief, that one has more “evidence” (ie: personal anecdote) supporting it.
I think because it is simple, governments do often screw people over (usually on behalf of big companies) and so they just connect the dots there, that the government restricts “freedom” therefore no government would be better, because people would be “free” to do what they want without the government telling them they aren’t allowed. Incidentally, a lot of these types are very which probably explains why they don’t like the idea of “government telling me what to do” because what they want to do is very illegal and amoral.
Insert Satre quote about the antisemite.
This isn’t actually something he believes in, it’s just noise. He could just bark like a dog at a picture of a government building for 20 minutes and it would have the exact same meaning and effect on his audience. They’ve decided that “government bad” and any facts, evidence or reality against that two word statement is to be ignored.
The form of it being an argument using a hypothetical is important. The audience has been trained to think that if a message is delivered using that form, it is legitimate. They don’t necessarily know how to evaluate the truth content within that message, simply whether it comes in the right form and whether it confirms what they already believed.
i.e. say something in a way that reminds the audience of a smart professor and they’ll agree with you
That is a good analysis of it, I think because ours is a culture of “metaphor” and fiction, and as such, people trust an idea more when it is presented that way, especially when someone is like a smart (movie) professor, who uses analogy and big words to say things. I’ve never met a libertarian type who doesn’t love to overuse big words.
How do people come to adopt “government bad” as their axiom? I feel like I get screwed by private for profit companies way more often, so if I was going to just pick a foundational belief, that one has more “evidence” (ie: personal anecdote) supporting it.
I think because it is simple, governments do often screw people over (usually on behalf of big companies) and so they just connect the dots there, that the government restricts “freedom” therefore no government would be better, because people would be “free” to do what they want without the government telling them they aren’t allowed. Incidentally, a lot of these types are very
which probably explains why they don’t like the idea of “government telling me what to do” because what they want to do is very illegal and amoral.