by Jim Babka 08/29/12
Our last Dispatch said you can use "revolutionary conversations" to subvert statism.
Moral dialogue is the best way to create a "revolutionary conversation."
Dialogue means you're willing to listen. It means you encourage give and take. Listening creates receptivity.
Receptivity avoids reaction. These words -- reactive and reflective -- are crucial. Absorb their meaning . . ,
Reactive: Here, you have an opponent and egos are engaged. They debate, argue, and act defensive. Debating might be fun, but it rarely wins friends and influences people.
Reflective: In this case, you get reception. The person you're talking to listens, asks questions, and PONDERS. Even when this person disagrees, they often seek bridges of agreement.
The reflective mode is what you want. But how to get it? First you must understand this . . .
Reflection and reaction are not exact opposites. You can cause reflection yet still get a shocked response that looks like reaction. This is because you've caused . . .
Cognitive dissonance: The emotional discomfort that results from holding conflicting ideas.
It might not look like it, but cognitive dissonance is reflective. When it appears, that's a signal. Your conversation partner needs extra time to ponder the ideas they're discovering.
So here's a second important tip for Post-Statists...
Avoid political policy matters (taxes, war, abortion, etc), UNLESS OR UNTIL, you've first created agreement on moral principles. And stay away from party politics completely.
People want to defend THEIR POLITICAL TRIBE. Partisan labels are tied with identity. EGO reappears! People also tend to assume that if you disagree with their policy prescriptions, you must be with THE OTHER TRIBE. In other words...
They are prone to REACT.
So how do you start a moral dialogue that leads to reflection? How do you generate a revolutionary conversation?
Ask POWER QUESTIONS like these ...
Is it okay to hurt people who disagree with you?
Would you go door-to-door threatening people with violence if they don't fund your preferred causes?
Does wrong become right if you delegate the violence to others?
Does wrong become right if a majority agrees?
Can a majority vote make it okay to initiate violence against others?
All these questions are built off a central moral statement, called the Zero Aggression Principle...
No one should initiate harm against another.
And this works!
Virtually everyone will answer those questions the same way you would.
Your conversation partner is less prone to react! Fewer people are invested in a "philosophical tribe" because none of our partisan tribes are built on moral principles.
Vanishingly few normal people oppose the Zero Aggression Principle. They agree with the theory.
When you get to specific issues, they'll try to carve exceptions. But if you've first established that initiated harm is wrong, it will be much easier for you to invite them to seek a better solution.
-------
STRATEGIC COMMENTARY
8/15/13
How do we reverse the creeping statism happening to our nation?
If you want change, first you must seek it. You must have a plan...
Change will come when enough people share your views, and enough of those are willing to act on what they believe.
What matters MOST, then, is...
...winning the battleground of your neighbor's mind, the district of their heart, and the precinct of their conscience.
You start this process by denying consent. Denying Consent is the solitary moral objection you bring to the attention of others — a point of concern, with the hope of correction. Others then may follow your example. But your example must come first.
As these Deny Consent moments multiply, you may reach a point where the problem seems deeper — more systemic and foundational. You, and those you influence, may come to feel that tinkering reforms will be insufficient. You may conclude that the system has a cancer, or is cancer itself.
Withdrawing Allegiance is the now the appropriate level of response. It's part of a boundary-setting process.
Relate this process to everyday circumstances with an analogy (while admitting that all analogies are imperfect comparisons)...
Denying Consent is like telling your spouse that you're hurt or offended by a particular behavior
Withdrawing Allegiance is like telling them you're no longer willing to devote yourself to the marriage unless they seek professional help
Next, you may consider drawing others into an Intervention to correct the inappropriate behaviors
It's possible there might be further steps, in stages, each at the appropriate time
Eventually, you may seek an actual divorce
Looked at this way "withdrawing allegiance" is an intensification of the moral act of denying consent. It is not the final divorce, but merely a step in that direction. This distinction is important because ...
The State has the brutal power to initiate force against you, backed by your neighbor's assumption that such a power is justified. This requires us to be cautious and savvy.
One cannot simply terminate a relationship with The State without tremendous personal consequences.
There's no reason we should lead individuals to the sacrificial altar. That won't change anything. As I'll explain in a future installment...
There's a time for everything, but not everything is for this time.
Timing-wise, we believe the first steps are, in order, Denying Consent and Withdrawing Allegiance.
In the next stage, Intervention, we’ll share those moral objections with our neighbors. In this third stage, we'll learn to speak to their conscience, instead of their partisan minds.
This will be effective, because most people use partisan talking points and competing policy studies when they talk about politics. Both lead to reactionary debates, NOT reflective thought.
We can achieve the reflection we desire by invoking the Golden Rule and the Zero Aggression Principle. This creates a completely different conversation. These moral concepts...
Focus on the greatest strength of our message, while
Targeting the greatest weakness in the statist viewpoint
For full impact, you must use clear, unequivocal language. You must call things what they are. The statists, of course, recognize this, which is why they routinely create euphemisms and Orwellian Newspeak.
This will seem difficult at first. But you’ll be amazed how well it works, if you stick with it. Especially if you develop the habit of using words precisely. Precise language is so important that a large part of the pending Zero Aggression Project homepage will be devoted to language and definitions.
The moral approach is the great, untried persuasion method that will rock the world of the statists.
In the next installment, I'll show you why simply Denying Consent, using social morality as the key, is so very important. You'll discover a case, from just last week, where conscience resulted in heroic action. You'll see that listening to your conscience can make a difference.