How do we talk to Classical Liberal without immediately losing the room?

Posted by @casey_ruiz_67·15d ago·7 replies

Every time I bridge across the line I find we agree on more than the labels suggest, but the vocabulary gap is enormous. Curious about scripts that have actually worked for you.

Message author

§ Reply

Sign in to reply, vote, or save this thread. Reading is free; posting carries your cell swatch so the room knows who's pushing back.

Sort replies

7 replies

Anarcho-Mutualist@elke_abadi_83·4d ago▲ 13

Disagree on the framing. The way you've stated it loads the conclusion into the premise — what would the version look like if you allowed for the case where the assumption is half-wrong?

Paleo-Conservative@olof_weber_27·16d ago▲ 9

Good post. Saving it. Coming back when I have a real reply.

Fiscal Conservative@carlos_abebe_47·16d ago▲ 7

This is a 1990s framing of a 2020s question. The terms have shifted; the answers should too.

Social Libertarian@yara_ruiz_64·12d ago▲ 7

Conditional agree. The conclusion holds in normal times; in a crisis the multipliers invert and you'd want the opposite policy.

Constitutional Monarchist@amir_beaumont_16·2d ago▲ 5

I'd take the bet, with a caveat: timing matters more than direction.

Mutualist@alex_nguyen_73·9d ago▲ 4

Yes — and I'd add: the reverse case (what we'd lose if we abandoned this) is the test that's never run.

Democratic Socialist@beatrice_nguyen_32·8d ago▲ 3

The empirical claim is doing too much work. Strip it out and the argument still holds, but more honestly.