The Libertarian Persuasion Problem

The persuasion problem of the libertarian, free-market, anti-state cause is an interesting one. The libertarian is usually forced to argue for something that is not the present state of things today. The libertarian must persuade his opponent that the State should liberalise, privatize, lower taxes and de-regulate. The opponent is usually supportive of the status quo, and will demand that he is convinced of changing his mind, and focuses much less on argumenting for the the status quo. Who, for example, has heard good, general arguments for State-run police, other than that it must be State-run or no police will exist at all? My guess is very few, and for good reason, because no good logic exists!

This means that the libertarian is forced to sit in the chair of the prophet - the oracle - who tells the future and how things will become. This is troublesome. What will happen if the State abolishes State-run police or education? Will children become educated? Will private property owners get protection from thieves and other criminals? This is an argumenting problem that very difficult to solve. No-one can really tell the future. This, however, is what is demanded of those who promote free markets and a smaller State.

Of course, one could turn to history and describe the function of previous market-solutions to nowadays-State run "problems", or find mini-examples of a private enterprise that simulates some of the functions of the State today. Although I see the light in this kind of argumentation, I don't find it very convincing. The average person will tend to see the good sides of the status quo - the situation as it is today and just needs minor corrections to become perfect - rather than thinking in terms of sound logic and reason. No-one can tell the future, so why risk dramatic change?

The Libertarian Persuasion Problem is not an easy one to crack. It seems it has to be solved in small steps, like a finite element problem, where each connection is explained in simple language, and then applied to the big problem. To explain the total function of a completely free society is not a practical method in the general discussion, although useful in internal discussion between libertarians and in discussion with those who are beginning to see the big picture, but haven't made it all the way.