humanities.philosophy.objectivism

I realize there are some people here who are not interested in changing the
opinions of others. These are Objectivists who think to hell with everyone
else, I'm just going to be an Objectivist and everyone else can be
collectivists.

The problem with that is if you leave the battle unfought, these collectivists
will do things to you that you can't ignore. They will make people dependent
on government handouts. They will bring about world government. They will
impose regulation after regulation. They will spend your hard earned wealth
foolishly, then demand that you and your children pick up the tab. Ayn Rand
herself said it is important to spread these ideas of freedom.

So I tend to concentrate on how to effectively communicate ideas to other
people. My general tactic is to do it the way protesters did in the 60's, and
the way Nietzsche advocated: argue rhetorically, scream, yell, offend, etc...
This tactic has been pretty effective for various socialist causes around the
world, so it seemed like it could be used for our purposes. The squeaky wheel
gets the grease. When you add the emotional component to the debate, this
engages people and gets them thinking harder.

However, with this tactic you are generally fighting against something, rather
than fighting for something. And when someone has a cherished belief, when you
argue against it you put them off. They instinctively begin rejecting what you
say if you go after a sacred cow, such as welfare handouts, socialized
medicine, regulations, etc...

The shrieking protesters have always outclassed the quiet conservative types
who love their freedom but don't want to offend anyone. I'm wondering if there
is a third rail by arguing *for* a cause, with a positive tone. I wonder if
this tactic would win out over the shrieking socialists?

- Brian